Mossack Fonseca: why so few American clients? (Hold the conspiracy theories)

From The Guardian

From The Guardian

There has been a lot of buzz about one aspect of the Panama Papers: why have so few U.S. citizens been exposed in these leaks? Panama was set up originally as a country – and as a tax haven — with the help of U.S. financial interests, and it has been substantially within the U.S. orbit (mainly with the purpose of keeping influence over the Panama Canal.)

There are all kinds of theories doing the rounds (of course) about CIA plots and other skulduggery to explain this anomaly, but we think other factors are more likely to explain it.

First, with 11.5 million documents, the biggest public data leak in world history, this show isn’t over. There will surely be plenty more to come, and it’s too early to say definitively how many U.S. people have been exposed.

Second, most U.S. citizens have a wealth of tax havens to choose from in their own back yard: from the reassuringly British BVI (British Virgin Islands) to Bermuda to the Bahamas — to the United States’ own secrecy states such as Delaware and Nevada. These places are not known for widespread, out of control vice and corruption: but Panama is. Why would a U.S. person stash their money in Spanish-speaking, unstable, outlandinsh and frankly scary Panama, when they could put it in places with a much better reputation — and where they speak not only English, but in many cases the Queen’s own English?

Third, even if you were to come to Panama, a non-Hispanic U.S. person would be likely to choose some of the law firms with more reassuringly English-sounding names, such as those you can find if you scroll down this list.

Fourth, from the words of Ramon Fonseca himself, via the Associated Press:

“Few American names have cropped up in the “Panama Papers,” a trove of 11.5 million confidential records detailing such accounts. That’s because the Panama-based Mossack Fonseca law firm at the center of the scandal doesn’t like taking on American clients, one of its founders says.

Ramon Fonseca, who started the firm with Jurgen Mossack, told The Associated Press in an interview Thursday that their law firm has only a handful of American clients, most of them members of Panama’s burgeoning expat retirement community. It’s not out of any anti-Americanism or fear of the Internal Revenue Service.

“My partner is German, and I lived in Europe, and our focus has always been the European and Latin American market,” Fonseca said at his law office. “As a policy we prefer not to have American clients.”

We would hesitate to believe much that this crime facilitator says, but this is a perfectly plausible explanation. If you are a law firm you can either take U.S. clients wholesale or you take few or none of them, because you’ll need to put considerable organisational resources into understanding that country and its complex tax system and laws. So it may well make sense to have a policy of not catering to certain countries, purely from this standpoint.

Fifth, in a related point, there are plenty of offshore players now who are scared of taking on U.S. clients. They’ve seen what the U.S. justice department has done to Swiss banks – and they don’t want to risk that kind of heat.

Sixth, there have been some U.S. names turning up: see here.

We don’t think the conspiracy theories are necessary at this point.




Related Posts

UN must defend target to curtail multinational companies’ tax abuse

Photo by Luca Santori, Creative Commons LicenseThe Tax Justice Network, The Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation, and the Global Alliance for Tax Justice call on the UN Secretary General to make sure the commitment to action on tax abuses by multinational companies remains part of the new UN Sustainable Development Goals.


The BVI: Responsible for worldwide tax losses of $37.5 billion a year

BVI report blogAn extraordinary report by consultants Capital Economics, for BVI Finance, claims that the British Virgin Islands are responsible for $1.5 trillion of assets invested around the world, and that these result in 2.2 million jobs and $15 billion in tax revenue. A better approximation would be that the BVI imposes global tax losses of $37.5 […]


Event: Making Tax Work for Women in the UK and Globally

Invitation_ Tax and Gender eventOn Wednesday 28th June 2017 at 16.30 our very own Liz Nelson will be speaking at an event in London that aims to bring together gender and tax justice advocates to highlight the need for coherent and gender-responsive fiscal policies to safeguard the rights of women and girls both in the UK and globally. The […]


Historic event on women, human rights and tax justice in Bogota

BogotaLast week civil society organisations, researchers, labour union activists and policy makers met in Bogota, Colombia to explore how tax justice issues can ensure governments, multinational corporations and others meet their obligations to women in order to secure their full range of human rights. The Women’s Rights and Tax Justice conference opened with a conversation […]


The Offshore Wrapper: the Panama Papers, one year on

Photos from the Protest outside PwC 1 Embankment Place, part of the Global week of action for tax justiceWelcome to the Offshore Wrapper – your weekly update from TJN.  Happy Paniversary! This week it’s been one year since the Panama Papers were leaked, and a number of organisations around the world have been marking the occasion though the global week of action for tax justice. In London, activists from the TJN and the […]


5 thoughts on “Mossack Fonseca: why so few American clients? (Hold the conspiracy theories)

  1. Arby says:

    This is weak. I haven’t visited the Tax Justice Network in some time. Just the fact that you’re passing on the sketchy ICIJ’s articles without hesitation or comment (I haven’t spend a whole lot of time on the site, but that fact I’ve established) is enough to sour me on an org I thought could do little wrong. How did it happen? Are you guys really okay with George Soros and USAID? Really?

  2. I felt there was a pro-USA bias to the reporting, when the ICIJ made some of the information public on the 4th April. Especially as they showed Putin predominately on some of their images. Also the Süddeutsche Zeitung and Guardian ran stories concentrating on Putin, even though it is not actually mentioned in the leaks?
    Then there is the issue, that they will not release all the information into the public realm. What is it, they do not want the public to know?

  3. Arby says:

    Let me guess. You have members who belong to the crooked ICIJ?

  4. Herb Caplan says:

    Creating offshore entities to escape high U.S. income taxes at least seem to involve legal business activities and a relatively simple tax avoidance strategy. What should be troubling American citizens is the creation of a more sophisticated international tax exempt “charitable” foundation, “the Hillary, Bill & Chelsea Foundation”, designed to provide cover for political influence peddling and to actually finance the Clinton lifestyle and support the mass of Clinton political operatives ( ) The Marc Rich scandal is a one of the prime examples of how to make politics pay and avoid investigation and prosecution for bribery.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to Top