Suchergebnisse

The Panama Papers comprise one of the most recent influential leaks containing detailed information on intermediary companies (such as law firms), offshore entities and company officers, and serve as a valuable source of insight into the operations of (approximately) 214,000 shell companies incorporated in tax havens around the globe over the past half century. Entities and relations in the papers can be used to construct a network that permits, in principle, a systematic and scientific study at scale using techniques developed in the computational social science and network science communities. In this paper, we propose such a study by attempting to quantify and profile the importance of entities. In particular, our research explores whether intermediaries are significantly more influential than offshore entities, and whether different centrality measures lead to varying, or even incompatible, conclusions. Some findings yield conclusions that resemble Simpson's paradox. We also explore the role that jurisdictions play in determining entity importance.

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).

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).