Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: Corporate Secrecy in the US

  1. #1

    Default Corporate Secrecy in the US

    Special Report: A little house of secrets on the Great Plains

    Tue Jun 28, 2011

    SHELL GAMES: A Reuters Investigation

    Articles in this series are exploring the extent and impact of corporate secrecy in the United States.

    By Kelly Carr and Brian Grow

    CHEYENNE/ATLANTA (Reuters) - The secretive business havens of Cyprus and the Cayman Islands face a potent rival: Cheyenne, Wyoming.

    At a single address in this sleepy city of 60,000 people, more than 2,000 companies are registered. The building, 2710 Thomes Avenue, isn't a shimmering skyscraper filled with A-list corporations. It's a 1,700-square-foot brick house with a manicured lawn, a few blocks from the State Capitol.

    Neighbors say they see little activity there besides regular mail deliveries and a woman who steps outside for smoke breaks. Inside, however, the walls of the main room are covered floor to ceiling with numbered mailboxes labeled as corporate "suites." A bulky copy machine sits in the kitchen. In the living room, a woman in a headset answers calls and sorts bushels of mail.

    A Reuters investigation has found the house at 2710 Thomes Avenue serves as a little Cayman Island on the Great Plains. It is the headquarters for Wyoming Corporate Services, a business-incorporation specialist that establishes firms which can be used as "shell" companies, paper entities able to hide assets.

    Wyoming Corporate Services will help clients create a company, and more: set up a bank account for it; add a lawyer as a corporate director to invoke attorney-client privilege; even appoint stand-in directors and officers as high as CEO. Among its offerings is a variety of shell known as a "shelf" company, which comes with years of regulatory filings behind it, lending a greater feeling of solidity.

    "A corporation is a legal person created by state statute that can be used as a fall guy, a servant, a good friend or a decoy," the company's website boasts. "A person you control... yet cannot be held accountable for its actions. Imagine the possibilities!"

    Among the entities registered at 2710 Thomes, Reuters found, is a shelf company sheltering real-estate assets controlled by a jailed former prime minister of Ukraine, according to allegations made by a political rival in a federal court in California.

    The owner of another shelf company at the address was indicted in April for allegedly helping online-poker operators evade a U.S. ban on Internet gambling. The owner of two other firms there was banned from government contracting in January for selling counterfeit truck parts to the Pentagon.

    CASTING THE FIRST STONE

    All the activity at 2710 Thomes is part of a little-noticed industry in the U.S.: the mass production of paper businesses. Scores of mass incorporators like Wyoming Corporate Services have set up shop. The hotbeds of the industry are three states with a light regulatory touch-Delaware, Wyoming and Nevada.

    The pervasiveness of corporate secrecy on America's shores stands in stark contrast to Washington's message to the rest of the world. Since the September 11 attacks in 2001, the U.S. has been calling forcefully for greater transparency in global transactions, to lift the veil on shadowy money flows. During a debate in 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama singled out Ugland House in the Cayman Islands, reportedly home to some 12,000 offshore corporations, as "either the biggest building or the biggest tax scam on record."

    Yet on U.S. soil, similar activity is perfectly legal. The incorporation industry, overseen by officials in the 50 states, has few rules. Convicted felons can operate firms which create companies, and buy them with no background checks.

    No states license mass incorporators, and only a few require them to formally register with state authorities. None collect the names and addresses of "beneficial owners," the individuals with a controlling interest in corporations, according to a 2009 report by the National Association of Secretaries of State, a group for state officials overseeing incorporation. Wyoming and Nevada allow the real owners of corporations to hide behind "nominee" officers and directors with no direct role in the business, often executives of the mass incorporator.

    "In the U.S., (business incorporation) is completely unregulated," says Jason Sharman, a professor at Griffith University in Nathan, Australia, who is preparing a study for the World Bank on corporate formation worldwide. "Somalia has slightly higher standards than Wyoming and Nevada."

