The Panama Papers: WikiLeaks ain't got nothing on it.

[Khendraja'aro]

Introductory article in English

Yes, you read that right: 2.6 TB (yes, Tera) of financial data on about 214,000 companies. The fallout from this has the chance to become epic.

Iceland is probably due for its second crisis as members of the current government (among them the prime minister and the minister of finance) are revealed having done some very shady business deals - something which will not resonate happily with the populace, in light of 2008 (and particularly in light of the statements of said members leading up to their candidacy).

Not to mention that one of the guys of the ethics committee for FIFA, who is supposed to clean up the mess, has been also involved in such shenanigans.

Oh boy.

[Loki]

In all seriousness, I'd put money on this being more globally destabilizing than ISIS (not that I feel particularly sorry for the politicians and other elites who'll take most of the damage). Autocracies will be fine because they can suppress this information (and repress any protests). Democracies should be ok because of elections or recall processes. The countries in between are in for a lot of hurt. Their rulers need a semblance of legitimacy. And while corruption is ever-present, it's difficult to verify its scale. I'd be surprised if we don't get multiple governments falling and even civil conflict as a result of this.

Here's the Ukrainian version:

http://www.kyivpost.com/article/cont...an-411261.html

And Azerbaijan resumes its conflict with Armenia right before these papers are leaked, implicated the president's family.

[earthJoker]

I am just wondering if the current Brazilian "elite" has some money laundered there as well.

[RandBlade]

In all seriousness, I'd put money on this being more globally destabilizing than ISIS (not that I feel particularly sorry for the politicians and other elites who'll take most of the damage).

Doubt it, so far the stories to come out are a bit "meh". Unless there's more to it than has come out so far (and given journalists have had this a while you'd think they'd have at least one big story to lead with) it doesn't seem a patch on Wikileaks let alone ISIS so far.

Autocrats have money in tax havens is a dog bites man story, not a man bites dog story.

[Khendraja'aro]

Cameron is an autocrat now, eh?

[Loki]

Doubt it, so far the stories to come out are a bit "meh". Unless there's more to it than has come out so far (and given journalists have had this a while you'd think they'd have at least one big story to lead with) it doesn't seem a patch on Wikileaks let alone ISIS so far.

Autocrats have money in tax havens is a dog bites man story, not a man bites dog story.

Suspicion isn't the same as concrete evidence, evidence that will be very difficult to ignore. The Arab Spring was sparked by less (incidentally, part of the reason it started in Tunisia is because wikileaks confirmed some long-suspected sources of the regime's corruption shortly prior to the revolt).

http://www.businessinsider.com/tunisia-wikileaks-2011-1

[RandBlade]

Cameron is an autocrat now, eh?

David Cameron isn't involved in this at all.

[Steely Glint]

I'm with Randell on this one; the only thing of substance that will come of this is if it acts as a catalyst for an actually concerted effort to crack down on these tax havens. Half the bloody places are UK Overseas Territories.

[Loki]

Only thing? The PM of Iceland is on the verge of being forced out of office. Ukrainian officials are calling for an investigation of the sitting president. Russian officials are in full-out conspiracy mode. And these papers just came out.

[Steely Glint]

Iceland has a population of 25, and Ukraine is always changing leaders and Russian officials are always in full on conspiracy mode.

In all seriousness, those events are not nothing but comparing them to ISIS might have been a little premature.

[Aimless]

Okay, in 6-12 months' we must remember to return to this thread and tally the score.

[RandBlade]

Good idea, pretty sure ISIS will have caused more deaths than these papers.

[Loki]

Destabilizing governments has a more profound and long-term impact than killing a lot of people. I wouldn't be surprised if ISIS has no Syrian cities within a year.

[earthJoker]

Only thing? The PM of Iceland is on the verge of being forced out of office. Ukrainian officials are calling for an investigation of the sitting president. Russian officials are in full-out conspiracy mode. And these papers just came out.

+ China has blocked all information about Panama papers already.

[Hazir]

Only thing? The PM of Iceland is on the verge of being forced out of office. Ukrainian officials are calling for an investigation of the sitting president. Russian officials are in full-out conspiracy mode. And these papers just came out.

As the Icelandic situation is hardly new, I wouldn't necessarily think that the Icelandic PM being forced out of office is the effect of these leaks alone. The Ukranian officals may call all they want but the president has immunity, and it's highly questionable if he did something illegal in the first place. In a place as corrupt as Ukraine I think you need a lot better than smart parking of your assets to be forced out. As for Russia; I doubt there is anyone who isn't 100% that the Russian elite has tons of money outside of the country; everybody knows that in Russia money isn't real money untill you got it out of the country.

[Khendraja'aro]

David Cameron isn't involved in this at all.

Riiight. If you believe that I've got a bridge to sell for cheap.

"I'm this big fighter for transparency and against corruption! ... I don't know what that has anything to do with my father!"

