Suchergebnisse

13 p. ; Un nuevo tipo de periodismo, basado en filtraciones de gran cuantía, ha generado la necesidad de compartir esfuerzos, dando lugar a formas de cooperación periodística en redes globales. Esta es la modalidad que caracteriza a organizaciones como el Consorcio Internacional de Periodistas de Investigación (ICIJ), que tuvo a su cargo la recopilación, análisis y coordinación de la publicación de los documentos de Panamá (Panama Papers). Este trabajo se propone reflexionar sobre esta forma de periodismo en red a nivel global que visibiliza el caso Panama Papers, con sus posibilidades a partir del trabajo en red, como con sus limitaciones asociadas a los intereses y condicionantes intervinientes. Asimismo, el escrito discute el rol e impacto de la participación argentina en esta investigación, especialmente por la controvertida cobertura que recibieron las vinculaciones del propio empleador de los periodistas participantes, el diario La Nación, hasta compañías que comprometen al presidente Mauricio Macri. Los resultados evidencian la tensión entre el derecho a la información y la libertad de empresa, reflejada en una internacionalmente cuestionada cobertura de los medios argentinos asociados a la investigación, que demuestran lo que en el país se conoce como "blindaje mediático". --

The international financial and political crisis named Panama Papers (2016) provided a rather good material for information studies, particularly for digital diplomatics. First, the comments, in some languages, allow to analyze how media and newspapers use the words information, data, document, file and record, each with its own culture: some papers are directly written with the own words of the journalist, others are translations, showing notably the differences between English and French professional and common vocabulary. Second, it was also an opportunity to check the place of email in those cases of disclosure of sensitive data in the "society of information". The point is that the fragility of the digital files themselves (format, preservation) is not the worse for information and records management; the risk is more linked to the fragility of the international network and the ability of search engines to reach these records, wherever they may be stored.

Publication of the so-called "Panama Papers" focused public interest on how certain politicians, celebrities, and other elites may have used elaborate corporate structures and offshore tax havens to conceal their beneficial ownership of companies and obscure their personal assets. Rather than taking the Panama Papers as an indication of the need for more and stricter disclosure and reporting rules, this paper advocates an alternative approach. We need to start by acknowledging that many companies are currently experiencing "disclosure and reporting fatigue", in which the constant demand for "more" and "better" transparency and reporting is having the unintended effect of promoting indifference or evasiveness. The practice of disclosure and reporting is widely perceived as an obligation to be fulfilled and not as an opportunity to add value to a firm. This is confirmed by the findings of an empirical study conducted by the authors of this paper that examines how disclosure rules operate in practice across various jurisdictions. The key takeaway of the study is that—even in jurisdictions that have a robust disclosure regime—the majority of firms engage in "grudging" or "boilerplate" compliance, in which ownership and control structures are not adequately revealed in an accessible way and, perhaps more importantly, the impact of these ownership and control structures on the governance of a company is obscured. In this paper the authors advocate an approach based on the current communication strategy of a minority of firms in their sample—firms that engage in what the authors characterize as "open communication." These firms present information on control structures—and their effect on governance—in a direct, accessible, and highly personalized manner. Such firms seem to recognize the commercial and other strategic benefits to be gained from open communication. The paper explores the implications of such an approach for both business and regulators.

Im April 2016 veröffentlichte das »International Consortium of Investigative Journalists« die sogenannten »Panama Papers«, die Einblicke in ein System von Steueroasen und Briefkastenfirmen boten. Alfons J. Weichenrieder, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, sieht den politischen Druck auf die internationalen Steueroasen erhöht. Im Vordergrund stünden dabei bi- und multilaterale Abkommen zum Informationsaustausch. Es bleibe abzuwarten, ob die ausgetauschten Informationen tatsächlich verwertbar seien. Friedrich Schneider, Universität Linz, betont, dass die Gründung einer Briefkastenfirma zwar grundsätzlich legal sei, sie aber häufig zum Steuerbetrug oder zur Geldwäsche benutzt werden. Wichtig wäre unter anderem, dass Länder wie Panama den internationalen Standard zum automatischen Informationsaustausch über Finanzkonten und die Geldwäscherichtlinie, die in Europa entwickelt wurde, verabschieden. Für Norbert Walter-Borjans, Finanzminister des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, gilt es, international für einen Transparenzstandard einzutreten und die Verhandlungspartner, bei denen Vorbehalte bestehen, zu überzeugen. Auch Michael Meister, Staatssekretär beim Bundesministerium der Finanzen, sieht in einer erhöhten Transparenz einen Schlüssel zur Lösung des Problems einer ausufernden Nutzung von Briefkastenfirmen zur Verschleierung von Vermögensverhältnissen. Lukas Hakelberg, Europäisches Hochschulinstitut, Florenz, und Thomas Rixen, Universität Bamberg, sehen in der Beschränkung des Marktzugangs ein Instrument zur Bekämpfung finanzieller Intransparenz. So sollten die Regierungen der großen Industrieländer den Zugang zu ihren Finanzmärkten von der Teilnahme an den Transparenzinitiativen abhängig machen. Für Jörg R. Werner, Frankfurt School of Finance & Management, liegt eine Gefahr der Reformbemühungen darin, dass die Sanktionierung von Steuersparmodellen nicht mehr nur auf illegale Steuerhinterziehung, sondern auch auf legale Steuervermeidung abzielt.