    An estimated 2 million corporations and limited liability companies are created each year in the U.S., according to Senate investigators. The Treasury Department has singled out LLCs as particularly vulnerable to being used as shell companies, as they can be owned by anyone and managed anonymously. Delaware, Nevada and Wyoming had 688,000 LLCs on file in 2009, up from 624,000 in 2007.

    Treasury and state banking regulators say banks have flagged billions of dollars in suspicious transactions involving U.S. shell companies in recent years. On June 10, a federal judge in Oregon ordered a company registered there to pay $60 million for defrauding a Ukrainian government agency through sham transactions involving shell companies. The civil lawsuit described a network of U.S.-registered shells connected to fraud in Eastern Europe and Afghanistan.

    A growing niche in the shell business is shelf corporations. Like paper-only shells, which enable the secrecy-minded to hide real ownership of assets, shelf companies are set up by firms like Wyoming Corporate Services, then left "on the shelf" to season for years. They're then sold later to owners looking for a quick way to secure bank loans, bid on contracts, and project financial stability. To speed up business activity, shelf corporations can often be purchased with established bank accounts, credit histories and tax returns filed with the Internal Revenue Service.

    "They just slot in your names, and you walk away with the company. Presto!" says Daniel E. Karson, executive managing director at investigative firm Kroll Inc. "The purpose is to conceal ownership."

    On its website, Wyoming Corporate Services currently lists more than 700 shelf companies for sale in 37 states. The older they are, the more expensive, like Scotch whisky. Brookside Management Inc., formed in December 2004, sells for $5,995, while Knotty Management LLC, formed in May, costs just $645. In Delaware, incorporator Harvard Business Services markets First Family LLC, created in May 1997, for $10,000.

    "If they're signing a large contract, they may not want it to look like they've just formed a company," said Brett Melson, director of U.S. sales at Harvard Business Services. But he added: "Unsavory characters can do a lot of bad things with the companies."

    Shell and shelf companies do serve legitimate purposes. They provide a quick and cheap way for entrepreneurs to jump into business and create jobs. Businesses can use them to protect trade secrets. Politicians or other public figures may use a shell company to hold their home so that people with ill intent have a harder time locating them.

    The state of Wyoming says it cracked down on incorporation services in 2009 after discovering that nearly 5,700 companies were registered to post-office boxes. New laws require companies to have a physical presence in the state through an owner or a registered agent, and make it a felony to submit false filings.

    "What we want to have is good, quality legitimate businesses," said Patricia O'Brien, Wyoming's Deputy Secretary of State. "We don't regulate what the business itself does, but we are not recruiting businesses here that are questionable or illegal."

    Wyoming Corporate Services is run by Gerald Pitts, its 54-year-old founder and president. On paper, he is a prolific businessman. Incorporation data provided by Westlaw, a unit of Thomson Reuters, show that Pitts is listed as a director, president or principal for at least 41 companies registered at 2710 Thomes Avenue.

    Another 248 firms name Edge Financial Inc., another incorporation service, as their "manager." Gerald Pitts is the president of Edge Financial, according to records on file with the Wyoming secretary of state's office.

    Companies registered at 2710 Thomes Avenue have been named in a dozen civil lawsuits alleging unpaid taxes, securities fraud and trademark infringement since 2007, a review of Westlaw data shows. State and federal tax authorities have filed liens against companies registered at the address seeking to collect more than $300,000 in unpaid taxes, according to Westlaw.

    Pitts says Wyoming Corporate Services fully complies with the law and doesn't have any knowledge of how clients use the companies he registers. "However, we recognize that business entities (whether aged, shell or traditional) may be used for both good and ill," Pitts wrote in an email to Reuters. "WCS will always cooperate with law enforcement agencies who request information or assistance. WCS does not provide any product or service with the intent that it be used to violate the law."

