|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Howdy. I added a RefImprove for the article and a SectNOR for the "Reasons..." section. The Reasons section, without references, seems to be an arbitrary list. --NightMonkey (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Globalise: Examples from other Countries
Hello everyone, I have added some information on the trend to use Singapore and Hong Kong companies for banking secrecy to replace the use of Swiss banks MTOVS (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC) The article uses mainly US examples. A worldwide view of the subject should include examples from other countries. twilsonb (talk) 06:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I differ with Twilsonb. It is mainly about Swiss and offshore banking practices, but it offends many other nations taxing authorities, including the US IRS. I have added examples of Swiss and Lichtenstein banks, with references, but I lack references to the how this behavior has defrauded nations other than the US of taxes. --Zeamays (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- France, Germany, and Italy have, during the past few months, made many statements alleging that banking secrecy has facilitated very significant tax evasion by their citizens. These, and other, countries have taken various actions to limit the effects of banking secrecy. One significant result of those actions is the agreement by Switzerland and other countries to implement the OECD model provision in bilateral tax treaties. I can easily find the references to the public French, German, and Italian statements, but I'm not sure where to add them in the article. If you suggest a specific place, I can take care of it.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Gautier, I suggest you add the text and references to the Criticisms section or create a new section parallel to United States Legislation in Response to Bank Secrecy. If it is mainly about the agreements, you might place the information in the Swiss Banking Act of 1934 section, since agreements with the US are already there. Best wishes, --Zeamays (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Bank Act of 1934 section needs clarification with both historical and modern info
right now this section starts out talking about the Act of 1934 and then segues immediately into describing what seems like much more modern state of affairs. I think the article needs both an explanation of the original policy regime after 1934 (which probably did not include release of account info of "terrorists" and which may or may not have allowed Swiss judges to issue subpoenas to banks) as well as of the early 21st century situation. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
In the "Tax evasion" section, the following is stated "Governments have accused Swiss banks of detaining most of the money owned by criminally charged politicians, which Oxfam International estimate to about $50 billion a year deposited in offshore tax havens, nearly the size of the $57 billion annual global aid budget." There is no citation for this statement. Unless a citation is added, it should be deleted.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Done Existed on the page for a couple years without source (although the CN tag was recent) OSborn arfcontribs. 16:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
2.2 USA PATRIOT Act Section
has loosely sourced opinions. The stuff like "this can never be allowed to happen again".
We could find a politician or bureaucrat quoted as saying the benefits of PATRIOT act in the financial system to replace the clear opinions.
Does it make sense for an article on Bank secrecy to contain passionate comments on terrorist acts? It seems to me rather off-topic and inappropriate for the article, jeopardizing its objectivity. The section I have in mind is "The act of using airplanes to blow up the Twin Towers and the attempt that was made to blow up the Pentagon is something that cannot be allowed to happen again. Many lives were senselessly lost that day for nothing." In my opinion this section should be dropped as it does not enrich the article.