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.


Apparently banking laws only matter when they are convenient...

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 08:15 AM
Just have a read for yourself:

Back when the UBS "diamond in the toothpaste tube" story broke originally UBS claimed that they were going to "cooperate" with the US.

Not so fast, it appears:

The bank turned over information on more than 250 customers -- an unprecedented breach of Switzerland’s bulwark of secrecy. The U.S. Internal Revenue Service is suing UBS in federal court in Miami to get the names of 52,000 American account holders who may have broken U.S. tax laws.

UBS is fighting back. The bank said in April 30 court filings that the U.S. efforts would force bank employees to violate Swiss criminal laws barring disclosure of secret account information. The Swiss government says the U.S. is trampling on its sovereignty.

Yeah, right. Oh, those wonderful Swiss were just helping people do what they felt was right, yes? There wasn't a money motive involved here, was there? Oh wait - there was!

U.S. prosecutors say UBS earned $200 million a year managing $20 billion in assets for American customers. Birkenfeld, a neurosurgeon’s son who worked in Switzerland for three international banks, cooperated with prosecutors and U.S. Senate investigators in laying out a road map of how UBS courted clients like Olenicoff.

Ah - $200 million a year worth of money. I see.

So much for the so-called "purity of motive."

Never mind that funny thing called "mens rea", that is, "of criminal mind":

The bank had extensive schemes to avoid getting caught by U.S. regulators, Birkenfeld told Senate investigators. UBS bankers carried encrypted laptop computers, and the Swiss bank trained its staff to dodge detection by U.S. authorities.

The bankers falsely said on customs forms that they were traveling for pleasure, not business, and told clients to destroy offshore records that could be tied to UBS, Birkenfeld said in his guilty plea.

“Very few people would have imagined the level of complicity of the UBS bankers and executives,” says Josh Ungerman, a tax lawyer at Meadows, Collier, Reed, Cousins & Blau LLP in Dallas. “It’s almost unbelievable that a major worldwide bank that was as well respected would have employees engage in that type of behavior.”

How is it that we have a bank, a supposedly-regulated entity, that still has its banking license and permission to operate in the United States - a privilege granted by our government - after something like this?

But it gets better. Back in 2000, UBS agreed to follow US law:

UBS began to make promises to the IRS after buying Paine Webber Group Inc. for $11.9 billion in 2000. The New York-based securities firm had 8,000 brokers and held about $500 billion in assets.

That year, UBS signed a so-called qualified intermediary agreement with the IRS to give tax information to the U.S. agency about American clients holding securities in Swiss accounts. UBS was supposed to withhold taxes at a 28 percent rate if clients didn’t declare their accounts to the IRS.

But they didn't, of course, and now are claiming that "Swiss Law" permits them to violate an agreement they voluntarily entered into.

I guess "Swiss Law" didn't prevent them from agreeing to provide this information (as a means of expanding their franchise and gaining US recognition for it here in the United States!), right?

So Swiss Law only applies when its convenient?

It certainly appears that any claim that such violations were "coincidences" or "committed by clients without our knowledge" are specious:

UBS helped clients circumvent U.S. securities restrictions by referring them to outside advisers who set up sham companies in tax havens like the British Virgin Islands, Hong Kong and Panama, according to the bank’s Feb. 18 admission.

UBS kept records showing the true owners of accounts as well as phony records saying they were owned by the sham firms.

Ah. Two sets of books. I like it. Gee, where have we seen this before?

Time to shut these guys down folks. They've had plenty of time to comply with the law and their former agreement, which made clear they would provide to the American authorities the names of clients who are cheating.

This isn't about "Swiss Law", it is about contracts and representations made as a condition of obtaining and maintaining a banking license.

Let's hand up the indictments. I pay my taxes - it is time for UBS and the "super-rich" who, it is alleged, they knowingly helped to evade the law to do so as well.
Market Ticker

Oh I let out a huge laugh when I read this. Of course laws dont matter to the people with power when they are making money.

Remember the world is run by greed these days.

I do hope these names get put out there. Let's see how many government officials are on that 52,000 list.

*chuckles mechanically*

Sweet sweet revenge.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 08:23 AM
I a good lawyer will pick them apart... they did sign a intermediary agreement and they already gave info on 200+ clients... seems to me their just worried about losing accounts so they put on this act while they open another branch in the cayman islands... of course they could tie it up in court for years but with good ole uncle sam being broke I think their in for a strong arm response

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 12:13 PM
It's a slim chance that this will go anywhere.
It's always good to hope though...

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 02:49 PM
Unfortunately, there will be only one lawful solution left to this mess..RE-LOVE-UTION...

hey hey, ho ho, the Constitution has got to go, hey hey.......

[edit on 8-6-2009 by RolandBrichter]

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 03:10 PM
I heard on the radio today that the banks are not selling off their "toxic assets."

The reason they weren't doing this is because they'd have to show the loss on the books compared to what those assets were valued at originally.

This means the banks are in FAR worse shape than the government is leading on....which we all knew.

The SECOND try of the toxic asset plan did not work.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by David9176]

new topics

top topics

log in