    THE UKRAINE CONNECTION

    Gerald Pitts and his own incorporation firms have never been sued or sanctioned, according to federal and state court records. Wyoming officials said Wyoming Corporate Services operates legally. "If they do it by cubby holes and they are really representing each person, they meet the law," said O'Brien, the deputy secretary of state.

    But clients of his have run into trouble.

    Among those registered at the little house in Cheyenne are two small companies formed through Wyoming Corporate Services that sold knock-off truck parts to the U.S. Department of Defense, according to a Reuters review of two federal contracting databases and findings from an investigation by the Pentagon's Defense Logistics Agency. The owner of those firms, Atilla Kan, awaits sentencing on a 2007 conviction for wire fraud in a related matter.

    Also linked to 2710 Thomes is former Ukrainian Prime Minister Pavlo Lazarenko, who was once ranked the eighth-most corrupt official in the world by watchdog group Transparency International. He is now serving an eight-year jail term in California for a 2004 conviction on money-laundering and extortion charges. According to court records, that scheme used shell companies and offshore bank accounts to hide stolen Ukrainian government funds.

    Court records submitted in Lazarenko's criminal case and documents from a separate civil lawsuit, as well as interviews with lawyers familiar with the matter, indicate Lazarenko controls a shelf company incorporated in Cheyenne that owns an estimated $72 million in real estate in Ukraine through other companies.

    The U.S. government continues to seek more than $250 million from bank accounts in Antigua, Barbuda, Guernsey and other countries that it says were controlled by Lazarenko and his associates, according to a forfeiture action filed by the Department of Justice.

    The paper trail linking Lazarenko to the real estate in Ukraine is labyrinthine. At the heart of it is a shelf company called Capital Investments Group, registered at 2710 Thomes Avenue.

    U.S. lawyers for a Ukrainian businessman named Gennady Korban submitted documents claiming that Lazarenko is the true owner of Capital Investments Group and other U.S. companies.

    Lazarenko and Korban are rivals in Ukraine, and for years have traded allegations of corruption and assassination. An organization chart accompanying Korban's submission alleges Capital Investments Group owns 99.99 percent of a Ukrainian firm called OOO Capital Investments Group. That company, the chart claims, is the owner of another company, OOO Ukrainsky Tyutyun, where Pavlo Lazarenko is a director. Each of the firms and several others are used as corporate fronts to control properties in Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine, the filing alleges.

    Seven properties are named in the 2009 filing by Korban, including 55 Pushkin Street and 58 Komsomolskaya Street. The dossier on Capital Investments Group claims that other directors of the alleged front companies include Lazarenko's wife, son and mother-in-law.

    Federal prosecutors successfully urged the court in late 2009 to disregard Korban's submissions, arguing that it would take too much time to vet his account and thus delay his resentencing after a lengthy appeal.

    A few months later, in February 2010, Capital Investments Group sued Korban and others in federal court in Delaware. That lawsuit claims two properties in the Ukraine controlled by Capital Investments Group - 55 Pushkin Street and 58 Komsomolskaya Street - were stolen from it using forged documents.

    The lawsuit says Capital Investments was formed in September 2005. It is registered at 2710 Thomes Avenue, and Gerald Pitts, the court documents say, is "President, Secretary, Chairman and director."

    But Capital Investments Group doesn't disclose the name of its owners. Daniel Horowitz and Martin Garbus, attorneys for the company, have represented Pavlo Lazarenko in other U.S. and Ukrainian litigation. They declined to provide the owners' names, citing client confidentiality, and wouldn't comment on Lazarenko's links to CIG.

    The U.S. Attorney's office in San Francisco declined to comment. Asked about his association with Lazarenko and Capital Investments Group, Gerald Pitts declined to provide information on specific clients. Pitts said he is aware of the Delaware lawsuit and "is cooperating fully with authorities in the matter."

    POKER EMPIRE

    Another man linked to 2710 Thomes is Ira N. Rubin. Prosecutors allege he created a Rube Goldberg-style network of shell and shelf corporations to further his scams.

