It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Governments paying thieves megabucks for stolen bank data!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
This starts as breaking news of the theft of 24,000 private banking records from a Swiss bank - then mentions in passing that governments are paying thieves for such data so as to gain access to information about income:


About 24,000 clients of HSBC's private banking operation in Switzerland had personal details stolen by a former employee, the company has admitted...

...News of the theft comes as the US and some countries in Europe try to crack down on tax evasion through the use of overseas accounts. In recent years there has been pressure on Switzerland and Liechtenstein to become more transparent about accounts held there. This is thought to have led to some bank employees stealing account data and passing it to tax authorities.

In Germany, an anonymous informer has offered to sell data stolen from an unnamed Swiss bank to tax officials. Previously, Germany bought similar stolen data about clients of a bank in Liechtenstein. Some of this information was handed to tax authorities in the UK, which is also thought to have paid for the data.

French tax authorities are thought to be investigating up to 3,000 of its nationals using bank accounts outside the country.

Government authorities have defended paying for stolen data as in the public interest. However, the practice has been strongly criticised.

The UK's Revenue & Customs (HMRC) office paid around £100,000 for information about its taxpayers with bank accounts in Liechtenstein, according to accountants UHY Hacker Young.
"Paying criminals for data stolen from banks is highly questionable," said the firm's tax partner, Roy Maugham.

"If people know that there is a market for this data, they will steal it in expectation that HMRC or another tax authority will hand over a six figure sum," he said.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Source

Well I suppose it keeps a few thieves in work...



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Isn't illegally obtained evidence inadmissible in the court of law?



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by gandalph
 


Not when the government can make money with it.

It's absolutely disgusting.



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by gandalph
 


Interesting point. However I suspect that to some degree the tax authorities are a law unto themselves.

Admittedly there's a moral dilemma here: the authorities have to go after fraudsters. But creating a market so criminals steal the data?..



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Exactly. See they do not have to use the stolen data in court. They can, instead, use the stolen data as a lead generation tool, then claim that they got the leads from "standard audit procedures", making it 100% laundered evidence.



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


I am missing something here, how would the gov. benefit from paying for stolen records? Just to know who's was stolen? I am not sure I follow my friend.



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


Well going on what this article says, it's already a standard investigative procedure.

Can you imagine the invoice - "For services rendered"?



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 



how would the gov. benefit from paying for stolen records?


Fair question. It's all about dosh stashed away in tax havens. Secret accounts being - ahem - accessed.



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


So basically the gov wants to know what people have in their accounts? I have a habit of skipping over words when I read lol so was this from like a super secret bank in Swiss or something? How can they know it is not DISINFO? I am speaking from the "hackers" point of view? Def. could be.



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
How would they benefit? I t sounds like thier trying to 'hide' someone or 'freinds' involved in illegal activitys. Thiers simply no other reason to justify its cause.



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenBicMan & ziggy
 


I don't want to come across as pedantic, but as the question of 'why' is being asked repeatedly might I very very politely request that you take a look at the article? Basically Swiss & Swiss-type foreign account data is of great interest to the tax authorities [/understatement]



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


Yeah I went back and read the whole thing. It takes me a few times reading something until I fully grasp it.. errr (lol)

But ok - so my comment still stands. Not specifically addressing you, just wondering out loud. This was relating to this "hacker" could be backed by an "entity" that may want certain people on that list and certain people off if you know what I mean.



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


Hey pause4thought. I wanted to say thank you for the U2U you send me. I still don't have 20 posts so i couldn't just send one back.

I can't believe people aren't shocked about this story. The government commiting obvious crimes in broad daylight and no one seems to care.



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 


As I understand it, the data is being stolen by insiders (as opposed to hackers). £100,000 is a pretty big temptation for some.



reply to post by GeneralRipper
 


No worries - I'm aware of the issue. [Note to all - I just U2U'd to say I too found the whole thing pretty unbelievable.]



reply to post by rogerstigers
 



...they do not have to use the stolen data in court. They can, instead, use the stolen data as a lead generation tool, then claim that they got the leads from "standard audit procedures", making it 100% laundered evidence.

I'm no lawyer, but mulling over what you said the following occurred to me:

—couldn't the tax authorities be liable to prosecution for handling/possession of stolen goods?!

Come to think of it, I believe there are laws against incitement as well...



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join