Panama Papers - 2.6TB leak on offshore tax havens • Hacker News Board

Re: Panama Papers - 2.6TB leak on offshore tax havens

#41

Post by panamaleak » Mon, Apr 04, 2016, 3:21 AM UTC

ratsmack wrote: post #31

hendler wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Editor says there may be some: https://twitter.com/ploechinger/status/716773530436825088 https://twitter.com/ploechinger/status/716763595820941312 Also, I hope journalists are asking the "accused" for their comments, and giving them time to respond, as journalistic best practice.

"Some" really isn't good enough. From what I've been able to put together, the whole thing seems choreographed if not outright rigged. Why is it that Putin and Assad seem to be the only targets with the initial release? I will have a hard time believing any of the reporting until the raw data is released.

The group putting out this leak is also funded by George Soros and Rockefeller Funds through OpenSociety.

Makes me skeptical to say the least.

Re: Panama Papers - 2.6TB leak on offshore tax havens

#42

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Apr 04, 2016, 3:22 AM UTC

akanet wrote: post #36

usaphp wrote: post #29

Can someone explain me if reading these documents is even legal for journalists? I mean I am pretty sure most of the people that used that law office are completely innocent and having their personal information leaked and now read and investigated by some journalists is kind of crime in its own, I would not want my legal papers stolen and read by anybody if I am doing everything according to the law. My question is…

A few things to consider when evaluating the morality of this leak: 1. I can assure you that the majority of people purchasing services from Mossack Fonseca are not "completely innocent". 2. There is firm precedent for the legality of whistleblowing when you believe there to be crimes occurring. 3. "Who owns a business" is not generally considered to be a highly protected class of information, and that's mostly what…

[deleted]

Re: Panama Papers - 2.6TB leak on offshore tax havens

#43

Post by pcurve » Mon, Apr 04, 2016, 3:22 AM UTC

usaphp wrote: post #29

Can someone explain me if reading these documents is even legal for journalists? I mean I am pretty sure most of the people that used that law office are completely innocent and having their personal information leaked and now read and investigated by some journalists is kind of crime in its own, I would not want my legal papers stolen and read by anybody if I am doing everything according to the law. My question is…

As long as journalists didn't hack into server and got the information themselves, they can read leaked information without fear of prosecution.

However engaging in publishing of the leaked information 'may' get them in trouble, unless it is in public's interest to do so. And that's a big 'may'.

See the quoted block below.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/information-antidote-f...

Re: Panama Papers - 2.6TB leak on offshore tax havens

#44

Post by jMyles » Mon, Apr 04, 2016, 3:24 AM UTC

usaphp wrote: post #29

Can someone explain me if reading these documents is even legal for journalists? I mean I am pretty sure most of the people that used that law office are completely innocent and having their personal information leaked and now read and investigated by some journalists is kind of crime in its own, I would not want my legal papers stolen and read by anybody if I am doing everything according to the law. My question is…

Mere possession of information is rarely illegal. The right to possess information - even that which was gleaned illegally initially, goes back further than the US Constitution and is clearly established.

If you are interested in the current jurisprudence surrounding the matter of when possessing information can be (and can't be) illegal, you might be interested in "illegal numbers": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number

Re: Panama Papers - 2.6TB leak on offshore tax havens

#45

Post by mullen » Mon, Apr 04, 2016, 3:24 AM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #11

http://panamapapers.sueddeutsche.de/articles/56febff0a1bb8d3... >Generally speaking, owning an offshore company is not illegal in itself. In fact, establishing an offshore company can be seen as a logical step for a broad range of business transactions. However, a look through the Panama Papers very quickly reveals that concealing the identities of the true company owners was the primary aim in the vast majority of c…

It actually all depends on what you want to do. Opening an overseas is not illegal for Americans, you just have to declare it when you file your taxes. However, having a bank account out of the reach of creditors or others who may seek legal action against you is advisable for people in certain fields. You could be a doctor in a risky part of medicine where people will sue you at a drop of a hat. You would put your money into a Cook Island Trust and then no one can get access to it. You are not doing anything illegal, you have paid taxes on that money and the government knows about it. Someone who has gained money through crime or sinister methods could do the same thing, but instead an American judge would just throw them in jail until they returned the funds.

You could also own a company that does the majority of its business overseas. If you need to move money from one part of the world to another, sometimes it is just easier to keep it in Panama or Singapore. When you move the money back into the US, you would have to pay taxes on it.

However in all cases, if you have an overseas account with a lot of money in it, you must accept that you are willing to flee the US to keep it.

Re: Panama Papers - 2.6TB leak on offshore tax havens

#46

Post by jmspring » Mon, Apr 04, 2016, 3:27 AM UTC

Nishioka wrote: post #4

I have never heard of this paper. But really impressed with what they have managed to pull off. Kudos! It would be cool to see the global engineering community coming together in a similar manner that the journos have, towards one such big project.

Sueddeutsche is one of the major papers in Germany. It is worth being aware of major papers in large countries if you pay attention to foreign affairs.

Re: Panama Papers - 2.6TB leak on offshore tax havens

#47

Post by dluan » Mon, Apr 04, 2016, 3:29 AM UTC

chvid wrote: post #15

I wonder who did the leak? I wonder if the law firm knows who did it and where he is now? My guess is some sys admin presumely at some central office (as this spans the whole company); I mean 2.6TB data - not so easy for an average lawyer to download to his laptop.

My guess is more than one IT person is not going to show up to work tomorrow.

Re: Panama Papers - 2.6TB leak on offshore tax havens

#48

Post by wrong_variable » Mon, Apr 04, 2016, 3:31 AM UTC

tomlock wrote: post #33

sebiche wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the Reddit live thread: The Editor in Chief of Süddeutsche Zeitung responded to the lack of United States individuals in the documents, saying to "Just wait for what is coming next".

Good news :)

Finger crossed for some dirt on Hillary.

Re: Panama Papers - 2.6TB leak on offshore tax havens

#49

Post by ISL » Mon, Apr 04, 2016, 3:37 AM UTC

It's interesting to see how leak disclosure has changed over the years. Leakers/reporters are increasingly sophisticated at maximizing the impact of their information through titrated disclosure.

Someone, somewhere, is building the theory of the optimal leak.

Re: Panama Papers - 2.6TB leak on offshore tax havens

#50

Post by charlesism » Mon, Apr 04, 2016, 3:37 AM UTC

chvid wrote: post #10

hendler wrote: post #7

I think less quality coverage, but interesting to watch the news spread through media here: - https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-aides-among-world-leaders-e... - https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/associates-of-... - http://www.usatoday.com/ (prominent on front page) - http://time.com/4280200/panama-papers-vladimir-putin-russia-... - newyorktimes.com buried under politics http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/us…

No leaks involving Americans (yet).

That does seem extremely odd, considering the alleged size of the leak. Waiting to see what the explanation is there.

The "Oh this is the biggest leak ever because it's lots of TB" is also stupid. For all we know it's huge because it contains a bunch of scanned faxes.