Finding private bankers is far more difficult than clients imagine

Since the financial meltdown of 2008, private bankers have been busy devising schemes to both maximize the fees they earn from wealthy clients, as well as make it more difficult for clients who wake up to discover they’ve been hosed, to fire them.

The new financial products and strategies that private bankers have been sneaking into client portfolios in recent years serve a purpose that has nothing to do with what’s best for clients. It’s all about improving the bottomline of the private banks. Unfortunately transferring wealth from client accounts is the means to the end that private banks are seeking.

Structured notes, hedge funds, hedge fund of funds and other high risk investment products lack transparency and liquidity and are hard-to-value assets. As a seasoned investigator I can assure you, it is impossible for you to evaluate and monitor the risks related to these investments. Don’t even try to.

Even if you were able to get hold of the terms sheets, offering memoranda and other documents related to these investments, good luck understanding the unique features involved in each and every one of these highly complex products. Further, the investment strategies and portfolio composition of hedge funds and hedge fund of funds can be changed at any time.

That domestic equity, long-only, unleveraged fund you invested in today may become global, short and levered to the max tomorrow. With respect to hedge fund of funds, you will not even know who’s managing your money or where your money is being custodied. Caymans? Bermuda? Guatemala? Who knows?

Structured notes, hedge funds and hedge fund of funds are purchased for discretionary clients by private banks because they pay significantly higher fees to the bank.

A private bank may earn 20 to 50 basis points in revenue sharing by steering client portfolios into mutual funds managed by others. (Private banks may deny they receive these revenue sharing payments but, trust me, they do.)

A bank may earn far more – 100 to 150 basis points—from proprietary mutual funds. This is still chump change.

Exponentially greater fees, say 3% to 8% and performance fees of 40%, can be earned by the bank from alternative investments. Given the financial pressure banks are under today, is it any surprise where they’re steering investors? But that doesn’t make it right. These discretionary investment managers are supposed to be guided by what’s best for their clients—held to a fiduciary standard of care. Unfortunately, no regulator is scrutinizing the investment management activities of private banks which are not required to register with the SEC.

Investing client assets in high risk, high fees products that do not perform competitively is a violation of applicable fiduciary duties, in my opinion. Whenever I have examined the performance of these private bank investment products (net of all fees) compared to relevant benchmarks, the perfomance is not just bad—its horrific. T-bill performance for Madoff-size risk.

Since the financial meltdown of 2008, private bankers have been busy devising schemes to both maximize the fees they earn from wealthy clients, as well as make it more difficult for clients who wake up to discover they’ve been hosed, to fire them.

The new financial products and strategies that private bankers have been sneaking into client portfolios in recent years serve a purpose that has nothing to do with what’s best for clients. It’s all about improving the bottomline of the private banks. Unfortunately transferring wealth from client accounts is the means to the end that private banks are seeking.

Structured notes, hedge funds, hedge fund of funds and other high risk investment products lack transparency and liquidity and are hard-to-value assets. As a seasoned investigator I can assure you, it is impossible for you to evaluate and monitor the risks related to these investments. Don’t even try to.

Even if you were able to get hold of the terms sheets, offering memoranda and other documents related to these investments, good luck understanding the unique features involved in each and every one of these highly complex products. Further, the investment strategies and portfolio composition of hedge funds and hedge fund of funds can be changed at any time.

That domestic equity, long-only, unleveraged fund you invested in today may become global, short and levered to the max tomorrow. With respect to hedge fund of funds, you will not even know who’s managing your money or where your money is being custodied. Caymans? Bermuda? Guatemala? Who knows?

Structured notes, hedge funds and hedge fund of funds are purchased for discretionary clients by private banks because they pay significantly higher fees to the bank.

A private bank may earn 20 to 50 basis points in revenue sharing by steering client portfolios into mutual funds managed by others. (Private banks may deny they receive these revenue sharing payments but, trust me, they do.)

A bank may earn far more – 100 to 150 basis points—from proprietary mutual funds. This is still chump change.

Exponentially greater fees, say 3% to 8% and performance fees of 40%, can be earned by the bank from alternative investments. Given the financial pressure banks are under today, is it any surprise where they’re steering investors? But that doesn’t make it right. These discretionary investment managers are supposed to be guided by what’s best for their clients—held to a fiduciary standard of care. Unfortunately, no regulator is scrutinizing the investment management activities of private banks which are not required to register with the SEC.

Investing client assets in high risk, high fees products that do not perform competitively is a violation of applicable fiduciary duties, in my opinion. Whenever I have examined the performance of these private bank investment products (net of all fees) compared to relevant benchmarks, the perfomance is not just bad—its horrific. T-bill performance for Madoff-size risk.

Italy, Switzerland to cooperate against tax evasion

Monti said Italy and Switzerland are considering double taxation and information exchange to fight tax evasion.

