Talk:Bank secrecy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Business (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

References; NOR[edit]

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)

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was no consensus.Quasihuman | Talk 17:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Article financial privacy is a duplicate of this. --33rogers (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose
Bank secrecy appears to be primarily about anonymity, whereas financial privacy is about privacy. While they are somewhat related and may interact, they are not synonymous.
For instance, anonymity is about whether the bank knows who the customer is (or how much they know about the customer), privacy is about how they use or share the information they have about the customer.
Definitely not duplicates. Though the concepts relate somewhat, I think better to just explain the relation and keep them separate. Zodon (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, although I differ slightly with Zodon about why.
The Bank Secrecy article is about bank customers using secrecy policies or laws to evade taxes in their home countries and banks encouraging this behavior, which may not be illegal for foreigners in the headquarters jurisdiction of the bank.
The Financial Privacy article is, instead, about banks not releasing private information about their customers to others who are not legally entitled to such information.
They are definitely not duplicates. --Zeamays (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Globalise: Examples from other Countries[edit]

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)
Thank you. I have created a new section.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Bank Act of 1934 section needs clarification with both historical and modern info[edit]

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. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No reference[edit]

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)

Yes check.svg 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[edit]

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.

Again spin with this framing. We discuss quite decent and polite. Probably make this "Prism".Aucassin 2 (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Where is Bradley Birkenfeld[edit]

How can this article be complete without information on his whistleblowing and its effects on UBS and Swiss banking secrecy.Duchesstimesxtwo (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)