The article discusses the implications of Panama Papers on the 2017 general election in Malta. ; peer-reviewed

Abstract The Panama Papers is a collection of 11.5 million leaked records that contain information for more than 214,488 offshore entities. This collection is growing rapidly as more leaked records become available online. In this paper, we present a work in progress on a web browser plugin that detects company names from the Panama Papers and alerts the user by means of unobtrusive visual cues. We matched a random sample of company names from the Public Works and Government Services Canada registry against the Panama Papers using three different string matching techniques. Monge-Elkan is found to provide the best matching results but at increased computational cost. Levenshtein-based approach is found to provide the best tradeoff between matching and computational cost, while Jacquard index like approach is found to be less sensitive to slight textual change.

Four years after the Panama Papers scandal, tax avoidance remains an urgent moral-political problem. Moving beyond both the academic and policy mainstream, I advocate the "democratization of tax enforcement," by which I mean systematic efforts to make tax avoiders accountable to the judgment of ordinary citizens. Both individual oligarchs and multinational corporations have access to sophisticated tax avoidance strategies that impose significant fiscal costs on democracies and exacerbate preexisting distributive and political inequalities. Yet much contemporary tax sheltering occurs within the letter of the law, rendering criminal sanctions ineffective. In response, I argue for the creation of Citizen Tax Juries, deliberative minipublics empowered to scrutinize tax avoiders, demand accountability, and facilitate concrete reforms. This proposal thus responds to the wider aspiration, within contemporary democratic theory, to secure more popular control over essential economic processes.

Four years after the Panama Papers scandal, tax avoidance remains an urgent moral-political problem. Moving beyond both the academic and policy mainstream, I advocate the "democratization of tax enforcement," by which I mean systematic efforts to make tax avoiders accountable to the judgment of ordinary citizens. Both individual oligarchs and multinational corporations have access to sophisticated tax avoidance strategies that impose significant fiscal costs on democracies and exacerbate preexisting distributive and political inequalities. Yet much contemporary tax sheltering occurs within the letter of the law, rendering criminal sanctions ineffective. In response, I argue for the creation of Citizen Tax Juries, deliberative minipublics empowered to scrutinize tax avoiders, demand accountability, and facilitate concrete reforms. This proposal thus responds to the wider aspiration, within contemporary democratic theory, to secure more popular control over essential economic processes.

Using the Panama Papers, we show that the beginning of media reporting on expropriations and property confiscations in a country increases the probability that offshore entities are incorporated by agents from the same country in the same month. This result is robust to the use of country-year fixed effects and the exclusion of tax havens. Further analysis shows that the effect is driven by countries with non-corrupt and effective governments, which supports the notion that offshore entities are incorporated when reasonably well-intended and well-functioning governments become more serious about fighting organized crime by confiscating proceeds of crime.

Brazil has garnered the world´s attention recently with a backdrop of political scandals, corruption allegations, world-renown sporting competitions and an economy in turmoil. It has been nothing less than a roller coaster for the citizens of Brazil who have savored some of the ups and downs of the last ten years.In 2007 Brazil was the darling of the developing world. It appeared that the nation that is paradoxically called the "nation of tomorrow" had finally arrived at its tomorrow. With the commodity boom stocking its coffers, millions of Brazilians out of poverty due to the policies of President Luis Inácio Lula da Silva, Brazil could go through the recession relatively unscathed until the commodity market collapsed and Brazil suffered its own recession in 2015 along with series of political calamities. Aside from the impeachment of President Rousseff and Operação Lava Jato (the so-called Car Wash scandal that has implicated several politicians due to bribery through kickbacks they received through the oil giant Petrobras) that was in full swing there was another socio-political phenomenon that was not receiving the press coverage that it was deserving. The Brazilian government was and still is in a struggle to emphasize accountability in the realm of money laundering and illicit finance flows; this endeavor has proved cumbersome as off shore tax havens have and continue to provide a refuge for the funds of fraudulent companies such as Odebrecht and unethical individuals. The abuse of offshore tax havens by the Brazilian political elite, by the "outing" of the Panama Papers as well as the use of OFCs (Offshore Financial Centers) by Odebrecht has forced the Brazilian government to take action and stem the flow of illicit finance.The expanded version of this paper was written at the George Washington University, International Transcriminal Organizations.

This paper provides empirical evidence that, after fiscal scandals, individuals substantially revise their views on redistribution. I exploit as a quasi-natural experiment the 2016 Panama Papers scandal which revealed top-income tax evasion behaviour simultaneously worldwide. The empirical investigation relies on two original sources of data: a longitudinal dataset on United Kingdom households and a survey conducted in twenty-two European countries. Using a difference-in-differences strategy, I find an increase in pro-redistribution statements post-scandal ranging between 2% and 3.3%. Responses are heterogeneous on income levels and on political affiliations, with larger responses from right-wing individuals. The change in redistribution preferences is moderately translated into votes: I find an increase in voting intentions for the left and negative for the right-wing parties. Complementary estimations at the European-level indicate that pro-redistribution responses increase with media coverage and shock intensity (i.e., number of individuals involved).