Speaking after his meeting with Switzerland's President and Finance Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, Italian prime minister Mario Monti said fighting tax evasion is a goal shared by Italy and Switzerland and "a priority for the Italian government". Monti went on to say that he was "very pleased to announce the good progress of the ongoing meeting of the bilateral working group tasked with discussing various financial and fiscal issues and suggesting possible operating solutions fully compatible with the EU discipline, especially in the fields of double taxation and information exchange"

Tanzania: From tax avoidance to tax evasion

Thursday, June 14 this year is Budget Day in the East African Community countries of Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania. Not too distant in the past, Tanzanians generally looked forward to Budget Day with considerable excitement.

They were much like numbers game players who anxiously looked forward to ‘Draw Day’ when the raffle results would be announced. In the event, holders of the winning tickets would be awarded cash prizes, going laughing all the way to the bank (if they were ‘bankable!’).

The losers, resigned to their fate, would do their crying in the rain (crooners Everly Brothers, Don Williams pardon!) – till the next lottery and Draw Day!

Ditto Budget Day, when Tanzanians waited with bated breath the announcement in Parliament of government budget proposals for the next 12 months beginning on July 1. It was a foregone conclusion that Finance ministers would invariably hike extant tax rates, or introduce new taxes, on beverages and tobacco goods. Bettors to the contrary have always lost!

Imbibers nonetheless said ‘cheers!’ – and swallowed the new, bitter ‘tax pill’ with the first pint of the best brew in the house, happy in the knowledge that they were contributing in their own small way to public revenue coffers for national development.

But, when tax rates became inordinately high, and the number of taxes multiplied across the board – thanks to bottomless government coffers and itchy-fingered unprincipled filching officials – taxpayers started to feel the pinch. The imaginative ones turned to tax avoidance, while their impatient, reckless ones resorted to bad old tax evasion!

The difference between the two...? Well; ‘tax evasion’ includes smuggling; cheating on values and volumes/quantities of taxable consignments; bribing customs and other tax officials to look the other way at the psychological moment, and other illegitimate presentation of one’s finances, etc...

‘Tax avoidance’ is a different ballgame all together – and it isn’t a crime! Tax avoidance is when potential taxpayers legally take advantage of the extant tax regime, thereby reducing the tax burden they’d have otherwise carried, doing so by simply exploiting loopholes in the law.

I remember a very successful lawyer-friend in Mombasa in the 1960s and ‘70s whom I’ll identify here by his car (latest ‘Mercedes’ saloon model then), registration No. KAZ-1!

‘Bwana Kazi’ – as he was popularly known – avoided paying further income tax by simply stopping to practise when his taxable income approached the surtax threshold. He went on vacation abroad till the next taxation year. Sheesh!

If nothing else, the foregoing suggests that rampant tax evasion in Tanzania is fuelled by a multiplicity of taxes, compounded by too high tax rates. In countries where taxes are few, are universally applicable across the population – and rates are virtually nominal – tax evasion is unusual, with voluntary tax compliance the norm.

Can/will our finance minister heed this in the next Budget – or is it too late now? Think about it!

Mastro mystery: Aging ex-magnate nears 1 year on the lam

Michael R. Mastro celebrated his 87th birthday Friday.

The big question, of course, is — where?

It's been nearly a year since the onetime Seattle real-estate magnate and his wife, Linda, moved out of the $2 million house they had been renting in Palm Desert, Calif., and headed for parts unknown.

The couple left June 23, days after the judge in Mastro's massive bankruptcy case ordered them to turn over two giant diamond rings valued at $1.4 million. They officially became fugitives a month later when warrants were signed for their arrest.

But they remain at large, and there are just two plausible explanations:

Either federal authorities don't know where the Mastros are — or they do know, but haven't moved to apprehend the couple yet because legal complications stand in the way.

Denny Behrend, a retired deputy U.S. marshal, suspects it's the latter. His former colleagues in the Marshals Service are very good at finding people who don't want to be found, he says, but extracting fugitives from other countries can be legally tricky.

"I'd bet they're just putting all their ducks in line so that when they do move in, it'll go smoothly," says Behrend, now vice president of Lacey OMalley Bail Bonds in Seattle.

Mark Ericks, U.S. marshal for Western Washington, won't say if Behrend is right. The U.S. Attorney's Office in Seattle won't say anything about the Mastros.

But all this silence hasn't halted rampant speculation about the couple's whereabouts.

"I was at a charity event recently and I had people come up to me and swear they'd seen Mike and Linda in South America, or Europe, or Canada, or Sun Valley," says James Frush, Mastro's lawyer. "It was ridiculous."

Frush won't say whether he's been in contact with his client-on-the-lam. When he's asked if he knows where the Mastros are, he jokes about one of their favorite restaurants.

"I tell people they're in the wine cellar at Canlis," Frush says.

Michael Mastro was a longtime and prolific real-estate developer and lender whose website alluded to his "billion-dollar career." But his highly leveraged empire fell apart when the market tanked.

