Elwin,
> Unfortunately CCS, you have misunderstood the two issues of anti-money
> laundering which requires that financial institutions are disallowed from
> maintaining "anonymous records" with that of the whole status of "privacy".
> In fact, there is much on privacy and anti-money laundering that you neglect
> to consider.
My meaning was perfectly clear to everyone. What is the point of trying
to
obscure the subject by equivocating on the meaning of "privacy". That
does
not change anything.
All the pompous pronouncements that you expressed which pretended to
uphold
privacy are meaningless because they are always deceptiviely qualified
so as not to apply to the greatest and most systematic
violator: government.
As for your disquisition on money laundering, if anyone actually read
it without being numbed into a thoughtless stupor, it simply reinforced
my comments contrary to what you probably intended.
> The UK Government is making it plain that if the code of practice regarding
> anti-money laundering is not voluntarily put into place, then it will pass
> laws in the UK that affect all territories ... The recommendations thus imply
> that financial institutions should not keep anonymous accounts. The
> recommendations encourage institutions to make a serious effort to identify
> and report suspicious activities ...
Contrary to your repeated (methinks thou doth protest too much) claims:
> those accounts are off-limits to governments, marketing
> companies, and other who may seek to obtain that information for their
> benefit rather than the benefit of the individual.
> I cannot reveal the information to a government,
> governments cannot order me to give up information
> SO, if you are not doing anything criminal an account in Standard Reserve
> in the BVI will maintain your privacy.
> Standard Transactions (BVI) Limited and Standard Reserve Issue Limited are
> established in a jurisdiction where we can maintain your privacy and where
> you can be confident that your private information will not be put into
> the hands of any government
one of the essential requirements (the deadline for BVI's compliance
is 30 September 2001) of the Crown is
"the enactment of compulsory investigative powers legislation to enable
regulators to obtain and share vital information with overseas
regulators."
http://www.offshorechoices.com/html/editorial/articleshow.html?id=1499
http://www.tax-news.com/asp/story/asp?storyname=1091
http://www.tax-news.com/asp/story/asp?storyname=2221
The legislative changes to do this and to give the lie to your claim
> Governments, by way of privacy laws, cannot obtain records for tax evasion.
"Amending MLAT to embrace within the ambit of the co-operation
mechanisms
of the Treaty -- criminal tax information exchanges, and to remove the
heretofore insistence on dual criminality ..."
http://www.offshorechoices.com/html/editorial/articleshow.html?id=1720
are already in process in the BVI.
> This is not the case in the USA which is why we have moved to
> the BVI - any data can be obtained by governments in the USA
Certainly it will never be as bad in the BVI as it is in the US. And
I applaud your move to the BVI as an important improvement. But you
should not try to sell it as being better than it is.
It is obvious to any thinking person that the campaign against money
laundering has nothing to do with real crime and is just a manipulative
excuse for the efforts of governments to prevent their citizens from
keeping and using their rightful property.
Best,
CCS
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
