Posted by on May 21, 2016 in Uncategorized | 0 comments

The Panamanian law office at the center of an international examination recommended some clients that they could mask their money in foundations that called as recipient’s popular international charities such as the Red Cross, UNICEF and the World Wildlife Fund.

There’s no indication that any money from those overseas transactions went to the charities, whose spokespeople state they had no clue they were part of Mossack Fonseca s marketing strategy.

A massive leak of records, which became known as the Panama Papers, has actually laid bare Mossack Fonseca s services and its customers among them world leaders, drug traffickers and founded guilty bad guys. In their files are two memos recommending that customers might move their assets into so-called personal foundations with well-known charities as their expected recipient. The documents recommend that the firm took steps to produce such foundations for a minimum of 700 customers.
Nearly everyone is familiar with foundations huge and small that help the poor, the environment or the animal kingdom. They are nonprofits that rely on donations. Personal foundations formed in Panama, however, are quite different.One Mossack Fonseca marketing memo, sent out to a potential customer in 2008, provides this roadmap: Only three people are required to set up a foundation. Foundations don t have shareholders, only advantageous owners.

As behind-the-scenes protectors, the real owners or their agents would have overall decision-making power, like the Wizard of Oz, operating the controls from behind a curtain. They could privately make or approve every choice about their possessions and might at any time alter the names of the recipients to themselves, the 2008 marketing memo stated.

A complicated structure

p1Mossack Fonseca’s records reveal that it created foundations for customers at least as early as 1997. A 2006 marketing memo provided complete management of personal foundations that would keep the rigorous confidentiality of the recipient services that could be helped with by a group of English, Spanish, French, German, Polish and Russian speaking staff.

The firm produced 2 automobiles for parking clients’ money in foundations the Brotherhood Foundation and the Faith Foundation. Under the confusing structure, those foundations were offered shareholder interests in numerous business formed to serve the firm s clients, a circular method of securing the real owners interests. The Brotherhood and Faith foundations listed either the Red Cross or Wildlife Fund as recipients.

We usually use the WORLD WILDLIFE FUND as the first small Beneficiary, the memo said, while guaranteeing clients: You might name another.

Amongst the documents is paperwork to develop more than 200 other foundations, noting both the true owners and the 2 charities, as well as UNICEF, as beneficiaries. It could not be determined how many of those foundations were brought to fulfillment.

Ana Mar a Garz n, a public relations advisor to Mossack Fonseca, declined to respond to emailed concerns from McClatchy.

The firm has actually stated that it is totally free to list anyone or any group as a foundation beneficiary. In a 2014 memo, the law firm stated that it merely offered its customers secretarial services.

Specialists in offshore negotiations, however, said marketing memos suggest that Mossack Fonseca took a more proactive function.

This is a plan made to look like a charity so that the cash can be managed, and the name of the individual who controls it will be no place on the documents, stated Jack Blum, a specialist on global tax evasion for Columbia University’s Center for the Advancement of Public Integrity. He said that some foundations function as household trusts, and when they are dissolved, the funds are distributed to all beneficial owners.