Three lenders pushed Mastro into bankruptcy in 2009. The most recent estimate of his debt to unsecured creditors is $250 million, and court-appointed trustee James Rigby has said those creditors will be lucky to get back more than a few pennies on the dollar.

In the Mastros' absence, the $5,000-a-day fine that Bankruptcy Judge Marc Barreca imposed to persuade them to turn over the rings has continued to accrue. It now totals more than $1.5 million.

Ericks, the U.S. marshal, revealed last September that his agency had tracked the Mastros to an apartment in Canada in August — only to find they had left a day or two before.

If they are in another country, marshals can't bring them back without that nation's cooperation. And some countries are more cooperative than others.

About 70 — from Russia and China to Afghanistan and Somalia — don't even have extradition treaties with the U.S. But Douglas McNabb, a Washington, D.C., criminal-defense attorney who specializes in international extradition, says those nations hold little appeal for most fugitives.

"Any country that you could go to without an extradition treaty — they wouldn't want to live there," he says.

Extradition can be challenging even in countries with treaties, however.

For one, there's no indication the Mastros have been charged with a crime. Barreca issued the arrest warrants for them last July for contempt of court, a civil violation.

Extraditing someone on that basis is difficult, if not impossible, experts agree.

"They're not going to get to extradite him on a civil matter," says Jacques Semmelman, a New York lawyer and international extradition expert. "There has to be a crime."

John Strait, who teaches criminal law at Seattle University, agrees. "There might be some ways you could do it," he says, "but it wouldn't be easy, and it would take a lot of time."

Mastro is the subject of a federal criminal investigation. While the U.S. Attorney's Office in Seattle won't confirm it, Frush acknowledged the probe more than two years ago. It's still under way, lawyers for a Mastro associate who also is under investigation said last month in court documents.

If federal marshals know where the Mastros are, they could be waiting for a grand-jury indictment before they move to apprehend the couple. That would make extradition much easier, experts agree.

But they also say it's possible a sealed indictment already has been issued that hasn't been made public for fear of pushing the Mastros further underground. There could be new arrest warrants — also sealed — based on that indictment, they add.

McNabb suspects that's what has happened. The Marshals Service probably wouldn't have been pursuing the Mastros in Canada last year with warrants based only on a contempt citation, he says.

If Mastro has been — or will be — indicted, the government's success in extraditing him could hinge on exactly what the charges against him are.

One likely possibility is bankruptcy fraud — hiding assets from creditors. Rigby filed a civil suit accusing Mastro of that, and Barreca ruled in the trustee's favor last fall.

Experts differ on how easy it would be to extradite Mastro to be tried for that offense.

Some extradition treaties list specific crimes for which other countries will turn over a fugitive American to U.S. authorities. Other treaties are more general, authorizing extradition if the offense with which the American is charged also is a crime in that country.

Bankruptcy fraud is recognized as a crime almost universally, says Strait — if not by that name, then as a form of "theft by deception." Semmelman agrees.

But McNabb says it's not always that clear-cut.

One example: While Brazil's treaty with the U.S. authorizes extradition for "crimes or offenses against the bankruptcy laws," that country's Supreme Court declined in 1999 to extradite an American charged with bankruptcy fraud.

If foreign authorities balk at extraditing Mastro for that offense, McNabb says, the hurdle might be overcome by also charging him with other, possibly related crimes: perjury, mail fraud or wire fraud, for instance.

Tax fraud is another possibility. Internal Revenue Service agents, as well as FBI agents, interviewed Mastro associates last summer, Frush says. One Mastro associate, Bellevue developer Winstron Bontrager, was indicted in March for tax fraud, including concealing income from a real-estate deal in which Mastro was involved.

But the people who know what charges Mastro may — or does — face aren't talking.

"You're trying to read the tea leaves," says Frush, "but the tea is just too murky."

There are a few shards of new information about the search for the Mastros that only raise more questions:

• In January, the Mastros' Bentley, Chihuly glass pieces and other household goods were auctioned off in Palm Desert. Auctioneer Tim Murphy observed a large number of hits on the auction website from Italy, and he speculated the Mastros might be staying there.

Murphy said recently that he allowed the FBI to burrow into his firm's computers to try to learn more, but he understands they hit a dead end. The FBI also asked for a list of people registered for the auction, he said.

• Last November, after Barreca ruled that Linda Mastro, now 62, owed her husband's creditors more than $1.3 million, her lawyer, Michael Gossler, filed an appeal on her behalf.

Did she authorize it? Gossler won't discuss whether he's been in contact with his client. Frush says Gossler could be acting in what he considers Linda Mastro's interests without communicating with her.

The last person who publicly acknowledged speaking with the Mastros was Gloria Plischke, Michael's sister. She said last September that he had phoned her several times. (Plischke couldn't be reached for comment for this story.)

Behrend, the retired marshal, says the Mastros almost certainly aren't communicating with family or friends now. They're probably living under assumed names, he says, and paying for everything with cash.

But "the Mastros are really not fugitive-type people," he says. "And being a fugitive is really hard work."