    In December 2006, the Federal Trade Commission sued Rubin for fraud in federal court in Tampa. Documents in the civil lawsuit allege Rubin used at least 18 different front companies to obscure his role as a credit-card processor for telemarketing scams.

    These operations, the FTC alleged, offered subprime credit cards that charged an upfront fee debited from customers' bank accounts, but the cards were never delivered. The complaint also alleged Rubin processed payments for online gambling rings and pharmacy websites selling controlled substances.

    One company in that network was Elite Funding Group Inc. It was registered at 2710 Thomes Avenue in August 2004 and offered for sale by Wyoming Corporate Services for $1,095. Gerald Pitts was listed in public documents as the original director, wrote an investigator hired by the FTC in a January 2007 report filed in federal court in Tampa. Pitts had resigned six months earlier as director and was replaced by Rubin, according to court records.

    Rubin's maze-like network served as the back office for alleged consumer scams operating from Canada, the Philippines, Cyprus and the U.S., with names like Freedom Pharmacy and Fun Time Bingo. His companies took consumer bank account information obtained by the clients, charged the accounts via an electronic transactions network that enables direct debits, kept a portion of the proceeds, and forwarded the rest to the alleged fraudsters, according to documents in the FTC's civil lawsuit.

    To minimize scrutiny, Rubin used at least 18 different firms to handle his operations. A firm called Global Marketing Group processed payments for telemarketers offering bogus credit cards, the FTC alleged. Elite Funding, the Wyoming shelf corporation, was a subsidiary of Global Marketing. Rubin used Elite to open bank accounts with Wells Fargo Bank which held more than $300,000 in proceeds from the payment processing, according to court records.

    Just hours after Rubin was visited by a court-appointed receiver in the case in December 2006, $249,000 vanished from the Wells Fargo account. Rubin refused to say if he transferred the money, citing his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. At least $125,000 then made its way to a bank account in Chennai, India, and has never been recovered, according to documents in the civil lawsuit.

    Why use a shelf company? "To hide who they are and what they are doing. In the case of Ira Rubin, he had a payment processing empire that worked on behalf of many different industries, all of which were engaged in illegal conduct," said James Davis, an attorney with the Federal Trade Commission. "It was to his benefit to make it as difficult as possible for law enforcement to connect these companies back to him."

    In 2008, Rubin fled to Costa Rica to avoid arrest for contempt in the civil case. Authorities allege he went on to run another payment-processing operation from abroad: This March 10, he and 10 others were indicted in New York for allegedly running a massive scheme to hide payments made by U.S. customers to the three largest online-poker websites, in violation of a ban passed by Congress in 2006. He was extradited from Guatemala the same month. On June 8, a New York judge denied bail for Rubin. (link.reuters.com/jud42s)

    Stuart Meissner, an attorney for Rubin, said his client was not available for comment. Pitts declined to comment.

    AMERICAN LOOPHOLES

    The loopholes in U.S. disclosure of bank-account and shell-company ownership have drawn fire.

    The U.S. was declared "non-compliant" in four out of 40 categories monitored by the Financial Action Task Force, an international group fighting money laundering and terrorism finance, in a 2006 evaluation report, its most recent. Two of those ratings relate to scant information collected on the owners of corporations. The task force named Wyoming, Nevada and Delaware as secrecy havens. Only three states - Alaska, Arizona and Montana - require regular disclosure of corporate shareholders in some form, according to the 2009 report by the National Association of Secretaries of State.

    Some lawmakers want tighter rules. Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee's Permanent Subcommittee for Investigations, has introduced the Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act each year since 2008. The bill would require states to obtain and update information about the real owners of companies, and impose civil and criminal sanctions for filing false information.

    "Criminals use U.S. shell companies to commit financial fraud, drug trafficking, even terrorist financing, in part because our states don't require anyone to name the owners of the companies they form," Levin said in an email to Reuters.

    The bill has been beaten back by a coalition of state officials and business groups, citing concerns about the cost of implementing the new law and federal government infringement on state incorporation rights.