[Ominous Gamer]

Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson, Iceland's prime minister, has become the first casualty of the so-called Panama Papers scandal after he offered to resign Tuesday, his press office told CNBC.
Illegal or not, the public doesn't like their elected officials keeping secrets when it comes to money and conflicts of interest.


Are these papers being released in sections? Cause I haven't heard much on the US elite, something like this could turn the election on its head. Its already working in Bernie's favor.

[Ominous Gamer]

+ China has blocked all information about Panama papers already.

China has blocked Chinese based discussions about the panama papers. they have not yet blocked accessing foreign news sites concerning the papers.

[RandBlade]

Destabilizing governments has a more profound and long-term impact than killing a lot of people. I wouldn't be surprised if ISIS has no Syrian cities within a year.

ISIS have not just killed, tortured, maimed and raped many hundreds of thousands of people and displaced millions but they have also caused the biggest refugee crisis the world has seen since WWII. This has destabilised not just Syria and Iraq but also caused a tremendous impact on neighbouring nations and Europe. The Schengen agreement has been ripped apart as a result and the far right and other nationalists are getting elected across continental Europe in levels not seen since the 1930s.

This turmoil could result in the UK voting to leave the EU ... which would not just destabilise the UK and potentially see Scotland vote to leave the UK, but could destabilise the EU even further and may see Scandinavian nations and Hungary join the UK, Norway and Iceland in being outside the EU.

The Mayor of an Atlantic Fishing Village PM of Iceland resigning has nothing on that.

Riiight. If you believe that I've got a bridge to sell for cheap.

"I'm this big fighter for transparency and against corruption! ... I don't know what that has anything to do with my father!"

That his late father had (entirely legal) off-shore accounts in the 1970s is not news, the Guardian wrote about it back in 2012. However nothing has changed since four years ago, it's got sod all to do with David Cameron what his father did. Just as the Daily Mail attempting a hatchet job on the Labour leader's father was very weak, this is very weak too. Judge politicians what they've done in office, not what their dead parents did forty years ago

[Ominous Gamer]

Iceland has a population of 25, and Ukraine is always changing leaders and Russian officials are always in full on conspiracy mode.

Yeah you're joking, but they have a population of 320,000 people, and yesterday looked like something this:



An estimated 24,000 people protested yesterday, and they are protesting again today cause they want blood and the PM isn't enough.

[Steely Glint]

That's less than the population of Cumbria, where I live, which is one of the least populated counties in the UK. This is like the chief councillor of Cumbria County Council having an offshore bank account, which now that I think of it would be hilarious.

[Steely Glint]

"Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson"

How is that not the name of a warhammer character, come on.


Iceland’s prime minister Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson speaks in parliament on Monday.

[Timbuk2]

This is like the chief councillor of Cumbria County Council having an offshore bank account, which now that I think of it would be hilarious.

Sig-worthy.

[Aimless]

Misleading comparison.

[Wraith]

Turns out this was all a plot inspired by Putinophobia. Anyone who believes anything in these papers is a Putinophobe.

[Loki]

I like how Wikileaks has officially become a Putin stooge.

[wiggin]

That's less than the population of Cumbria, where I live, which is one of the least populated counties in the UK. This is like the chief councillor of Cumbria County Council having an offshore bank account, which now that I think of it would be hilarious.

While I appreciate the tongue-in-cheek nature of your comment, there is a reason why even small countries are seen as somehow more important than similarly sized (or populous, or rich) sub-sovereign entities. It's the same reason why the world pays more attention to Bibi Netanyahu's opinions on geopolitics than Bill de Blasio's, despite them both presiding over similarly sized populations and de Blasio running a much larger economy. Hint: it might have something to do with 600,000 troops, a few hundred fighter-bombers, and nuclear weapons.

Now, obviously Iceland's military is small to the point of nonexistence but the same basic principle applies. Sub-national entities have relatively limited control over many policies that are of greater import - not just defense policy, but also diplomatic relations, macroeconomic policy, and probably most important for this example, regulations pertaining to the financial sector. The scope for impactful corruption is much higher at the national level than at the local level, even if the sizes are the same. Granted, much of your every day grubby corruption actually happens at the regional/local level (think zoning rulings and patronage and kickbacks), but people tend not to be as exercised about that. And don't forget that it's unlikely the likes of the Cumbria chief councillor would have had the power to set up the regulation that resulted in the equivalent of the Icesave debacle or the wholesale gutting of the Cumbrian economy; too much power is in the hands of Westminster and 10 Downing for him (or her?) to do that much damage.

Now I don't actually know if the Icelandic PM did anything wrong, here - having an offshore bank account is not in and of itself evidence of illegality or corruption. But in principle I see the concern.

[Khendraja'aro]

Now I don't actually know if the Icelandic PM did anything wrong, here - having an offshore bank account is not in and of itself evidence of illegality or corruption. But in principle I see the concern.