Authorities could be negotiating with the country where the couple are staying to extradite or deport them, Behrend says. Or marshals could be trying to lure the Mastros to a country where extradition might be easier.

Few fugitives remain at large this long, says Frush, a former federal prosecutor: They can't withstand the tug of home, family and friends.

"But once those ties are cut, at a certain point your life changes so much that you escape that pull," he says.

Ericks, the U.S. marshal, won't respond to all this speculation. "There's just things I can't talk about," he says.

"Just know that if we have the authority to get him, we're going to get him."

Swiss minister sees U.S. tax deal by November

U.S. officials seem to want an end to a dispute over wealthy Americans with hidden Swiss offshore bank accounts before the U.S. presidential election in November, the Swiss finance minister said in a newspaper interview on Saturday.

"My impression at the moment is that the U.S. wants a solution by the elections. Both sides endeavour to find a solution in the foreseeable future," Switzerland's finance minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf told Basler Zeitung.

Eleven Swiss banks - including Credit Suisse and Julius Baer - are under investigation by the United States for aiding U.S. citizens suspected of dodging taxes with the help of offshore bank accounts.

Switzerland wants the investigations dropped, in exchange for payment of fines and the transfer of names of thousands of U.S. bank clients. At the same time, Switzerland is seeking a deal to shield the remainder of its 300 or so banks from U.S. prosecution.

The talks appear to have stalled in recent months. A visit by Widmer-Schlumpf to Washington in April brought no breakthrough.

The U.S. prosecutor most closely linked with piercing the veil of Swiss bank secrecy, Kevin Downing, quit to join a law firm earlier this month, a move which experts say won't hinder U.S. efforts to pursue Swiss banks.

Bribery investigations underway in Senegal

Two ministers under former Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade and the country’s current Senate chief have all been called in for police questioning as the new administration works to fulfill its pledge to tackle past corruption.

According to local media, police plan to talk to at least three more former Wade ministers as part of their investigation into bribery under the previous president.

After President Macky Sall was elected in March of this year, he vowed to hold the former president’s government accountable for any past misconduct. These investigations into possible bribes are in the preliminary stages, said Dakar-based lawyer Mouhamed Kebe.

“Under the Wade regime, many of his ministers had been involved in some non-transparent transactions. It seemed that a lot of them became very, very rich in a very short time,” said Kebe. “Very recently the current minister of mining is saying that he has seen a lot of contracts between the state and mining corporations where it is obvious that there is some case of bribery.”

But the matter is also complicated by the fact that President Sall, himself, was a high-ranking minister under Mr. Wade. His experience under the former president included stints both as mining minister and as prime minister.

“Some people from the side of Wade are saying if you are investigating, President Macky Sall should be investigated as well, because he is a former minister of Wade and his former prime minister, and he became rich more than he should do,” said Kebe.

The lawyer added that it is too early in the Sall presidency to tell if the judiciary will be able to act independently of the president’s office. But he said, so far, many are hopeful that these preliminary investigations indicate this government will maintain oversight.

Police have so far questioned former ministers Farba Senghor and Samuel Sarr, who each held a variety of positions in Mr. Wade’s cabinet. They have also questioned Pape Diop, the current president of Senegal’s Senate.

Local media reported that police have also requested to question Karim Wade, son of the former president, who also served in various ministerial roles.

Tax evasion eating into Italian GDP

More than a quarter of the Italian economy eludes taxation, due to underground and criminal economic activities that push up borrowing costs and discourage investment in the country's most vulnerable regions, a senior Bank of Italy official said Wednesday.

"Knowing an enemy's size and potential to create damage is essential in defining a winning strategy," Anna Tarantola, deputy director-general of the central bank, told the parliamentary anti-mafia committee in Rome.

Her estimate that 27.4% of gross domestic product in the euro zone's third-largest economy is off the books comes at a time when authorities in the region are contemplating steps toward a fiscal union. Italian government officials say they are often reminded by their German counterparts that mutualizing obligations is a political non-starter if burdens aren't properly shouldered.

Late last month the European Commission pressed Italy to take "further determined action" to tackle the scourge of tax evasion. Prime Minister Mario Monti vowed a "tougher stance in the future" on tax dodgers in an interview to Catholic weekly Famiglia Cristiana.

Ms Tarantola cited a Bank of Italy study estimating that 16.5% of Italian GDP was underground and another 10.9% of GDP consisted of criminal activity such as prostitution and drugs.

If the state levied revenue on more than EUR400 billion in unrecorded activity at the 45% tax rate applied to the economy at large, Italy could eliminate its EUR2 trillion in public debt in less than a decade, or halve it to the critical 60%-of-GDP level by 2017.

Italy's heavy sovereign debt load is now 120% of GDP, the same as 20 years ago, even though successive governments have spent more than EUR500 billion less on providing public services than they have taken in taxes over that time, amassing primary budget surpluses more than twice as large as those of larger Germany, said Marco Fortis, an economist at the Milan-based Edison Foundation.