    A leading opponent is the National Association of Secretaries of State. Kay Stimson, a spokeswoman, said in an email that the Levin bill "would have placed new burdens upon states and legitimate, law-abiding businesses-many of which are struggling to stay afloat during these difficult financial times-while continuing to provide lawbreakers with the means to evade the law."

    An aide for Levin said the bill is expected to be re-introduced soon. The new bill will add provisions requiring incorporation agents who sell shelf companies to provide beneficial owner data, said a Senate aide familiar with it.

    CAT AND MOUSE

    Shell companies remain a headache for law-enforcement authorities. Officials say court-ordered subpoenas served on incorporators of shell and shelf corporations generally do deliver the names of the real owners hiding behind nominees. But if the owners are not U.S. citizens or companies, the investigation often hits a dead-end, they say.

    There are additional hurdles. Wyoming Corporate Services charges $2,500 per year to supply an attorney who can provide an extra shield. Cheyenne attorney Graham Norris Jr. tells prospective clients sent to him by WCS that he will create a company on their behalf. That way, he says, he can invoke attorney-client privilege-adding a layer of privacy anytime there is an inquiry about their identities.

    "When you do need to contact Wyoming Corporate Services, you may do so through me," advises a June 13 "Dear Client" letter supplied by Norris to Reuters. "If you contact them directly, there is a greater risk they may disclose that information in response to a subpoena; remember there is no privilege with Wyoming Corporate Services, only with your attorney."

    For a fee, clients can request that Norris file a motion to quash any subpoena, the letter says. It warns that in cases where fraud or criminal conduct is alleged, a court might order Norris to name the owners. Still, after any inquiry about identity, the letter says, Norris must inform the client-and "I must also decline to answer the inquiry."

    Investigators say they are sometimes loath to use subpoenas for the very reason highlighted in Norris' letter-fear of tipping off targets. "In the initial stages of investigation, when we encounter a domestic shell corporation, we know we can't subpoena the company that sold the corporation to the end users, because we don't want the target to find out they are being investigated," says FTC attorney James Davis.

    Other U.S. agencies raise similar complaints about shells. The 2006 U.S. Money Laundering Threat Assessment, prepared by 16 federal agencies, devotes a chapter to the ways U.S. shell companies can be attractive vehicles to hide ill-gotten funds. It includes a chart to show why money launderers might like to create shells in Wyoming, Nevada or Delaware, which offer the highest levels of corporate anonymity.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...75R20Z20110628


    What do you think? Would it be an undo burden on legitimate businesses if Levin's bill passes?

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...75R20Z20110628


    What do you think? Would it be an undo burden on legitimate businesses if Levin's bill passes?
    While Congress does have the power to regulate interstate commerce and it can presumably act in this area if it so chooses, I can see the point in leaving this in the hands of state authorities. Even if three states are being fairly lax. But then, I really don't care for lots of centralization, which is what the Levin bill is doing. It's way more than just establishing some uniform standards.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  3. #3
    Fair enough. But how would states with lax regulation know they're being exploited for their loopholes, without some centralized body keeping track?

  4. #4
    This article is making sort of a strawman. This issue isn't about "secrecy" but about criminal activity. Yet the article (and Levin's bill) assumes most small incorporated companies are just "shells" for criminal enterprises. It's bull. Many of them merely hold and transfer assets like homes, stock, etc.

    And trying to spin the fundamentals of a limited-liability company as a legal cover to commit fraud is equally BS. The limited-liability corporation is a 200+ year old development that has made tons of new businesses feasible by allowing people to take constructive risks. Fraud is fraud; incorporation isn't fraud.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    This article is making sort of a strawman. This issue isn't about "secrecy" but about criminal activity.
    Surely you noted I didn't create the title, but swiped it from the byline. And most criminal activity is best operated under 'secrecy'.

