Eiffel Tower after attacksThe attacks in Paris and subsequent events have horrified any right-minded person. The slaughter of innocent civilians sickened the world and the outpouring of support for the city of Paris; the country of France and the French people has been universal. One of the things that I thought about in the aftermath is the intersection of corruption and terrorism. The EU open border policy and its banks notoriously lax money laundering regimes and enforcement could certainly have contributed to some of the underlying factors leading to the attack. I am sure there will be aggressive and robust responses from governments across the globe involving new and beefed up anti-money laundering (AML) laws. This is something the anti-corruption compliance practitioner and all US companies need to prepare for in the days and weeks to come, largely in response to the attacks in Paris.

Most anti-corruption compliance practitioner and most US companies do not focus on AML compliance or corporate AML controls. However, the bad guys think about how to move money around from their ill-gotten gains quite a bit, using the most innocuous types of business. In an article Los Angeles Times (LAT), entitled “Cartels use legitimate trade to launder money, US and Mexico say”, reporters Tracy Wilkinson and Ken Ellingwood described a process whereby teams of money launderers working for cartels use dollars to purchase a commodity from the US and then export the commodity to Mexico or Colombia. A key is that “Paperwork is generated that gives a patina of propriety” which means that drug money is given the appearance of legitimate proceeds from a legitimate commercial transaction. An Immigration and Customs official interviewed said, “It’s such a great scheme. You could hide dirty money in so much legitimate business, and they do. You can audit their books all day long and all you see is goods being imported and exported.” Another scheme involved several executives of Angel Toy Company, who conspired with Mexican drug cartels to launder drug money through a scheme to purchase Teddy Bears (of all things), for shipment back to and for resale in Mexico. The plan was straightforward, just under $10K of cash for each shipment of Teddy Bears, which were then resold in Mexico.

The key is that the commodities being purchased are so mild that large bulk purchases will rarely, if ever, draw any official scrutiny. The goods purchased can be red tomatoes or bolts of cotton fabric. In either case, the commodity itself does not matter, as the simple fact of purchasing in the US, shipping into, and reselling in Mexico allows the drug cartels to “transfer earnings back home to pay bills and buy new drug supplies while converting dollars to pesos in a transaction relatively easy to explain to authorities.”

However, now money launderers use even more sophisticated tactics such as “overvaluing and undervaluing invoices and customs declarations.” There is even a new term “trade-based money-laundering” used to denominate the schemes. It was reported that in another operation, which was estimated to launder over $1MM every three weeks, money launderers were exporting from the US to Mexico polypropylene pellets that are used to make plastic. However, the money launderers inflated the value declared on the high-volume shipments and this eventually attracted suspicion of US bank investigators, “who shut down the export operation by discontinuing letters of credit that the suspected launderers were using.” One official noted, “You generate all this paperwork on both sides of the border showing that the product you’re importing has this much value on it, when in reality you paid less for it. Now you’ve got paper earnings of a million dollar and the million dollars in my bank account – it’s legitimate. It came from this here, see?”

Transactional based due diligence and internal controls are mandatory components of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) minimum best practices compliance program. In addition to due diligence on agents, distributors or others in the sales distribution chain, companies need to perform due diligence on those to whom they sell. If someone from Mexico suddenly comes to your business and wants to buy widgets with cash, this needs to send up a huge Red Flag.

Banks and financial institutions have led the way in fighting money laundering through their robust AML controls. Below I have listed some AML Red Flags that you can begin to use now:

  1. Legitimacy of the party and/or assets are undeterminable through due diligence or independent verification;
  2. The party proffers false, misleading or substantially incorrect information and documentation;
  3. The party suggests transactions involving cash or insists on dealing only in cash equivalents;
  4. The party refuses to disclose or to provide documentation concerning identity, nature of business, or nature and source of assets;
  5. The party refuses to identify a principal or beneficial owner;
  6. The party appears to be acting as an agent for an undisclosed principal or beneficial owner, but is reluctant to provide information, or is otherwise evasive, regarding the identity of the principal or beneficial owner;
  7. The party is a shell company and refuses to disclose the identity of the party’s beneficial owner;
  8. The party has assets that are well beyond its known income or resources;
  9. The party requests that funds be transferred to an unrelated third party and is unable to provide sufficient legitimate and independently verifiable justification for such request;
  10. The party requests a wire transfer to a jurisdiction other than the one in which the party is located and is unable to provide sufficient legitimate and independently verifiable justification for such request, particularly if located in an “offshore” bank secrecy or tax haven;
  11. The party engages in transactions that appear to have been structured so as to avoid government reporting requirements, especially if the cash or monetary instruments are in an amount just below reporting or recording thresholds;
  12. The party exhibits unusual concern about compliance with government reporting requirements;
  13. The party exhibits a lack of concern regarding risks or other transaction costs;
  14. The party wishes to engage in a transaction that lacks business sense, economic substance or apparent investment strategy;
  15. The party lacks general knowledge of its industry or lacks adequate facilities or qualified staff to perform the required tasks or work;
  16. The party requests that a transaction be processed in a manner that circumvents procedures or avoids documentation requirements;
  17. The party is included on list of Specially Designated Nationals, or similar lists maintained by the U.S. Government and the United Nations, or is associated with such individuals and entities;
  18. The party is located or has accounts or financial dealings in countries either identified as being non-cooperative with international efforts against money laundering by the Financial Action Task Force, or against whom the U.S. Treasury Department has issued an advisory;
  19. The party, or any person associated with the party, is or has been the subject of any formal or informal allegations (including in the reputable media) regarding possible criminal, civil or regulatory violations or infractions; and
  20. The independent due diligence conducted uncovers allegations that raise concerns regarding the party’s integrity.

Obviously there is a large overlap with anti-corruption due diligence and red flags. While most anti-corruption compliance practitioners understand the basic concepts behind KnowYourCustomer programs, including due diligence and policies and procedures, most of corporate America is quite far behind banks and financial institutions in the sophistication around detecting, investigating and reporting suspicious transactions. I think companies will need to take a look at the steps they place around AML compliance and the sooner the better.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

DOJA colleague recently posed that question to me. I thought it was an interesting one and although at first blush the response to me might appear self-evident, the fact that it was posed means that my view may not be universal. The more I thought about how to respond to my friend’s query, the longer my response became. So today, I begin a three-part series on why Americans should care about the Department of Justice (DOJ) bringing their indictments against the 14 named defendants who were all associated with the governing body of international soccer, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).

Over the weekend, I went to England to attend the wedding of my sister-in-law. My wife has numerous aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins and they all attend such family events. One of the more interesting comments I heard was from one of my wife’s cousins who said, “only America was big enough to take on FIFA” and that “you can say what you want about Americans but they get things done.” I realize the sample size may have been small to fully validate these perceptions but consider the headline from the lead editorial in the Sunday Times today which read “JUSTICE 1, FIFA O” where the Times discussed the revelations that Sepp Blatter himself is now under investigation by the US DOJ for direct involvement of the $10MM bribe paid to Jack Warner to swing his vote to award South Africa the 2010 World Cup.

The statement by my cousin-in-law presages something that is not discussed consistently about prosecutions under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA); that is the US government is the undisputed worldwide leader in the global fight against corruption and bribery. For all the discussion about whether it is fair or right to prosecute companies with headquarters outside the US for FCPA violations, the bottom line is if the US government did not engage in such prosecutions, no one else would do so. But these are not companies that lie outside the jurisdiction limit of US justice; these are companies that have voluntarily subjected themselves to US jurisdiction. Remember TOTAL, who howled about how unfair it was that the US government was prosecuting them? It turned out that they wired part of their bribes through the US banking system. Alstom was another company that fought the DOJ over jurisdiction. Yet it has listed securities on certain US exchanges which invoked FCPA jurisdiction, engaged in illegal conduct in the US and involved US citizens in the bribery and corruption allegations against it.