Monti has raised taxes and promised to curb public spending further in an effort to build up Italy's primary budget surplus--a measure that excludes interest payments on outstanding public debt--to above 5% of GDP from around zero in 2011. "That's just inevitable for countries with our kind of large debt load," he said at a recent conference in Florence.

However, the tax-centered fiscal tightening he approved in an emergency budget law shortly after replacing Silvio Berlusconi as prime minister and forming a national emergency government late last year is cramping an already weak economy. Italian GDP is now in its fourth consecutive quarterly contraction, the jobless rate rose in April to an all-time high of 10.2% and the government on Tuesday played down data that suggested tax receipts are behind schedule.

Some Italians, especially labor unions representing workers who are taxed even before they get paid, have called on the government to overhaul its strategy. They have suggested, for example, bigger penalties for tax evasion and introduction of a wealth tax. Tax evasion has helped give Italians an average household wealth eight times greater than disposable income, according to the central bank, a higher level than in Germany, France or the U.S.

Enrico Giovannini, president of the national statistics institute Istat, notes that at 17% of GDP, tax evasion accounts for a third of all private economic activity.

"Tax evasion is a plague," Audit Court President Luigi Giampaolino intoned in his annual report to lawmakers on Tuesday.

Ms Tarantola said the underground economy is also hindering business growth and investment, citing a central bank review of 170,000 companies and 839 banks that found companies pay higher interest rates on loans in areas of the country where fraud is more concentrated. Moreover, those companies are required to offer more collateral to obtain loans and tend to be offered only lines of credit on terms that allow for easy and quick recall, rather than longer-term loans designed to be repaid from the cash flow the funding helps generate, she said.

Banks should pay closer attention to borrowers' balance sheets for signs of criminal infiltration, she said, adding that the state's pilot program of using only designated and monitored bank accounts for all payments related to execution of public works has shown some success.

While local stereotypes suggest tax evasion is particularly rife in southern Italy--where Istat says only 43.3% of adults hold formal jobs--more detailed studies show that the size of both the underground and criminal economies is larger in northern Italian provinces than southern ones, Ms Tarantola said.

Kuwait leads in private wealth booked offshore

Private financial wealth in Middle East and Africa grew by 4.7 percent in 2011, according to a new report by The Boston Consulting Group (BCG). The report, entitled The Battle to Regain Strength: Global Wealth 2012, is BCG’s twelfth annual look at the global wealth-management industry and addresses the current size of the market, the state of offshore wealth, the performance levels of leading institutions, the emergence of alternative business models, and key trends that all players must adapt to.

According to the report, private financial wealth in Middle East and Africa grew to $4.5 trillion in 2011, up from $4.3 trillion in 2010, marking a 4.7 percent increase. Furthermore, it is expected to grow by a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.6 percent by 2016, to reach $6.1 trillion, largely as a result of continued strong GDP expansion in oil-rich countries.

Dr Sven-Olaf Vathje, Partner and Managing Director at BCG Middle East said: “We see this growth despite the fact that Middle Eastern and African stock markets suffered from the political instability caused by the uprisings across the Arab world in 2011. Despite this, the region’s private wealth grew in 2011 driven by high savings rates and strong economic growth in commodity-rich countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The wealth held in bonds rose by 13.3 percent, and cash and deposits grew by 5.1 percent – only the amount of wealth held in equities decreased by 2.6 percent, mostly driven by weak market performance.”

The BCG study also estimates that between 2011 and 2016, private financial wealth in the region will grow by a CAGR of 8 percent for households worth more than $100 million, 8 percent for households worth between $1-$100 million and 5 percent for households worth less than $1 million. “In 2011, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE and Bahrain were among the top ten countries in the world by proportion of millionaire households,” Markus Massi, Partner and Managing Director at BCG Middle East added. “Qatar stood at second place with 14.3 percent millionaire households; Kuwait came in third (11.8 percent); the UAE came in sixth (5 percent); and Bahrain stood at tenth place (3.2 percent).”

In terms of proportion of $100 million-plus, ultra-high-net-worth (UHNW) households, Kuwait and Qatar each had 6 UHNW households per 100,000 households, while the UAE had 4 UHNW households per 100,000 households. For private financial wealth originating from Middle East and Africa in 2011, Switzerland was the biggest offshore center attracting $0.56 trillion, followed by the UK drawing $0.33 trillion.

In fact, with over a third of all assets booked abroad in 2011, Middle East and Africa had the highest proportion of offshore wealth in the world. In terms of percentage of private wealth booked offshore, Kuwait (53 percent) took the lead in the region, followed by UAE (52 percent), Tunisia (45 percent), Bahrain (37 percent), Lebanon (34 percent) and Morocco (30 percent). As a regional offshore financial center Dubai held assets worth $0.2 trillion with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, India, Iran and Turkey as the top five sources of offshore wealth.

