Bank secrecy

Removing impediments to criminal investigations related to bank secrecy

Problems with exchange of information on request de facto bank secrecy

Otherwise, de facto bank secrecy in the transmitting State can result.

Override of bank secrecy and other confidentiality laws in the transmitting State

Concerning the Code of Criminal Procedure, bank secrecy may not be invoked before a court.

Likewise, the Bush administration opposed the OECD initiative to restrict bank secrecy until it realized that secret bank accounts help finance terrorists.

There are no restrictions on foreign exchange or capital movement, and bank secrecy is strictly enforced.

Bank secrecy has been one of the major obstacles to criminal investigations in money laundering offences.

When the OECD proposed an agreement to restrict bank secrecy, the Bush administration vetoed that initiative, too.

(d) Whether the obligation to exchange information should override bank secrecy and other confidentiality laws in the transmitting State

For example, recent multifaceted efforts to combat corruption have added to the pressure exerted by the initiatives against bank secrecy.

The disclosure of any information by the bank concerned pursuant to the provisions of this article is not regarded as dereliction of the duty of bank secrecy and neither that bank nor the Central Bank assumes any consequential liability.

8. States Parties shall not decline to render mutual legal assistance pursuant to this article on the ground of bank secrecy.

8. States Parties shall not decline to render mutual legal assistance pursuant to this article on the ground of bank secrecy.

The result is de facto bank secrecy in the transmitting State and because of such de facto bank secrecy in the transmitting State, the foreign person may attempt to evade any applicable tax in his her its country of residence, the receiving State, which does not receive the relevant information.

Can the transmitting State validly claim that it engages in effective exchange of information if it permits such de facto bank secrecy?

The most significant recent development is that exchange of information provisions in tax treaties should override bank secrecy and other confidentiality laws in the transmitting State.

The Commentary (para. 19.10) on 2005 OECD article 26 (5) confirms, in relevant part, that (t)he vast majority of OECD member countries override bank secrecy laws

The most significant change in 2005 OECD article 26 is the addition of article 26 (5), which provides generally for an override of bank secrecy laws as follows

Perversely, it will lead to greater secrecy.

Also, Governments have taken other initiatives against bank secrecy and other confidentiality laws in non tax matters, in cases, for example, of money laundering, corruption, financing of terrorism and other crimes.

In that context, some speakers expressed concern about the continuing application of bank secrecy by several financial safe havens posing serious obstacles to the effective prevention and control of money laundering.

The OECD Model TIEA (article 5 (4)) provides in effect for an override in certain instances of bank secrecy and other confidentiality rules (see the Commentary on the OECD Model TIEA, paras.

On the secrecy of the trial Zenobia wrote

Governments have thus been pressured into broadening the scope of exchange of information clauses in international agreements, including efforts to impose greater limitations on bank secrecy and other confidentiality laws in tax matters.

The 2000 OECD report (preface and chaps. 1, 2 and 3) also stressed the importance of ensuring that exchange of information provisions in tax matters would override bank secrecy and other confidentiality laws.

This is why the Kirchners will rely on secrecy.

Secrecy is, of course, necessary in national security affairs.

The very secrecy of these insurgencies makes them bizarre.

Of course, politicians prefer to work in secrecy, without oversight.

If it was surrounded by secrecy, change would be difficult.

A month later, in equal secrecy, Hitler sold Lithuania to Stalin.

Two trends deserve attention and mitigation (but not regulation or secrecy!).

A clause similar to 2005 OECD article 26 (5) and the suggested revised UN Model article 26 (5) would have no effective impact in this fact situation and therefore the result would be de facto bank secrecy.

Several States (73 per cent) reported adoption of measures to remove bank secrecy impediments to criminal investigations that was a similar proportion compared with the second reporting period (72 per cent) and the first (only 57 per cent).

They also stressed the need for increased technical assistance to ensure that all States have the capacity to combat money laundering and to facilitate international cooperation by removing the impediments to mutual legal assistance, including, in particular, bank secrecy.

They also stressed the need for increased technical assistance to ensure that all States have the capacity to combat money laundering and to facilitate international cooperation by removing the impediments to mutual legal assistance, including, in particular, bank secrecy.

A clause similar to 2005 OECD article 26 (5) and the suggested revised UN Model article 26 (5) in the income tax treaty between the transmitting State and the receiving State would override any bank secrecy laws in the transmitting State.

In effect, subject to article 26 (4) and 26 (5), such language in article 26 (3) enables the transmitting State to permit de facto bank secrecy in the situations described in paragraphs 47 and 48, and 51 and 53 above.

Some speakers expressed concern about the accuracy of the statement in paragraph 92 of the report that mutual legal assistance treaties that provided for refusal on the ground of bank secrecy would normally be automatically invalidated between parties to the Convention.

Some speakers expressed concern about the accuracy of the statement in paragraph 92 of the report that mutual legal assistance treaties that provided for refusal on the ground of bank secrecy would normally be automatically invalidated between parties to the Convention.

(b) Also notes the requirements of article 18, paragraph 8, of the Convention, and requests the secretariat to seek clarification from States parties that have reported that they decline to render mutual legal assistance on the ground of bank secrecy

However, the Convention did not fully cover such critical matters as bank secrecy, money laundering, incorporation of companies in so called tax havens and extradition of offenders, nor did it require countries to set up mechanisms improve cooperation and mutual assistance.

Usually, decision making is confined to ever smaller circles, with ever greater secrecy.