This fact of US leadership in the global fight against corruption and bribery was driven home even more so with the FIFA indictments. The Sunday Times had been investigating FIFA through investigative journalism for years. As far back as 2010, the Sunday Times published evidence that votes of FIFA executives could be purchased for votes to secure World Cup tournaments. The Sunday Times handed over wire tapes, videotapes and transcripts confirming these allegations to FIFA officials. FIFA’s response was to discipline those who had talked with reporters from the Sunday Times. Most amazingly, in May 2011 the Sunday Times provided this evidence to a British Parliamentary commission.

Did anything come about from this evidence being handed over to the UK government? A generous response might be not that we know of, as yet. This is in the face that the UK has arguably the strongest anti-corruption law on the books, the UK Bribery Act, which makes illegal the paying and receiving of bribes in both the public and private sector. So the laws are in the books in the UK, if the UK government wanted to enforce them.

The DOJ has made clear they will use all tools available to them in the fight against international corruption and bribery. For US companies or others subject to the FCPA, that means using a supply-side law, which criminalizes the conduct of the bribe payor. But there are numerous other laws that criminalize the conduct of the bribe receiver. We saw a couple of those at play with the FIFA indictments. These include money laundering and tax evasion, with tax evasion first. Ever since the conviction of Al Capone, the government has made use of laws against evading taxes on monies you are paid for criminal activity. Under FCPA cases, the companies seem to report the income from their ill-gotten gain accurately so we have not seen that tool used in FCPA prosecutions. However individuals who receive bribe payments generally do not report the income because they cannot account for receiving it for any honest or legal services. Since they do not report it, they do not pay taxes on it.

Anti-money laundering (AML) laws are an important tool in the fight against international bribery and corruption. My colleague Mike Brown, no doubt channeling his inner Woodward and Bernstein, often says that when it comes to bribery and corruption, you should “follow the money”. This is the basic truth about money laundering and why it is such an important tool in the fight against corruption. We have seen it used occasionally as an adjunct to FCPA prosecutions. Most recently was the money laundering charge against María de los Ángeles González de Hernandez, the official at a state-owned Venezuelan bank, Banco de Desarrollo Económico y Social de Venezuela (BANDES) who was paid upward of $5MM in bribes to win bond trading work. She was extradited to the US and pled guilty.

The bottom line is that only the US government has the wherewithal to engage in such a worldwide investigation and coordinate the actions of numerous of countries in providing assistance. Do you think the Swiss police would have been so involved if it was not for the US government lead in this investigation? From President Obama on down, the US government has made clear that it will lead the international fight against bribery and corruption. The FIFA indictments are yet one more indication that they will continue to do so.

But the US is no longer alone in this fight. Witness the large numbers of countries that have passed domestically and internationally focused laws against bribery and corruption. Whatever the motives behind the Chinese government prosecution of GlaxoSmithKline PLC (GSK) in China, the fact of the prosecution sent shock waves through western companies doing business in China that the old ways of bribing officials was no longer acceptable. The effect was that western companies doing business in China beefed up their compliance function and oversight of compliance. The same has been true from the burgeoning Petrobras corruption scandal in Brazil. Brazil itself has only recently enacted domestic anti-corruption legislation and it may have been the political fallout from the Petrobras corruption scandal that finally led the President of the country to accede to having the law made effective.

FIFA is the biggest sports empire in the world. The National Football League (NFL) is downright paltry when it comes to the monies, numbers and passions around international soccer. However the US government became aware of the inherent corruption at FIFA; whether through the investigative work of The Sunday Times, a whistleblower, an unrelated investigation into other criminal activities or some other means, Americans should care about the FIFA indictments because it shows the US government continues to lead the world’s fight against bribery and corruption.