Facebook's expatriate and the US Senate's demagogues

As the son of one American immigrant and the father of another, I find it hard to muster much empathy for Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin and his decision to renounce his US citizenship.

Saverin, who was born in Brazil and brought to this country as a child, turned in his American passport last year and moved to Singapore; it is widely assumed that he did so to reduce the taxes he would otherwise have to pay on the billion-dollar gains generated by Facebook's IPO. Saverin denies, not very convincingly, that his expatriation was motivated by tax considerations. "His decision had nothing to do with dissatisfaction here," a spokesman said, "but with his strong desire to do business there."

Well, it takes all kinds to make a global economy, and maybe Saverin genuinely prefers doing business in a quasi-authoritarian society where freedom of the press is unknown. Singapore's economy is one of the world's freest, and its taxes are considerably lower than America's. If such things matter more to Saverin than the blessings that come with American citizenship, it was always his right to leave. At least he had the grace to describe himself as "very grateful to the US for everything it has given me."

Yet while Saverin may not come across as the most appetizing of creatures, he is not nearly as odious as US Senators Chuck Schumer of New York and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. To hear the two Democrats tell it, Saverin is a virtual traitor, a turncoat who has sinned against America and must be given no quarter.

"It's infuriating to see someone sell out" -- sell out! -- "the country that welcomed him and kept him safe, educated him and helped him become a billionaire," Schumer snarls. "We plan to put a stop to this tax avoidance scheme. There should be no financial gain from renouncing your country." Casey inveighs against "allow[ing] the ultra-wealthy to write their own rules" -- Saverin's departure, he says, is "an insult to middle class Americans and we will not accept it." The senators have introduced legislation that would penalize wealthy expatriates by imposing a 30 percent capital gains tax (double the current rate) on all their future US investments, and bar them from ever re-entering the United States.

Even by the usual standards of congressional demagoguery, this is appalling. Saverin broke no laws. He didn't cheat on his taxes. He certainly didn't write his own rules. In fact, under existing law expatriation vastly enlarged his current tax bill, by deeming most of his investment gains to have been realized and taxable on the date he renounced his citizenship. Far from escaping the taxman, Saverin's Facebook fortune enriched the US Treasury by hundreds of millions of dollars. It is only gains he accumulates after giving up his citizenship that will avoid the reach of the IRS.

But if Schumer and Casey really believe that citizens who pick up and move to improve their tax status should be smeared as sellouts and punished ex post facto, why stop with Saverin? Every year, millions of Americans relocate from high-tax jurisdictions to those with lower taxes. Between 2000 and 2010, for example, Schumer's state of New York, which has one of the nation's heaviest personal tax burdens, experienced a net outflow of 1.3 million citizens. Hundreds of thousands of those ex-New Yorkers now reside in Florida. Many no doubt moved for the weather, remarks Scott Hodge of the Tax Foundation, but how many more preferred the sunnier tax climate in Florida, where there is no individual income tax, no estate tax, and no inheritance tax?

When former Cleveland Cavalier LeBron James, spurning an offer from the New York Knicks, joined the Miami Heat two years ago, it was noted that he had a clear financial incentive to do so: Income taxes in New York would have cost him more than $12 million. Would Schumer call him a "sellout" too? Leaving Cleveland's high taxes behind saved James millions as well. Should Ohio lawmakers pass a law banning him from ever setting foot in the Buckeye State again?

Casey and Schumer both maintain Facebook pages, which together have been "liked" by more than 17,300 people. Thanks to Facebook, their reach is extended and their message amplified -- all at no cost to them. They benefit every day from Saverin's willingness to do something they never did: invest his savings in a risky start-up venture with no guarantee of success. Rather than slamming him for leaving the country, perhaps they ought to be thanking him for what he helped make possible. Or better yet, repairing the US tax code so it doesn't drive people like Saverin to seek economic refuge elsewhere.

Saverin may not be very lovable, but he at least understands economic incentives. Schumer and Casey, by contrast, have yet to grasp that the more governments try to soak their taxpayers, the more likely those taxpayers are to end up somewhere else.

China seeks runaway factory bosses, wants to sign more extradition treaties

China is seeking the extradition of private entrepreneurs who have fled abroad after defaulting on billions of yuan owed to state banks and loan sharks, two independent sources said, a rare move underlining Beijing’s concern over the scale of losses.

Airports and other border crossings have received lists containing the names of heavily indebted small and medium enterprise (SME) bosses who are not permitted to leave the country, said the sources, who have direct knowledge of the situation and requested anonymity because of political sensitivities.

“Foreign governments have been asked to repatriate [fugitive] SME bosses and help recover their overseas assets,” said the first source with knowledge of the negotiations.

Many of the managers are suspected to have fled to countries such as the US, Canada, Australia and Singapore, according to Chinese media reports.

The problems began with private companies in the eastern city of Wenzhou — famous for its entrepreneurs and speculators — turning to the underground lending market after Beijing clamped down on credit as part of a campaign against inflation.