    Yet the article (and Levin's bill) assumes most small incorporated companies are just "shells" for criminal enterprises. It's bull. Many of them merely hold and transfer assets like homes, stock, etc.

    And trying to spin the fundamentals of a limited-liability company as a legal cover to commit fraud is equally BS. The limited-liability corporation is a 200+ year old development that has made tons of new businesses feasible by allowing people to take constructive risks. Fraud is fraud; incorporation isn't fraud.
    That doesn't explain away the fact the some LLC is fraudulent, and exploiting lax state regulations. You may think it's all bull and BS (hot air for EJ ) and not agree with Levin's bill. The article even says there are legitimate reasons and purposes served by shells and shelfs. But this should raise some red flags:

    "In the U.S., (business incorporation) is completely unregulated," says Jason Sharman, a professor at Griffith University in Nathan, Australia, who is preparing a study for the World Bank on corporate formation worldwide. "Somalia has slightly higher standards than Wyoming and Nevada."

  6. #6
    I know you didn't create the title. And I'm criticizing it nonetheless.

    It shouldn't be difficult to form a corporation. Corporations are simply legal entities that hold assets and transact on their own on behalf of individuals or groups.

    The existence of easy-to-create corporations doesn't lead to fraud. Each of these fraudulent companies being "exposed" are exploiting people in pretty much every other way besides incorporating. The incorporation itself just sets up a place for the money to collect. I've yet to see a place that makes it difficult to incorporate also be fraud-free; it just pushes fraud deeper underground.

    EG Italy's massive underground economy.

  7. #7
    I suddenly have to think about Jamiroquai.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  8. #8
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    /waves a lighter in front of earthJoker's face

    Godzilla!
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I know you didn't create the title. And I'm criticizing it nonetheless.

    It shouldn't be difficult to form a corporation. Corporations are simply legal entities that hold assets and transact on their own on behalf of individuals or groups.

    The existence of easy-to-create corporations doesn't lead to fraud. Each of these fraudulent companies being "exposed" are exploiting people in pretty much every other way besides incorporating. The incorporation itself just sets up a place for the money to collect. I've yet to see a place that makes it difficult to incorporate also be fraud-free; it just pushes fraud deeper underground.

    EG Italy's massive underground economy.
    It's not difficult to form a corporation. That's part of the point. Incorporating doesn't lead to fraud....it's our 50-state-tax structure with so many loopholes a small country could drive through.

    Of course, many people don't like centralized government, and want states to determine their own laws as they see fit. But this automatic opposition and vitriol toward any federal oversight or national coordination is getting ridiculous.

  10. #10
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    It's not difficult to form a corporation. That's part of the point. Incorporating doesn't lead to fraud....it's our 50-state-tax structure with so many loopholes a small country could drive through.

    Of course, many people don't like centralized government, and want states to determine their own laws as they see fit. But this automatic opposition and vitriol toward any federal oversight or national coordination is getting ridiculous.
    So what are you suggesting? That DC decides how Maine sets up it's tax code? Really?
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
    So what are you suggesting? That DC decides how Maine sets up it's tax code? Really?
    More like monitoring and oversight, publishing public reports that people can read, and petition their state legislators.

    The U.S. was declared "non-compliant" in four out of 40 categories monitored by the Financial Action Task Force, an international group fighting money laundering and terrorism finance, in a 2006 evaluation report, its most recent.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    It's not difficult to form a corporation. That's part of the point. Incorporating doesn't lead to fraud....it's our 50-state-tax structure with so many loopholes a small country could drive through.

    Of course, many people don't like centralized government, and want states to determine their own laws as they see fit. But this automatic opposition and vitriol toward any federal oversight or national coordination is getting ridiculous.
    No, my point is that it's not difficult to form a corporation and that's just fine. In fact, it's a good thing.

    Varying tax laws between our states don't lead to fraud. That just determines what your tax rates and deductions are. Fraud leads to fraud. It has literally nothing to do with tax rates.