Why should Americans care about the FIFA indictments? First as a measure of national pride, we have a Justice Department that has the wherewithal to take on the world’s largest sports organization, particularly one which thought itself above the law. While the US certainly did not bring the indictments against FIFA alone, it clearly was the leader in this effort to continue the fight against global corruption and bribery. For if America does not lead, others will not follow in this fight so Americans should care greatly that the DOJ is continuing to lead this fight with the laws available to it.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

Lincoln AssassinationToday is the 150th anniversary of the first successful Presidential assassination attempt. It was on this day in 1865 that John Wilkes Booth shot President Abraham Lincoln at Ford’s Theater in Washington DC. Booth was not a lone gunman but led a group of Confederate sympathizers who attacked or planned to attack leading US government officials. Co-conspirator Lewis T. Powell burst into Secretary of State Seward’s home, repeatedly stabbing him and seriously wounding him and three others, while George A. Atzerodt, assigned to kill Vice President Johnson, lost his nerve and fled.

HSBC continues to stay in the news, unfortunately largely for the wrong reasons in the realm of anti-corruption, facilitating tax evasion and money laundering. In an article in the New York Times (NYT), entitled “HSBC Is Deemed Slow To Carry Out Changes”, reporters Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Ben Protess noted that earlier this month, federal prosecutors made a quarterly count filing as a part of their report on the bank’s Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) “faulting the bank for weaknesses in spotting suspicious transactions and for enabling a corporate culture resistant to change.”

The filing itself was based upon the corporate monitor’s Michael Cherkasky’s “confidential 1000 page report submitted to prosecutors in January. That report, people briefed on the matter said, offered a more scathing assessment of the bank’s progress.” The monitor has been “evaluating HSBC’s global operations for cracks in its money-laundering controls. As such, he has reviewed the bank’s various business lines, including its sprawling operations in China.”

In the technology area, the filing noted the “bank’s technology systems, despite some improvement, still suffer from “fragmentation” and “lack of connectivity” the Justice Department filing said. With its creaky framework, the filing said, “the collection and analysis” of data could suffer.” This lack of technology to both check on customers or potential customers and then review the transactions they might engage in were a prime deficiency noted in the original 2012 enforcement action where “prosecutors found that HSBC facilitated money laundering on behalf of Mexican drug cartels, allowing at least $881 million in tainted money to course through its United States branches.”

But perhaps the more troubling finding in the prosecutors filing was around the culture at the bank. There was not specific criticism of the tone at the top of the bank or with senior management but with the employees’ attitudes towards meeting the obligations under the DPA. The filing said that “Change at the bank was met with resistance” providing at least one example; “When presented with negative findings from auditors, the filing said, managers at the bank’s United States unit for global banking and markets “inappropriately pushed back.” Ultimately, the resistance caused an internal audit report “to be more favorable to the business than it would have been otherwise.”

Interestingly HSBC itself pushed back against the government’s filing, at least in the press. The article noted that “In response to the filing, Stuart Levey, the bank’s chief legal officer said, “The Justice Department recognized in its letter that HSBC has made material progress toward meeting the most stringent compliance standards imposed to date upon a global financial institution.” Levey also said that “the bank was continuing to meet all its obligations under the deferred-prosecution-agreement and that its leaders “are making progress toward that objective and appreciate the monitor’s ongoing work.””

Monitor Cherkasky’s report and the Department of Justice (DOJ) filing bring up a couple of interesting points for speculation. The first is the continuing dialogue and debate on the effectiveness of DPAs and whether they actually do achieve their stated goals of changing corporate culture and behavior. The NYT article said that the DOJ filing, which came under the name of the President’s Attorney General-designee, as head of the US Prosecutor’s office, comes “at a time when prosecutors are grappling with repeat offenders on Wall Street”. Moreover, “the filing underscores the Justice Department’s efforts to stem the pattern of corporate recidivism.” Just how hard should the DOJ come down on HSBC? There are other more aggressive steps the DOJ could take, even at this point. These include “extending the five-year deferred-prosecution agreement or singling out culpable employees by name.” Indeed the article cited to a recent speech by the head of the DOJ’s criminal division, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, where she said, “the government has “a range of tools” to deal with corporate recidivism, including extending the term of a deferred-prosecution agreement while prosecutors investigate accusations of new criminal conduct.”