From what I read, he and his minister of finance were required by law (created due to the previous problems) to make public having such accounts / investments upon becoming part of the government.

They did not.

Also, parts of their campaign rested on fighting the very thing they're now accused of.

[Steely Glint]

While I appreciate the tongue-in-cheek nature of your comment, there is a reason why even small countries are seen as somehow more important than similarly sized (or populous, or rich) sub-sovereign entities. It's the same reason why the world pays more attention to Bibi Netanyahu's opinions on geopolitics than Bill de Blasio's, despite them both presiding over similarly sized populations and de Blasio running a much larger economy. Hint: it might have something to do with 600,000 troops, a few hundred fighter-bombers, and nuclear weapons.

Now, obviously Iceland's military is small to the point of nonexistence but the same basic principle applies. Sub-national entities have relatively limited control over many policies that are of greater import - not just defense policy, but also diplomatic relations, macroeconomic policy, and probably most important for this example, regulations pertaining to the financial sector. The scope for impactful corruption is much higher at the national level than at the local level, even if the sizes are the same. Granted, much of your every day grubby corruption actually happens at the regional/local level (think zoning rulings and patronage and kickbacks), but people tend not to be as exercised about that. And don't forget that it's unlikely the likes of the Cumbria chief councillor would have had the power to set up the regulation that resulted in the equivalent of the Icesave debacle or the wholesale gutting of the Cumbrian economy; too much power is in the hands of Westminster and 10 Downing for him (or her?) to do that much damage.

Now I don't actually know if the Icelandic PM did anything wrong, here - having an offshore bank account is not in and of itself evidence of illegality or corruption. But in principle I see the concern.

To be honest, I don't even know if there is such a post as chief councillor, which perhaps supports your case.

However, in terms of a) the amount of lives he would be able to disrupt if he went apeshit and b) it's capacity to affect the wider global economy and political situation the comparison is a bit more apt. If we're looking at global destabilization and the biggest thing to come out of the panama papers is the fall of the prime minister of iceland then colour me unimpressed.

[wiggin]

To be honest, I don't even know if there is such a post as chief councillor, which perhaps supports your case.

In case you were wondering, I believe the closest would be the Cumbria County Council Chief Executive, Diane Wood: http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/aboutyourc...mchiefexec.asp

Not to be confused with the rather more famous head of the US 7th Circuit's Appellate Court, who is routinely on SCOTUS shortlists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Wood

However, in terms of a) the amount of lives he would be able to disrupt if he went apeshit and b) it's capacity to affect the wider global economy and political situation the comparison is a bit more apt. If we're looking at global destabilization and the biggest thing to come out of the panama papers is the fall of the prime minister of iceland then colour me unimpressed.

I don't know about you, but I think Icesave really affected a lot of people. If it was because Icelandic politicos were secretly in the pay of the financial sector looking for a low-regulation haven with access to EU markets, then potentially this is of substantial import, especially to UK taxpayers who bore the brunt of that mess. Granted, Iceland's implosion was still a minor side act to the financial crisis, but there are other small territories that are rather more important to the global financial system, and a financial crisis emanating from one of them could indeed be rather destabilizing - say, Singapore. The point is that size isn't really all that important for determining the impact of an individual's mismanagement of their responsibilities.

I agree with your broader point that we don't have much evidence yet that the Panama Papers are going to have as big of an effect on geopolitics as Loki et al seem to predict. I think it's very hard to tell right now - so far the revelations have been more along the lines of 'dog bites man', with some minor exceptions. Most of the really egregious cases seem to be in countries where no one expected anything different (e.g. Putin, some of the Chinese stuff), or where the political class was already ridiculously mired in corruption scandals (e.g. Brazil or FIFA). But who knows? There's a lot of data, and we might still turn up something that could really take down important players or cause mass protests. I think it's too early to know. We might look back and see the Iceland situation as just the tip of a very large iceberg - or, instead, we might forget about it entirely as merely a blip on the radar.

From what I read, he and his minister of finance were required by law (created due to the previous problems) to make public having such accounts / investments upon becoming part of the government.

They did not.

I read this as well but I don't know the intricacies of the law (or their holdings) to evaluate whether this action was indeed in itself fraudulent. Furthermore, even if this was technically illegal, it does not necessarily mean it's a big scandal - if the money was legally obtained and handled, then the information was withheld as a result of the potential for political embarrassment, not a concern about corruption charges. Illegal, perhaps, but not really all that awful. I might not vote for the guy, but it doesn't suggest there is some systematic buying of influence or the like that people imagine when offshore accounts of politicians are discussed.

Also, parts of their campaign rested on fighting the very thing they're now accused of.

That's merely hypocrisy, not illegal or corrupt. And I think hypocrisy is a bit overrated - I'd prefer people have high standards that they fail to meet on occasion rather than having lower standards they can easily surpass. We are all hypocritical in one way or another, and that doesn't mean that our ideals are wrong. It just means we are imperfect.