  13. #13
    Lax tax laws and weak oversight leads to people off-shoring and hiding money in Swiss bank accounts or Cayman Islands, ease of money laundering (and what they call terrorism finance). Now available in the US Plains.

  14. #14
    Tax laws aren't lax. Tax rates and deductions vary from state to state. Filing taxes in different states doesn't negate your obligation to file taxes at the federal level. Nor does it encourage you to launder money through the Cayman Islands.

    But you know what does encourage that kind of behavior? High tax rates and overly-cumbersome tax laws.

    But, once again, the existence of different tax laws in different states has almost nothing to do with fraud of terrorism.

  15. #15
    Probably why there are legal fights about living in CT or NJ and working in NY, where the LLC originates, and which state gets what taxes. It may not be fraudulent, but that's how loopholes work.

    What's your solution? Encourage all states to adopt the same rules as Wyoming, Nevada and Delaware?

  16. #16
    What solution is needed? This isn't a problem. The problem is fraudulent companies existing. The solution is to fight fraud, not fight companies. It's like banning spoons because people are getting too fat from ice cream.

  17. #17
    From that perspective, how would you fight fraud? So far all you've said is tax laws aren't lax, and what leads to fraud are high tax rates and cumbersome tax laws. If you think lowering tax rates and changing tax laws are the solution....does that also mean you'd get rid of regulations, regulators, and over-sight?

  18. #18
    I'm saying that fraud is fraud. There is tax fraud, but you're connecting actual fraud with the existence of corporations in different states with different tax rates. The argument in your opening post is that Ukranian discount Viagra scams proliferate because it's easy to incorporate in Wyoming.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Probably why there are legal fights about living in CT or NJ and working in NY, where the LLC originates, and which state gets what taxes. It may not be fraudulent, but that's how loopholes work.

    What's your solution? Encourage all states to adopt the same rules as Wyoming, Nevada and Delaware?
    How would that be different than creating an expansive federal regulatory framework eventually replacing all the state laws which Levin wants to do? Part of the POINT of having 50 different units is to AVOID this "one size fits all" approach trying to pound all the square pegs into the round centralized hole.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I'm saying that fraud is fraud. There is tax fraud, but you're connecting actual fraud with the existence of corporations in different states with different tax rates. The argument in your opening post is that Ukranian discount Viagra scams proliferate because it's easy to incorporate in Wyoming.
    I'm sorry, but I don't see how that answered my question about how you'd suggest we fight fraud.

  21. #21
    I don't see how you answered the point that having a streamlined incorporation process encourages fraud.

  22. #22
    IMO, consistency discourages gaps or loopholes, for fraud or illegality to find its way via exploitation. You still haven't answered my question, though. How would you suggest we fight fraud? As a nation of states....

  23. #23
    You're equating tax exceptions with fraud. Tax exceptions (AKA loopholes) are entirely legal, and have nothing to do with preventing Ukranian mafia syndicates from selling fake Viagra via Internet ads and stealing the credit card info of anyone who buys.

    You fight that by working with the credit card companies to track/block said criminals from the payment system, freezing their assets and prosecuting them wherever possible. Incorporation, if anything, makes it easier to track them.

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    I'm sorry, but I don't see how that answered my question about how you'd suggest we fight fraud.
    Frankly, Dread is right. You fight fraud by. . . fighting fraud. Current methods are working reasonably well. You keep citing that one international body, but the fact is that 46 *or was it 47?* states aren't a concern to them. We'd only want to target the creation of every potential vehicle for fraud *i.e. corporations* if a significant portion were being misused so that they have effectively become a proxy for fraudulent entities which is not the case. This is not a major concern. We do not presently need to change anything. If we did want to change anything, the appropriate method would be to seek to convince legislative authorities in "trouble" states to implement some tighter strictures, rather than force centralized rule-making on a bunch of independent administrative units which are doing just fine on their own so far.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    ....If we did want to change anything, the appropriate method would be to seek to convince legislative authorities in "trouble" states to implement some tighter strictures, rather than force centralized rule-making on a bunch of independent administrative units which are doing just fine on their own so far.
    And that would be good. I would support that. I never said Levin's proposals were the best alternative.