How about tearing up the DPA and simply criminally prosecuting the bank on the facts it admitted to in the DPA? Caldwell also spoke to that possibility when she said in the same speech, “Make no mistake: The criminal division will not hesitate to tear up a D.P.A. or N.P.A and file criminal charges where such action is appropriate and proportional to the breach.” Since parties are required to agree to facts in any DPA or Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) it would seem that tearing up those settlement documents and then prosecuting those companies on the underlying facts would be a relatively straightforward matter.

The other party in this debate is the Attorney General-nominee herself. While at this point it is not clear if the GOP majority will ever let her nomination come up for a vote before the full Senate, what if the Senate Judiciary Committee decides to reopen the hearings on this issue and then shoehorn it into the larger ongoing academic and FCPA Inc. debate on DPAs (and NPAs and other settlement tools). What if the FCPA testified on the “Façade of FCPA Enforcement”? What if Ted Cruz came in to ask why the DOJ is even bothering to prosecute the British banking giant?

At the time of its settlement in 2012, the HSBC fine was the largest for any bank involving money laundering. The monitor’s report and DOJ court filing demonstrate that the settlement is still controversial and the conduct engaged in by the bank many years ago may well continue to resonate up to this day and well into the future.

But the negative news for HSBC did not end with the filing of the DOJ report. As reported in the Financial Times (FT), in an article entitled “French magistrates open formal criminal probe into HSBC”, Emma Dunkley wrote that the parent entity of the bank, HSBC Holdings, “has been placed under criminal investigation by French authorities and made to post €1bn bail over allegations that its Swiss private banking arm helped clients avoid taxes.” This is separate and apart from the investigations into the company’s Swiss banking unit, which has been indicted or is under investigation “over tax evasion allegations in several other countries, including the US, Belgium and Argentina.”

In another article in the NYT, entitled “HSBC Facing Criminal Investigation in French Tax Case, Chad Bray reported that the bank apologized after released documents “showed that its employees had reassured clients that the lender would not disclose details of their accounts to the tax authorities of their home countries and discussed options to avoid paying taxes on those assets. The bank has acknowledged previous “conduct and compliance failures” in its Swiss business and has said that it has overhauled its private banking business and reduced its client base in Switzerland by 70 percent since its peak.”

The woes of HSBC continue and indeed seem to be increasing. With the fallout from the monitor’s report and other ongoing investigations the bank may be in danger of having its DPA revoked. While HSBC is not the only poster child for Banks Behaving Badly it may find itself as the first bank to have its DPA torn up and either the entity or responsible individuals criminally prosecuted for recidivist behavior.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015

Gulliver's TravelsThere was once a man named Gulliver who traveled widely and wrote a book about his adventures called Gulliver’s Tales. During his first voyage, Gulliver is washed ashore after a shipwreck and finds himself a prisoner of a race of little people, who live in the country of Lilliput. After giving assurances of his good behavior, Gulliver becomes a resident in Lilliput and becomes a favorite of the court. From there, the book follows Gulliver’s observations on the Court of Lilliput. He is also given the permission to roam around the city on a condition that he must not harm their subjects and otherwise engage in illegal, immoral or unethical conduct.

I am continually amazed at how life imitates art because if I told you the following tale you might accuse me of simply making up things to write about. Imagine there is a corporate banking Chief Executive Officer (CEO), whose company signed one of the largest Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPA) ever a little over two years ago giving assurances of good behavior going forward. Now imagine I tell you that the same CEO has been hiding money for years in a Swiss bank account through a shell corporation for ‘his privacy’ (IE., Hiding money from the Lilliputians of this world). Unfortunately for the real Stuart Gulliver, the CEO at the banking giant HSBC, these facts are true. While his company is in yet another scandal involving its illegal conduct, while under a DPA for its past sins, it turns out the CEO was hiding approximately $7.7MM in a Swiss bank account. To compound this effort to conceal his monies, he did so through a shell Panamanian company.