Squeezed by falling export orders and rising raw material, land and labor costs — and in some cases suffering losses on their own property investments — many found themselves unable to repay, leading some SME bosses to abandon their debts, factories and workers.

The troubles are now spreading to other areas, including several cities in Zhejiang Province and Erdos in the northern region of Inner Mongolia, according to local media.

“SME bosses who owe banks a lot of money are under ‘border control,’” the second source said, referring to government monitoring and curbs on their overseas travel.

Heads of at least 80 companies in Wenzhou have gone into hiding because they could not repay loan sharks, leaving behind debts, unpaid wages and thousands out of a job, according to the online edition of Xinhua news agency.

The Foreign and Public Security ministries declined immediate comment when reached by telephone.

Beijing is also seeking to sign extradition treaties with more countries in its effort to bring home runaway officials and recover their overseas assets, the sources said.

China has such treaties with at least 33 countries since 1993, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Web site.

China and the US have no extradition treaty, although the countries have cooperated on corruption cases before, including in 2004, when a former Bank of China manager was deported to face charges at home.

More than 10,000 Chinese Communist Party and government officials fled to the US or Europe with 650 billion yuan (US$102 billion) in bribes or embezzled state funds between 1999 and 2009, according to a Peking University study.

Global action on tax evasion has largely failed, study shows

The most concerted global push ever undertaken against international tax evasion has failed to reverse the flow of funds to offshore financial centres, according to banking industry data.

Despite unprecedented action from political leaders, and a blizzard of bilateral co-operation treaties entered into by offshore centres, deposit data from the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) shows bank accounts in tax havens still held $2.7 trillion last year – about the same amount as in 2007.

Niels Johannesen and Gabriel Zucman, academics who were granted access to a rarely seen breakdown of BIS data, concluded: "So far, the G20 tax haven crackdown has … largely failed … Treaties have led to a modest relocation of bank deposits between tax havens but have not triggered significant flows of funds out of tax havens."

Their findings are in sharp contrast to the official verdict on the G20 initiative in London in 2009. Last November Angel Gurria, general-secretary of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the body whose job is to oversee the crackdown, told the G20 in Cannes: "The era of bank secrecy is over." Acknowledging work remained to be done in some areas, he nevertheless insisted: "It is now no longer possible to hide assets or income without risking detection." The excuse fell flat with his audience.

Presented with Johannesen and Zucman's findings last week, Pascal Saint-Amans, the OECD's head of tax, said: "It's an interesting survey, but perhaps it is published a bit early. Let's see what the impact is in a couple of years."

However, tax campaigners claim the latest study shows getting offshore centres to sign bilateral co-operation treaties is an ineffective means of tackling the problem. Weakly worded treaties, they argue, allow signatories to request financial details only where they can already demonstrate suspect evasion activity. Reformers have called for more robust transparency treaties to weed out tax evaders.

Adding to the challenge facing tax authorities is the widespread use of corporate structures spanning multiple havens. Johannesen and Zucman's study found that some $550bn – about a quarter of all deposits in tax havens – was owned by individuals or companies in other havens. The British Virgin Islands and Panama are popular jurisdictions for such holding companies.

Money flowing to opaque offshore financial centres has in recent years been the subject of intense political scrutiny as many of the world's largest economies – not least the US and Britain – have been straining to raise sufficient taxes to pay for public services and to service rising debts without choking off economic growth.

The G20 crackdown has pressured many offshore financial centres to sign co-operation treaties. Jersey and Guernsey have signed 18 and 19 such treaties respectively. According to Johannesen and Zucman, BIS data suggests that these bilateral treaties typically lead to a 3.8% fall in the deposits held on behalf of individuals or companies from the treaty partner.

Bank deposits in Jersey have dropped by more than a half, a fall of $110bn over four years; deposits in Guernsey have declined by 15%. By contrast, Johannesen and Zucman said, Cyprus has signed only two co-operation treaties meeting OECD criteria and saw deposit levels rise by 60%.

"The deposit gains and losses correlate strongly with the number of treaties signed by each haven," the academics found. "The least compliant havens have attracted new clients, while the most compliant have lost some, leaving roughly unchanged the total amount of wealth managed in tax havens."

However, they also noted that those withdrawing deposits around the time of co-operation treaties – possible tax evaders – were frequently shifting their wealth to other, similarly secretive, offshore centres where no such equivalent treaty existed.

"Alternative markets will develop whenever and wherever the free market provides less than optimal opportunities for personal financial growth," the report concluded.

Czech government approves bill banning bearer shares

The government of Petr Nečas approved a bill that will regulate bearer shares and allow authorities to identify their owners. If passed by Parliament, the anti-corruption measure, which was announced by Deputy Prime Minister Karolína Peake on Wednesday, will force companies to register bearer shares in a central depository kept by the stock exchange, or deposit them with banks.

Bearer instruments, or shares, are proof that their owner has a claim to a property, such as bonds, and differ from normal registered shares in that there are no records kept of who owns the property in question, or of the transactions involved in transferring them. Whoever physically holds the bearer shares is assumed to be the rightful owner of the property. According to the Justice Ministry, among others, bearer shares are abused for money laundering and corruption.

No more anonymity, says the government, finally making good on a promise they made a part of their election platform that they have long been accused of sidelining.  Following through strikes a major blow against financial freedom in Europe and adds the Czech Republic to the list of regimes more interested in preserving their high moral tone on corruption than furthering the interests of their people.

If the government’s bill is passed then the aptly-named “anonymous shares” in Czech will now cease to exist as such, and will have to be registered either with the stock exchange or immobilised – that is, deposited in a bank - in either case allowing their identification by law enforcement officials and those awarding public tenders or subsidies. Discreet ownership is no longer possible.

Practically all of the major Czech political parties have said at one point or another that they insist on getting rid of bearer shares, but have changed tack when it came to a vote. Moreover, while the banning of anonymous shares has been a flagship issue for many public corruption watchdogs, lawyers and politicians alike say it is only one small step towards slashing corruption rather than bringing about real solutions for transparency.

Deputy Prime Minister Karolína Peake told the Czech Press Agency on Wednesday that the abolition of bearer shares was an important step, definitely not as essential in combating corruption as it is sometimes presented. In particular, she said, it does not resolve the kinds of opportunities that companies use their complicated ownership structures to rely on. She added that the agreement under which she, along with the local development and justice ministries, would prepare other draft measures to reveal ownership structures of the companies bidding for public procurement by the end of the year, was as equally important as the abolition of bearer shares.

There are a number of other ways to obscure the real ownership structure of a company, lawyers note, for instance by establishing a Czech company whose only shareholder would be a foreign firm based in a country where bearer shares are permitted.

The Justice Ministry has therefore also proposed that shareholders be obliged to have their dividends per share sent to a bank account in the EU or in any member state of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Check the Czechs off the list of worthwhile countries to do business in.

Offshore bank accounts: no Americans allowed

In a piece for Bloomberg, reporter Sanat Vallikappen begins, “Go away, American millionaires.” Valliikappen then goes on to explain that wealth management firms the world over are declining to open offshore accounts for Americans.

“I don’t open U.S. accounts, period,” said Su Shan Tan, head of private banking at Singapore-based DBS, Southeast Asia’s largest lender, who described regulatory attitudes toward U.S. clients as “Draconian.”

It hadn’t been easy for Americans doing financial business overseas, but since the 2010 passage of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, known as Fatca, which seeks to prevent tax evasion by Americans with offshore accounts, opening a foreign bank account has become mission impossible.

Valliikappen writes,

The 2010 law, to be phased in starting Jan. 1, 2013, requires financial institutions based outside the U.S. to obtain and report information about income and interest payments accrued to the accounts of American clients. It means additional compliance costs for banks and fewer investment options and advisers for all U.S. citizens living abroad, which could affect their ability to generate returns.

The Institute of International Bankers and the European Banking Federation said in an April 30 letter to the IRS, that the 400 pages of rules and regulations issued by the American tax authority create Unnecessary burdens and costs.”

Massachusetts Democrat Richard Neal says the government needs to crack down on offshore tax dodgers. Mr. Neal wants tax money and doesn’t care much about privacy and all that.

“People should know, and the IRS should know, what money is being held offshore and for what purpose,” Neal said. “I don’t think there’s anything unreasonable about that.”

One young gentleman that believed Rep. Neal and the other thieves on Capitol Hill to be a bit too greedy and unreasonable is Eduardo Saverin, the billionaire co- founder of Facebook Inc. Before Facebook does its public offering, and the price of Facebook stock is quoted daily, making Saverin’s wealth undistributable, he decided to renounce his American citizenship and head for Singapore.

Bloomberg reports,

Saverin, 30, joins a growing number of people giving up U.S. citizenship, a move that can trim their tax liabilities in that country. The Brazilian-born resident of Singapore is one of several people who helped Mark Zuckerberg start Facebook in a Harvard University dorm and stand to reap billions of dollars after the world’s largest social network holds its IPO.

Singapore doesn’t have a capital gains tax. It does tax income earned in that nation, as well as “certain foreign- sourced income,” according to a government website on tax policies there.

Saverin has to pay the U.S. government an exit tax but doing it before the IPO was wise. Renouncing your citizenship well in advance of an IPO is “a very smart idea,” from a tax standpoint, said Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, director of the international tax program at the University of Michigan’s law school. “Once it’s public you can’t fool around with the value.”

There are a few Mises Institute supporters who have paid the American exit tax and now live in Singapore. None I’ve spoken with regret it.

“It’s a loss for the U.S. to have many well-educated people who actually have a great deal of affection for America make that choice,” said Richard Weisman, an attorney at Baker & McKenzie in Hong Kong. “The tax cost, complexity and the traps for the unwary are among the considerations.”

While Mr. Neal chases away taxpayers, the only ones left will be tax eaters.