    After all, I started out asking a question....

    But it's like pulling teeth to get *some* people to stop hammering on me, or whatever article I link, and post their own damn opinion.

    The only way we'd know what's a "trouble" state is with some type of centralized tracking or oversight. That doesn't have to mean "forcing" rules on states or independent units, but some national body or agency has to be keeping track. Not just which states are a target for fraud or money laundering, but which states are attracting legitimate businesses with no complaints about the rules.

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    And that would be good. I would support that. I never said Levin's proposals were the best alternative.

    After all, I started out asking a question....

    But it's like pulling teeth to get *some* people to stop hammering on me, or whatever article I link, and post their own damn opinion.
    This might be a reason. Because that's not my opinion. I said IF we wanted to change anything. Immediately prior to saying that I typed "this is not a major concern. We do not need to change anything." I gave my opinion AND YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED IT. You do that almost EVERY TIME someone actually posts what you say you want them to post. And again, you just turned my actually giving my opinion, as you asked, into a conversational gambit about you.

    The only way we'd know what's a "trouble" state is with some type of centralized tracking or oversight. That doesn't have to mean "forcing" rules on states or independent units, but some national body or agency has to be keeping track.
    You mean like the FBI crime statistics we already have?

    Not just which states are a target for fraud or money laundering, but which states are attracting legitimate businesses with no complaints about the rules.
    Can't do it. Too politicized, too much a PR machine. Every state insists that they're growing the right way and states doing things they don't like *example I'm most familiar with because it's local is California vs Texas* are actually failing, and cheating to boot.

    I know what you're going to think when you read that, you're saying *and planning to post* "well why can't we just get and disseminate accurate information? That's all I want, and it's not hard". Let me remind me of the gripe you JUST made in another thread about the government's official unemployment statistics. The government is not a panacea. "Have Washington DC do something" is not a solution to this problem or all the other things you simplistically suggest *and then gripe at the rest of us for being naysayers when we don't agree*
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    This might be a reason. Because that's not my opinion. I said IF we wanted to change anything. Immediately prior to saying that I typed "this is not a major concern. We do not need to change anything." I gave my opinion AND YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED IT. You do that almost EVERY TIME someone actually posts what you say you want them to post. And again, you just turned my actually giving my opinion, as you asked, into a conversational gambit about you.
    Wow. Any more tiny hairs you wanna braid? Point taken, you don't want to change anything, it's not a major concern, your opinion is/was noted. Sorry if you think posting my opinion automatically means it's all about me, or that your opinion has been ignored.

    You mean like the FBI crime statistics we already have?

    Can't do it. Too politicized, too much a PR machine. Every state insists that they're growing the right way and states doing things they don't like *example I'm most familiar with because it's local is California vs Texas* are actually failing, and cheating to boot.

    I know what you're going to think when you read that, you're saying *and planning to post* "well why can't we just get and disseminate accurate information? That's all I want, and it's not hard". Let me remind me of the gripe you JUST made in another thread about the government's official unemployment statistics. The government is not a panacea. "Have Washington DC do something" is not a solution to this problem or all the other things you simplistically suggest *and then gripe at the rest of us for being naysayers when we don't agree*
    Another wow. I've never said "government" is a panacea, for anything. Am I supposed to debate you on what you *think* you know about what I read or how I *plan* to post? Am I supposed to make sure you know YOUR OPINION IS NOT COMPLETELY IGNORED? Or that, indeed, your opinions are duly noted, respected and appreciated?

    Whatever the fuck else is going on here has nothing to do with PR machines, states failing or cheating, or hypothetical arm-chair problem solving. Whomever "the rest of us for being naysayers when we don't agree" means, I'm not griping about differing opinions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •