Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Panama Papers source issues statement

panamapapers.icij.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 151 posts

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#21

Post by joering2 »

jobu wrote: post #6

There's a lot to parse in that statement, but the call for whistleblower protections seems to be the single most important (and achievable) item. Most people are aware of Snowden and Manning, but it really surprises me that these haven't been reported more: "Bradley Birkenfeld was awarded millions for his information concerning Swiss bank UBS—and was still given a prison sentence by the Justice Department. Antoine De…

Upvoted.

Important read [1] - Antoine trial started few days ago!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Leaks

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#22

Post by fit2rule »

jayjay1010 wrote: post #19

Question for John Doe. Where's the missing American names and other retracted elements. Further given his naive calls for governments to do something to fix the problem seems naive to the extreme since they were the ones who created the 'problem' or backdoors in the first place

How do you know there are missing American names? It was my understanding when this leak happened that Mossack Fonseca didn't have that many American clients, because Americans still have to pay tax if they try to hide their money in Panama. Admittedly, I have no clue what I'm talking about - but I'm quite curious how it is you know that Americans are being overtly excluded from this action?

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#23

Post by bdhe »

libertymcateer wrote: post #18
mgraupner wrote: post #5

But most of all, the legal profession has failed. Democratic governance depends upon responsible individuals throughout the entire system who understand and uphold the law, not who understand and exploit it. Sigh. One of the most puzzling questions I have to deal with in my mind. Why is there so little moral left in this world?

I think it is a bullshit indictment. I'm a corporate lawyer who does a lot of cross borders work. I'm ethical - the lawyers I work with are ethical. The vast majority of lawyers are ethical. If anything, the Panama Papers should be an object lesson that one firm or group of lawyers can be responsible for a huge proportion of activity in a given sector. Do you think, for a minute, that other firms have this astounding…

I agree that calling all lawyers unethical is a broad generalizing stroke that serves no purpose in garnering friends. I did think it might be interesting if you addressed this specific point:

> Mossack Fonseca did not work in a vacuum—despite repeated fines and documented regulatory violations, it found allies and clients at major law firms in virtually every nation. If the industry’s shattered economics were not already evidence enough, there is now no denying that lawyers can no longer be permitted to regulate one another. It simply doesn’t work. Those able to pay the most can always find a lawyer to serve their ends, whether that lawyer is at Mossack Fonseca or another firm of which we remain unaware.

And you said this.

> But the idea that we should be castigating attorneys for taking advantage of legal loopholes that exist in their clients favor is utterly absurd. If you fail to take advantage of those loopholes you wind up getting sued for malpractice, plain and simple.

I agree that castigating all attorneys is going to far, but this comes dangerously close to two fallacies; that because it's legal, it's moral (namely that you can divorce your moral responsibility because you're acting in the letter of the law) and that you were just "following orders." If the consequence of failing to take advantage of loopholes is lawsuits for malpractice then that indicates a problem in itself. As a corporate lawyer you have to put yourself as an ethical person first, a lawyer second.

> I have to say, when I read the words of the purported, unverified "John Doe" they seem to me to be catastrophically naive in its critique of the legal profession and is all too happy to assign the blame with a fire-hose while uninterested in performing a surgical analysis of the pressure points where, if achievable reforms were made, could result in actual change.

I think it would be tremendously useful if you inject some needed surgical analysis into this. Any reasonable view point from the other side should be welcome into such a debate.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#24

Post by chimeracoder »

jobu wrote: post #6

There's a lot to parse in that statement, but the call for whistleblower protections seems to be the single most important (and achievable) item. Most people are aware of Snowden and Manning, but it really surprises me that these haven't been reported more: "Bradley Birkenfeld was awarded millions for his information concerning Swiss bank UBS—and was still given a prison sentence by the Justice Department. Antoine De…

> There's a lot to parse in that statement, but the call for whistleblower protections seems to be the single most important (and achievable) item. Most people are aware of Snowden and Manning

One big difference between Snowden and the Panama Papers (and, to a degree, Manning) is that virtually all of what Snowden revealed is illegal action on the part of the government[0], or information directly tied to that (allegedly-)illegal behavior. With the Panama Papers, some of the information leaked is indeed evidence of actual crimes, but most of it is actually not[1]. One can make the argument that some of the behavior should be, but that's a far less compelling case for whistleblower protection than the evidence of actual crimes taken place under the law as it exists today.

While I do believe that Manning deserved whistleblower protection, her case was similarly harmed (both legally and in the public's perception) by the fact that the signal-to-noise ratio in the documents she provided was very low. It's a lot harder to convince the public that you were acting as a whistleblower if large parts of the data you're leaking isn't blowing the whistle on anything, even if some of it is.

[0] The government disagrees with the claim that it is illegal, but that is the premise of the leak.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers#Disclosures

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#25

Post by phn »

psadri wrote: post #12
mgraupner wrote: post #5

But most of all, the legal profession has failed. Democratic governance depends upon responsible individuals throughout the entire system who understand and uphold the law, not who understand and exploit it. Sigh. One of the most puzzling questions I have to deal with in my mind. Why is there so little moral left in this world?

Why should there have been any morals in the first place? Does nature by default have morals?

The question is, do we want to be like the rest of the animals, survival of the fittest and all that jazz. Or do we want to hold ourselves to a higher standard?

I don't condemn people who accept the first option as the absolute truth, but I'd like to believe we can make this blue marble a better place than that somehow.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#27

Post by nilved »

bdhe wrote: post #23
libertymcateer wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is a bullshit indictment. I'm a corporate lawyer who does a lot of cross borders work. I'm ethical - the lawyers I work with are ethical. The vast majority of lawyers are ethical. If anything, the Panama Papers should be an object lesson that one firm or group of lawyers can be responsible for a huge proportion of activity in a given sector. Do you think, for a minute, that other firms have this astounding…

I agree that calling all lawyers unethical is a broad generalizing stroke that serves no purpose in garnering friends. I did think it might be interesting if you addressed this specific point: > Mossack Fonseca did not work in a vacuum—despite repeated fines and documented regulatory violations, it found allies and clients at major law firms in virtually every nation. If the industry’s shattered economics were not al…

Probably everyone finds their own behaviour ethical, or they wouldn't be doing it.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#28

Post by glup »

mgraupner wrote: post #5

But most of all, the legal profession has failed. Democratic governance depends upon responsible individuals throughout the entire system who understand and uphold the law, not who understand and exploit it. Sigh. One of the most puzzling questions I have to deal with in my mind. Why is there so little moral left in this world?

This question gnaws at my bones, too. Best answer so far wrt the upper middle class: logics of capitalism (competition, accumulation) combined with ethnic/cultural/ideological/socioeconomic isolation makes it hard to identify with (most) other people. With reduced empathy for those affected by exploitation, we construct a new set of mythologies to normalize the exploitation (increasing efficiency of markets). Moral objections are then dismissed as quaint, naive, and/or utopian.

It also seems like material scarcity and instability make it harder to converge on norms like morality (for good game-theoretic reasons). But why would a private individual with $10M have a position in a company that provides payday loans? Beats me.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#29

Post by voodootrucker »

nilved wrote: post #27
bdhe wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that calling all lawyers unethical is a broad generalizing stroke that serves no purpose in garnering friends. I did think it might be interesting if you addressed this specific point: > Mossack Fonseca did not work in a vacuum—despite repeated fines and documented regulatory violations, it found allies and clients at major law firms in virtually every nation. If the industry’s shattered economics were not al…

Probably everyone finds their own behaviour ethical, or they wouldn't be doing it.

Exactly, these problems are systemic. The people involved aren't going to come out and make logical points against themselves. There are some debates that open discussion and scientific reasoning don't apply to.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#30

Post by T-A »

libertymcateer wrote: post #16
sohcahtoa wrote: post #4

And yet... why no American names in the leaks? Funny that.

American lawyer here. American lawyers can provide the services provided by Mossack Fonseca.

Do you even need a lawyer? http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2016/04/panama-p...
Post reply on HN