Watch: peckvillchen.blogspot.com

There are new fun postings in Luxembourgish. Why not learn another language?

Luxembourg: Time for Introspection.

I remember the time of several great Luxembourg Statesmen: Joseph Bech and Pierre Werner who efficiently navigated the course between the conflicting interests of our bigger neighbors and Gaston Thorn, certainly exhibiting a different style, but as successful on the international scene as his two predecessors. And yet, despite their efforts not to hurt our neighbors’ sensitivities, they were not of the kind to give in easily when they neighbors pressured us. They very often actually avoided pressures quite artfully.

Recently, almost all our leaders got into a competition about who among them could blow his horn more forcefully, to protest a general assault on Luxembourg's banking secret. They promised the mother of all battles, and the echo from abroad promised the same.

I want to share a personal experience that I had with Pierre Werner that I never forgot. He was the father of the Luxembourg satellite company. That project was certainly not to the liking of French President François Mitterrand. When eventually the launch of the first Luxembourg satellite was scheduled, I traveled with the Crown Prince of Luxembourg and Mr. Werner to Kourou, French Guyana in December of 1988. The French officials in place were obviously uncertain about protocol arrangements, as French Presidential sensitivity was in the air. After the launch, the Crown Prince did two announcements, one in Luxembourgish and one in English, none in French. Pierre Werner told me that it was a missed occasion to mend the fences, which traditionally we would always try to do. He didn’t want to break any Limoges porcelain, and therefore got his satellite flying.

The shrill display of holy anger that our men in the arena exhibited lately demonstrates that they obviously skipped many classes from the great teachers mentioned above. They did break the Limoges set, and yet there is no banking secret anymore.

Some haven’t noticed yet and are still tooting their horns. What is Luxembourg to do? (And also Austria, Liechtenstein Switzerland, Cayman and all the others). Only one thing: COMPLIANCE.

There is no way around compliance with OECD standards to get off the grey list of tax havens. Eventually anti tax haven compliance requirements will merge with those of anti money laundering and counter terrorist financing.

There should be no weakness in Luxembourg’s overall compliance. OECD rules and FATF recommendations may be imperfect. Luxembourg’s compliance with them should be perfect. There is no room left for another blow at our reputation. OECD and FATF might be criticized for lax regulations. Luxembourg doesn’t have that luxury.

It would even be thoughtful to start preparing for yet another requirement in the future: avoiding the upcoming list of judiciary and regulatory havens. I’ll use my personal experience in Luxembourg as a demo, a practical guide through the concept of the judicial and regulatory haven, all the while poking some fun into it. Sorry, it will be in Luxembourgish mostly, on my blog that is peckvillchen.blogspot.com. That dirty linen cannot be washed in English.

New Post

Please see this post in French at my other blog:
http://feierwon.blogspot.com/2009/05/la-paix-t-elle-eclate.html

Luxembourg and Liechtenstein Enter Talks on Tax Agreement

This was reported in international news media over the weekend. As the language used by news agencies adds a little confusion to the confusion that exists anyway over OECD standards, it is probably going to be an agreement on exchange of information on tax matters between the two countries. Compliance with those OECD standards is the goal.

This is of course in response to both countries’ grey-listing by the OECD/G20 duo in April. It is somewhat funny that OECD criteria to get off the grey list are to have at least 12 of those bilateral agreements in place. This sounds a little bit bizarre as a behavioral code between nations, and is reminiscent of boy scouts collecting badges. There will certainly be some jokes about which exotic place exchanges badges with which other one.

Luxembourg has to have a lucid look back at its mismanagement of the tax haven issue. It has surfaced more than 10 years ago. Initially at least, it was alright to consider an emerging issue at a dusty place like OECD with benign neglect. International organizations tend to shove the same paper around for years, with no tangible result. But then more recently, it totally misread the cues.

By 2002, a number of countries had signed up to the OECD standards, and more pressure developed as of 2004 at G20 levels and at the UN‘s meeting on cooperation on tax matters in 2008. At the same time even more pressure came from various groups, such as NGO’s. The ultimate warning should have been when in the US Senators Levin and Obama sponsored the Tax Haven Abuse Act. It put Luxembourg squarely on the list of abusive tax havens.

- As of September 2008, no one at the Luxembourg Government could be reached on the topic of the looming problem.
- Luxembourg chose not to attend the November OECD meeting in Paris.
- Luxembourg was still pursuing the vain defense of its banking secret until April this year. It had limited temporary success with a coalition of 3 European tax havens, with written commitments of OECD and EU that it would not be on any tax haven list. These commitments were broken within weeks. All these were good efforts for a not so good and already lost cause.
- Then Luxembourg got dragged into a public war of words that exposed the unfolding drama even more and left bruised reputations and egos on both sides of the dispute. It also left a number of European plans and ambitions in jeopardy.

Luxembourg has really arrived at the fork in the road. Good advice from someone who knows, Yogi Berra: "When you come to a fork in the road....Take it". It is important to let no one guess that the next agreement will be with Disneyland, a sarcastic assumption that there they go again, trying to fool OECD. It’s the other side of the fork in the road that goes into the right direction.

Banking secrecy is dead, if not in the eyes of Luxembourg officials, then in the eyes of the banking clients. What remains should be called “privacy” as it is for medical records. Or maybe “confidentiality” if it is not yet a dirty word.

Check Out My Other Blogs

Linked to this blog are my two other blogs:

- Peckvillchen.blogspot.com, in French and Luxembourgish, expresses opinion and also makes fun of the human comedy
- Feierwon.blogspot.com, mostly in French expresses opinion and discusses past and current events.

Today I posted on peckvillchen.blogspot.com: Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Même Combat! (French)

Memorial Day 2009

“Boys don’t cry,” my aunt Naomi would say. So when I had to, I used some concealing strategies. That was a long time ago. But I knew Naomi would pop up, the moment I said:”Dear Day.” I had arrived in Wilkes-Barre the day before Memorial Day 1992, to honor the memory of Sgt Day G. Turner, who fell during WW II in Luxembourg. At my hotel I had rehearsed my speech for the following morning, and I had choked up every time, exactly there, when I addressed him with his first name “Dear Day.” I took a deep breath…..
Aunt Naomi and my childhood had invaded my mind. There was no television in those days. Neighbors would spend evenings together, under starry skies during summer, at the fireplace in winter. There would be my mother Marie, my father Nicolas, my five sisters Naomi, Cecile-Liliane, Lucie, Irene and Nicole. There would be my cousins Josephine and Leo. And our neighbor Nicolas, his son Nicolas, his grand-son Nicolas, our other neighbor Nicolas and his neighbor Nicolas. How come my name was not Nicolas? My original birth certificate has a stamp “Deutsches Reich” on it, together with an eagle and a swastika. My name Egide was changed by court order into its Latin form “Aegidius” to sound more German. My sisters’ names were suspiciously too French to translate and were changed into Erika, Monika and so on. My father was an outspoken anti Nazi. He had defeated a German attempt to enlist our town’s cultural society into the German SA. Then he went into hiding. My oldest sibling, Jean-Pierre, who became Hans Peter, had refused to join the Hitler Youth. At age 17, he was kicked out of high school and was drafted and sent to the Russian front. A cousin who had deserted, was dragged through town and shot. My sister Naomi (then Monika), got her marching order to join a Krupp ammunition factory in Essen as a slave laborer in the RAD, the forced labor department.

On September 10, 1944, while the family was fearing deportation for its anti-German leanings, a light aviation plane with a white star on a blue field on its wings flew over. Of course at an age of 7 months, I didn’t realize that I had chosen miserable times to be in this world. But later, during those long evenings, I heard the stories a hundred times. I was able to finish the adults’ sentences. There were all of a sudden GI’s around, all for sure much taller than 6 feet. They carried rifles, chewing gum, chocolate and a dictionary. They had medications. My mother’s sore throat went away and never came back.

Then all of a sudden the battle of the Bulge broke loose. A whole squad was in and around our house. “We take the boy,” my first baby sitters ever would say, while my mother tried to improve on the few combat rations. I know she also would bake pancakes. There was Kelly, who had written “Kelly loves Nelly” on a pre-war 5 Francs note. There was Fritz who had organized an impromptu patrol, because he had heard suspicious noises. When the patrol came back, they had identified the noises as not really coming from Germans, but from squealing pigs at a neighboring farm. That was such a relief: confusing Germans with pigs in those times was the most hilarious possible thing to happen. Kelly was killed in action two weeks later. Those old stories rushed through my head, but this now was Wilkes Barre, PA, and I was the Consul General of Luxembourg and I had to deliver a speech and choked up.

So I tried to get past the critical “Dear Day.” … The silence seemed endless. I was trapped in an unmanly situation. I couldn’t hide. A TV camera was whirring. In the front row, Sgt Day’s five sisters, were almost silently sobbing, when I said “Dear Day”. There was the Governor, the Mayor, the veterans. I had to say something, fill the silence: “I’m sorry, it is…a little overwhelming” When I got to the facts, that helped. “Dear Day: I know now that in the early December days of 1944, up there in the small Ardennes village of Dahl you commanded your 9-man squad. It turned out to become a critical mission. You were effectively going to defeat a German force so overwhelming in numbers and weaponry that the outcome was a miracle. The enemy was supported by artillery, mortar, and rocket fire. You had to withdraw into a nearby house, but you were determined to defend it to the last man. After hours of fighting, 5 of your men were wounded and 1 was killed. You would not give up, even boldly flinging a can of flaming oil at the first wave of attackers. They dispersed, they got into the house and you fought them room to room in some fierce hand-to-hand encounters. You hurled hand grenade for hand grenade, bayoneted 2 who rushed a doorway and you fought on with the enemy's weapons when your own ammunition was expended. The savage fight raged for 4 hours. Finally, when only 3 of your men were left unwounded, the enemy surrendered. Twenty-five prisoners were taken, 11 enemy dead and a great number of wounded were counted.
Sgt. Turner, Sir:
Your heroic leadership, determination and courage freed me when I was a baby. You earned the Congressional Medal of Honor, but I never even could thank you. I’m frustrated and inconsolable that one month later the enemy took you away from us.

Now, 17 years after honoring you in Wilkes Barre, dear Day, I just want to follow up on that speech. I wanted to tell you that things are fine. Certainly better than the prospects I had the year I was born. But then you came along and made the ultimate sacrifice for us. As you may know, I’m now a grandfather of three little Americans. I’ll tell them about you. And one day, when they are old enough, I’ll take them to the American Military Cemetery in Luxembourg. We’ll walk down the alley from General Patton’s grave, among the sea of 5,000 crosses and David’s Stars. Then we turn left at Plot E, Row 10, Grave 72 that says: Day G. Turner, SSGT 319 INF 80 DIV, Pennsylvania Feb 8 1945, Medal of Honor. You’ll recognize us: Morganne, Emilie and Alexander will carry Forget-Me-Nots.

Source picture: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=mr&GRid=9329336&MRid=46577443&

Luxembourg: Peace Broke Out

It is hard to believe, that only days after the world held its breath, because Luxembourg was drumming the tam-tam with Swiss and Austrians, and shouting “Delaware, Delaware” dancing around the sleeping tiger that the tiger would just yawn and push a paper across the table, saying: “sign here!”

Teddy Roosevelt is quoted as saying:”Speak softly, but carry a big stick.” Some people have not learned the lesson correctly and went around yelling, but had no stick at all. As a consequence, the Luxembourg Minister of Finance had quite logically to go to Canossa, in this case to the US Embassy in Luxembourg and sign the paper that was shoved over to him across the table by the US Ambassador. After fierce “negotiations” probably about the color of the ink, black or blue, there was a sigh of relief on the US side, when it was finally done. After having been placed under the ban, the Luxembourg Minister of Finance, Luc Frieden, finally had performed the required penitential ritual. Peace has now broken out.

I’m not sure about the protocol in force here. Why would a member of a sovereign Government go to an Embassy to meet an Ambassador? I concluded that if Canossa doesn’t come to you, you have to go to Canossa.
But what are those gloating comments about avoiding a generalized information exchange? Each and every bank in Luxembourg has committed to the”Qualified Intermediary” exceptions already 8 years ago. So technically it is true that in 2009 generalized information exchange was avoided. The question wasn’t on the table anymore.

Usually promises only commit the believers. The good news is that Luxembourg has kept its promise to engage on a path to comply with OECD standards. But there remains the danger that Luxembourg’s chivalry in this case will not be sufficient.

1. Some agreements live the lifespan of a rose: only a moment in time. Proof is the European Union’s commitment to keep all its members off the OECD’s lists. Several member states were duped into believing that.

2. There is more to come. Under the push of various interest groups and mostly NGOs, other aspects of the haven nature will be brought to the forefront, such as judicial havens, corruption, international transfer pricing, money laundering, extortion, piracy. Each of those controversies carry the potential of international finger pointing, of redefining existing standards and agreements and promote new regulations and compliance requirements. It is now the time to do a thorough review of Luxembourg's future exposures. For sure there are some serious shortcomings that will be highlighted with ongoing examples and personal experiences on this blog.

Luxembourg’s Two Wars.

A Summary Translation Of “Les Deux Guerres du Luxembourg ».

Luxembourg has been under assault recently for its banking secrecy and its practices as a tax haven. Luxembourg’s defense and denials have triggered some heated exchanges, including insults with neighbors, a real war of words. The article shows the uselessness of this war, as Luxembourg will have either to comply with OECD standards or live with sanctions, an unthinkable option.

One War May Just Hide Another One.

Instead of wasting its energies in a battle around the tax haven accusation, which is a lost cause, Luxembourg should do a lucid evaluation of its situation in the world generally and its situation as an important financial center in particular, and prepare for things to come. There will be more to come, and recent history should be a lesson.

A Predictable, Self-Inflicted Defeat.
From a strictly Luxembourg point of view of self-interest, which assumes defending the now indefensible banking secrecy – tax haven tandem, the defeat came gradually through 4 distinguishable phases:

- The claimed unilateral abandoning of banking secrecy in the 90’s, under the condition that other jurisdictions, such as Switzerland would do the same. It was based on the assumption that it would never happen.
- The 2001 introduction of a new US “long arm” regulation, the “Qualified Intermediary”, which in essence poked a hole into all offshore jurisdictions’ secrecy. For Luxembourg and others it constituted in fact a willful but self-interested abandoning and violation of their own banking secrecy laws.
- The European Savings Tax Directive caused another dent in Luxembourg’s attractiveness as a tax haven, as it started obliterating tax shelter loopholes.
- Came finally the OECD - G20 episode of April 02, 2009, when long wearing negotiations came to a dramatic resolution under the fallout of the financial crisis, and the mere logic of the balance of power.
Luxembourg has the right to be egocentric as all the others do. But in that sense, it didn’t play its cards too well. It did not anticipate enough the threat to its interests, which were conflicting with those of larger entities. I believe it lost an opportunity to exchange banking secrecy over the years for concessions from its partners in other fields, as the demise of tax havens was fully announced.
Did Peace Break Out?
It seems that all the gesticulations and insults post - April 02 have now stopped. The first Luxembourg war seems to be over. It was useless and took place mostly in the minds of pre-election political leaders.
Luxembourg has promised and seems to endorse OECD standards. But some egos remain bruised, some agendas are not yet fulfilled, including legitimate and egotistic ones. The second war looms.
Prepare For The New War Without Preparing For The Last One.
“Never let go a good crisis go to waste” said Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff of the White House. This might be good guidance for Luxembourg in the near future. It is known to be a good student of everything European. It should be possible for it to become the best student in new standards for global finance.
One first signal was out there recently with the creation of «The Luxembourg Institute for Global Financial Integrity”. Unfortunately there might be a number of flaws in the concept, and the young initiative will have a very delicate beginning, as it seems almost exclusively dominated by the stakeholders in the financial center of Luxembourg, and as its application fees are prohibitive for many of the critics of international financial abuse such as NGOs. The credibility of such an institute can only be guaranteed by the diversity of its members and their sensitivities.
Luxembourg should anticipate the future battle to come, be at the forefront of the global regulatory changes, and be on its guards to defend the legitimate substance of its financial center. Failing to do so is a planned disaster. But elections are around the corner. Those are always delicate times, though not in Luxembourg.
Finally a quote on the following blog address from Jaimini Bhagwati, the Indian Ambassador to the EU, Belgium and Luxembourg has written in the Indian Business Standard this blog:
http://leconomistamascherato.blogspot.com/2009/05/banking-secrecy-laws-attract-illicit.html
This defines the mood out there, which will give the impetus to the coming renovation.

Les Deux Guerres du Luxembourg.

Dans la tête de trop de nos leaders, c’est encore la première guerre autour de la place financière de Luxembourg qui fait rage. On dirait qu’ils ne se rendent pas compte qu’elle est perdue depuis le 2 avril, 2009, date du G20 à Londres. Le Luxembourg a subi les assauts de l’Allemagne, de la France et de l’Amérique. « Roude Leif , huel se! » clament tous les comptoirs des bistros, en parfaite résonnance avec leurs chefs politiques. Cela fleure bon la poudre noire, depuis le Buffet de la Gare jusque chez Koeppe Jemp. Le politiquement correct « dei Daitsch » a fait place de nouveau au plus savoureux « d’Preisen », affublé d’un joli adjectif.

La guerre est l’échec de la diplomatie, ou plutôt sa continuation par d’autres moyens. La guerre (ici de mots) généralement éclate par l’attaque délibérée d’un agresseur, qui veut atteindre certains objectifs, contre un défenseur qui veut l’en empêcher. Aveuglés par des gesticulations dignes d’un kabuki, et grisés par les doux frissons procurés par les salves d’insultes proférées, nos vaillants combattants semblent ignorer la possibilité de l’existence d’un autre objectif final, cause d’une deuxième guerre de la place.

Une guerre peut en cacher une autre.
L’objectif de nos (anciens) amis était de mettre fin au paradis fiscal luxembourgeois. Ils haïssent l’idée de voir s’évaporer des milliards d’euros et de dollars en impôts dans les paradis fiscaux. Le problème est qu’on finira par s’apercevoir du côté luxembourgeois que ce n’était qu’un objectif intermédiaire qui en masque un autre.

L’objectif final sera de drainer la place financière de sa substance pour se l’accaparer: fonds d’investissement, assurances, « private banking ». Certains entrevoient cette ultime issue, et il est vrai qu’elle est probablement fondée dans la jalousie que génère le succès de la place.

L’objectif du Luxembourg devrait donc être logiquement de les empêcher de démanteler ce centre financier si vital pour le pays et la grande région et de les empêcher de récupérer ces activités pour leur propre compte à Francfort, Paris, New York et Londres. Les Etats sont égocentriques. Il ne faut jamais leur attribuer des intentions mais il faut évaluer leurs possibilités. Il serait donc urgent de concentrer les efforts de défense luxembourgeois sur la sauvegarde de la substance de la place. Malheureusement ce n’est pas le cas : le Luxembourg tient une ligne Maginot dérisoire autour du secret bancaire et du paradis fiscal qu’il n’admet d’ailleurs pas qu’il existe. Le Luxembourg, émotionnel, attisé par les courants d’air pré-électoraux, réagit comme le taureau devant lequel le toréador agite une cape rouge, sans voir la puntilla dans l’autre main. La défense du secret bancaire est aussi futile que l’attaque d’un chiffon rouge par le taureau: le secret bancaire n’existe plus. C’est en effet une drôle de guerre, en fait ce sont deux guerres parallèles l’une perdue, l’autre se pointant à l’horizon. On dirait que nos guerriers ne sont au courant ni au sujet de la fin de la première ni au sujet de la menace d’une seconde.

Une auto-défaite prédictible.

La défaite dans la première guerre suit un cheminement en 4 étapes dont trois au moins sont attribuables à des actions volontaires ou du moins à des acquiescements sinon des accords luxembourgeois :

1. Dans les années 90, le Luxembourg, en bon élève européen, a fait une ouverture audacieuse, célébrée par certains d’absolument géniale. C’était l’offre de renoncer au secret bancaire sous condition que toutes les juridictions, et notamment la Suisse en feraient de même. Bien sûr tout le monde savait que cela ne se passerait jamais. Tel était l’entendement du moins. Incroyablement, cet abandon d’une position forte d’un pouvoir de veto, a été faite sans obtenir de contrepartie de la part des partenaires européens. L’on pourrait s’imaginer que c’était le moment idéal de revendiquer le siège de la Banque Centrale Européenne, par exemple, ce qui aurait consolidé le secteur financier à jamais.
2. En 2001 intervient la deuxième brèche. Les Etats-Unis ont pratiqué une politique du bras long en introduisant le « Qualified Intermediary », obligeant les banques luxembourgeoises à renseigner les autorités américaines sur les comptes de résidents américains qu’elles maintenaient. Côté luxembourgeois, c’était en fait une violation tolérée du secret bancaire. C’était l’œuvre géniale et diabolique de Larry Summers, chef du Trésor de Bill Clinton, qui maintenant est le conseiller économique de Barack Obama. Si cela n’est pas un avertissement…
3. La Directive européenne sur l’épargne de 2005 annulait un but principal du secret bancaire, celui d’allécher les fugitifs de la fiscalité. Honnêtement, parmi nous, c’est vrai que c’était une invitation à l’évasion fiscale. Le nier ne fait que provoquer les cynismes de nos anciens amis. Jaimini Bhagwati, Ambassadeur de l’Inde auprès de l’UE, la Belgique et le Luxembourg a écrit dans l’Indian Business Standard, librement traduit:
« La phrase « hypocrisie sur stéroïdes » a été utilisée récemment dans les nouvelles pour décrire les remèdes à la crise du secteur financier, qui de façon extravagante favorisent les actionnaires et créanciers aux dépens du contribuable. Pour résumer, la même expression pourrait être utilisée pour décrire les fondements trompeurs sur lesquels le maintien des lois sur le secret bancaire est assis, alors que l’un des objectifs est d’attirer des fonds illicites ». (1)
4. Finalement c’est l’effort récent de l’OCDE et du G 20 de Londres en avril 2009, qui certes nous a valu des moments de trahison et de faux jeux, mais qui essentiellement a donné le coup fatal au secret bancaire. Il est mort et la défense qui s’en fait est autour d’un cadavre.

Le lecteur averti complétera la liste en y insérant les causes telles qu’erreurs de calcul, ambitions personnelles, mésalliances, rêveries, zélotisme européen et confiance aveugle dans les intentions d’autrui.


La paix a-t-elle éclaté ?

Avec la mort du secret bancaire vient la mort du paradis fiscal. Inutile de nier qu’il existait, car en tous cas il n’existe plus maintenant. La guerre du Luxembourg est terminée avec la reddition de ce pilier de la place financière. Il est dès lors très primaire de réagir au quart de tour aux provocations teutoniques et autres chiffons rouges. C’est une réaction bien humaine pour les vainqueurs, que de se moquer des vaincus et de les tourner en dérision.

Préparer la nouvelle guerre sans préparer la dernière.
La revanche est un plat qui se mange froid. Elle n’est en tout cas pas cette première guerre asymétrique que certains semblent vouloir mener encore. Sa séquence était totalement à l’envers : reddition du secret bancaire d’abord, puis, battu, engager des batailles dont la défaite est déjà acquise pour finalement se raviser qu’on manquait de moyens pour conduire la bataille dont on savait qu’elle était déjà perdue. La débâcle.

On dirait que ces moyens pour se défendre correctement finalement arrivent, mais trop tard sous la forme d’une initiative qui est «The Luxembourg Institute for Global Financial Integrity.” Cette arrivée bien tardive vient peut-être à point cependant, comme il y aura une suite: la deuxième guerre avec sa bataille pour la substance.

«The Luxembourg Institute for Global Financial Integrity » pourrait constituer un élément de défense. Malheureusement cette initiative prépare la dernière guerre, car elle est brodée d’indications qu’elle ne vise pas le renouveau mais la continuité. La première guerre du Luxembourg était menée sur fond de la loi du plus fort. La deuxième le sera sur fond d’honnêteté et d’intégrité. L’idée du « Luxembourg Institute for Global Financial Integrity” dans son embryon est sans doute très bonne. Elle suggère que le Luxembourg est prêt à prendre un virage. Hélas, à seconde vue, cette nouvelle arme est hautement suspecte et caricaturale, “hypocrisy on steroids” dirait l’Ambassadeur Bhagwati, car cette force spéciale prend les mêmes et on recommence. Les fondateurs ne sont que des « insiders » et lobbyistes. Ce qui plus est, par ses critères d’admission, notamment ses cotisations, elle élimine tous les indésirables et les voix dissonantes telles que les ONG, pourtant indispensables pour sonder toutes les sensibilités.

L’on pourrait entrevoir un tel institut comme produisant une ligne de démarcation claire, neutre, autoritaire dans les domaines de gouvernance que le Luxembourg, ancien bon élève de l’Europe, s’empresserait à adopter, briguant le titre de meilleur élève parmi les anciens paradis fiscaux. Car la seconde bataille pour la place financière à venir, se livrera autour de la propreté : plus blanc que blanc.

La victoire s’articulera nécessairement autour de la bonne gouvernance de la place, sa compétence et son sérieux, un impeccable professionnalisme, une réglementation et une surveillance exemplaires, les moyens juridiques et d’investigation suffisants et en rapport avec l’envergure de la place, une volonté déterminée de combattre le crime financier et de rendre justice dans des délais raisonnables, des sanctions crédibles et publiées, bref la transparence qui fait défaut actuellement.

« Ne laissez jamais filer une bonne crise vers le dépotoir » a dit Rahm Emanuel, le « Chief of Staff » du Président Obama. L’interprétation appliquée ici devrait être de tirer les leçons de la première guerre qui vient de se terminer pour mieux préparer la seconde qui nous sera imposée. Je crains cependant que pour beaucoup la crise n’est qu’une opportunité électorale. A ne pas manquer seront les points faciles à marquer en vue des élections en se payant le scalp de ce monument d’orgueil allemand, la tète du Delaware (2), de la perfide Albion et de tout ce qui piaffe du côté de Paris. Observateur lointain depuis 20 ans, tantôt concerné, ahuri et amusé, j’épancherai mes vues et états d’âme sur mon blog, egidethein.blogspot.com, expériences et mémoires personnelles à l’appui.

Egide Thein
2009-05-17

(1) http://leconomistamascherato.blogspot.com/2009/05/banking-secrecy-laws-attract-illicit.html

(2) Les attaques sur le Delaware sont dérisoires, dans la mesure qu’elles attisent le feu inutilement et qu’elles sont en partie infondées : Le Delaware permet toute investigation, l’OCDE le défend comme partie d’une entité politique plus large, et surtout, le Sénateur Levin, co-sponsor avec Barack Obama de « S 506 Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act » est aussi sponsor de « S 569 Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act” qui adresse les faiblesses inhérentes aux juridictions comme le Delaware.