Yet, just like the fictional Gulliver, the real Gulliver has a very simply explanation for this practice. According to Jenny Anderson, in an article in the New York Times (NYT) entitled “HSBC Chief Defends Swiss Bank Account Worth $7.7 Million”, Gulliver said “This has an everyday explanation to it” and said the explanation was that he was trying to hide the money so his co-workers would not know he much money he made. Or as Anderson wrote, “In an effort to protect his privacy — he was the bank’s top earner — he put the money in Switzerland to hide it from the prying eyes of his Hong Kong colleagues. But he then had to hide it from his curious Swiss colleagues, so he created an anonymous Panamanian company.”

So it turns out that Gulliver was not only trying to hide his money from his co-workers but also from the Swiss by creating a shell corporation to launder the money into before depositing it in Switzerland. Similar to those pesky Lilliputians, who might want to find out something about him that he did not want them to know, as when the fictional Gulliver agreed to not violate the law or engage in otherwise unethical conduct. Of course the real Gulliver has protested that such arrangements were not illegal at the time he engaged in them, side-stepping the question of whether his conduct was unethical (Ethical bankers, does that topic belong in the fiction section?).

Gulliver also went on a charm offensive essentially claiming that not only him but the entire banking industry in general was being picked on. Channeling his inner Mother Theresa, Gulliver was quoted in an article in the Financial Times (FT), entitled “Standards for bankers higher than for bishops, claims HSBC chief Gulliver” by Martin Arnold and George Parker, as saying “It seems to me that we are holding large corporations to higher standards than the military, the church or civil service.” While I am not quite certain as to the pay scale of UK church leaders, I am relatively certain that those in the civil service and military do not have an extra $7.7MM laying around that they need to launder through a Panamanian corporation to hide in a Swiss bank account.

The real Gulliver should have just channeled his fictional Gulliver and said that when in the land of Lilliput, you do not have to tell the Lilliputians the truth, even if you have sworn in a pesky DPA to do so. From the real Gulliver’s statement about bankers being held to higher standards, he obviously thinks that the church, military and civil service (and probably the rest of us mere mortals) have Lilliputian ethical obligations compared to him.

What does all this mean for prosecuting HSBC in the newly erupted money laundering through its Swiss subsidiary scandal? Well it is great to know your CEO has first hand knowledge of the mechanics of such activities. The appropriate UK authorities or even the US Department of Justice (DOJ) could interview the real Gulliver as a subject matter expert (SME) on not only how to hide money from your fellow employees, but also from the Swiss and even gain insight into such machinations to hide money from your own national tax authorities. The real Gulliver may be a real find for the DOJ as an expert witness, at the trial of his company for breach its DPA.

Further, just think of the credibility the real Gulliver would have in negotiations with the DOJ on whether HSBC broke its promises to do business in compliance with US anti-money laundering (AML) laws when it signed its DPA back in 2012. He could go right into the meeting and say, “Lads, let me dispel any misconceptions you might have about Swiss bank accounts. They exist to hide money. At least that is how I use them personally.” He could then walk the lowly civil servants who work in the DOJ Fraud Section and who have lower standards than the whiter-than-white bankers through how the real world of money laundering works, or at least the real world of multi-millionaires who, for some reason, want to protect their own privacy.

The real Gulliver could answer yet another rhetorical question that he posed, and was reported in the FT article, when he asked, “Can I know what every one of 257,000 people is doing? Clearly, I can’t. If you want to ask the question could it ever happen again – that is not reasonable.” The real Gulliver could then go on to respond to this rhetorical flourish along the lines of the following, But I can tell you what is reasonable, to ask me if I know what I am doing and how I am doing it. I am hiding money in my Swiss bank account through a shell Panamanian company. He might even add, How brilliant is that?

Since the fictional Gulliver lived and traveled over 300 years ago, he may be distantly related to the real Gulliver of HSBC today. Nevertheless for a bank CEO to have laundered his own money through a shell corporation into a Swiss bank account ‘for privacy’ is one of those convergences where truth surely is stranger than fiction.

TexasBarToday_TopTen_Badge_Large

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2015