It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 10:57 PM
Hilary saves Swiss secret banking and lets over 45,000 tax cheats off the hook and receives large donations from UBS too:

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

“Total donations by UBS to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 through 2008 to a cumulative total of about $600,000 by the end of 2014, according to the foundation and the bank,” they report. “The bank also joined the Clinton Foundation to launch entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs, through which it lent $32 million. And it paid former president Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of question-and-answer sessions with UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive Bob McCann, making UBS his biggest single corporate source of speech income disclosed since he left the White House.”


Interesting connection to this story on Rand Paul, pay attention to the second paragraph :

Rand Paul, son of Libertarian firebrand and GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul, is currently blocking the Senate’s ratification of an amendment to the US-Swiss tax treaty, apparently worried about the right of tax evaders to financial privacy. He says the language is too “sweeping” and might jeopardize US constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure. But as one former Treasury Department official said, Paul's move “smacks of protecting financial secrecy for those who may have committed criminal tax fraud in the US.”

The US and Swiss governments renegotiated their bilateral tax treaty as part of the 2009 settlement of the UBS case. That case charged the Swiss mega-bank UBS with facilitating tax evasion by US customers. Under the settlement agreement, UBS paid $780 million in criminal penalties and agreed to provide the IRS with names of 4,450 US account holders.


interesting Hilary Clinton is not mentioned as brokering the deal with the Swiss and USB.

edit on 31-7-2015 by AlaskanDad because: sp correction and clarification

posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 11:50 PM
a reply to: AlaskanDad

HRC, while serving as SOS, brokered a deal in which UBS released less than 10% of the information sought by the IRS. The aftermath of her intervention is her Foundation is rewarded financially, and her husband receives a monster fee for a Q&A, and they partner up in an urban loan program. Everyone wins, except those who believe State Department heads shouldn't use their office for personal gain. But we just the little people, dontcha know.

posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 12:14 AM
We always knew she would betray any enemies on a list.

For a price.

posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 12:15 AM
The emails might have the details !!!

posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 12:40 AM
a reply to: AlaskanDad

I agree with Rand Paul's stance on this. The IRS and others will never stop in finding new ways to steal other people's money that does not belong to them in the first place, and even more importantly, they have no evidence of fraud, just saying the words "those who MAY be guilty" gives it away that they want all the information they aren't suppose to have, so they will have the upper hand in advance in deciding to simply take their money away first, and never ask many questions later, and why would they? They would already have the dough. They would, (not could), just hop and skip and giggle along counting other peoples money they got, and they would not be likely to expedite any case to go anywhere.

That would cost them more money, and they wouldn't spend their own money from their current tax revenues to get other people's money that they already took possession of, in a way that leaves the victim emptied out in the poor farm, and unable legally to do a damn thing about it, which is right where the IRS wanted them in the first place. To keep the tiger from biting you first pull out it's claws and all of it's teeth.
Once that is done you can laugh at and ignore the tiger. And that pretty much describes the swindlers running the IRS.

And knowing how corrupt the IRS is, and the crimes against Americans they will commit, like how Obama has used them so willingly to illegally target political opponents, and they don't even hide it very well, just what could you expect the IRS to NOT do illegally against people? There isn't any restraint on the scumbags in any kind of way, and they will just get more and more blatant, corrupt, and obscene. The IRS is now Obama's private army, whom he openly uses to show Americans his total lack of respect for them.

Imagine the free cash that he would receive from friends inside the IRS if they got to go in and do anything, anywhere without court orders, or writs, or judgements.

Look at what the Clinton's have already done, and will do somewhere else soon. Never let an opening into corruption go untapped, they always say./ It is the easiest of all money to steal from others and without consequence.

posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 12:58 AM
a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

Now I have thought on this for awhile, I have a lot of questions about the 4,450 US account holders that had their information shared with the IRS.

Who were the account holders?

Why were these accounts chosen to be turned over to the IRS?

How much money was in the 4,450 vs the 52,000 accounts sought by the IRS?

Those were just a few questions, awful fishy less then 10% were turned over. That left the other 47,000 tax cheats with their hoards of untaxed wealth.

edit on 1-8-2015 by AlaskanDad because: typo & grammar

new topics


log in