Finance and economics mentoring
New Horizons Paraguay
Ticker tape by TradingView

Do I understand that US financial institutions DO NOT report non-us person deposits in them?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is indeed. However it's no longer acceptable‍ to accept dirty untaxed money period. As a consequence many Swiss banks have gone out⁠ of business or been taken over. At least two I banked with disappeared overnight at⁤ the time i.e Frey and Hottinger.

Much more will follow also as Swiss banks⁣ can't charge clients fees like they used to be able to charge the criminals that⁢ banked with them. They now have to be competitive and their asset base has shrunk︀ with no dirty money....lol.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/perfect-storm_many-swiss-private-banks-facing--extinction-/45178358
 
I disagree with most of the qualifiers used ... untaxed money⁢ is not dirty per se. As a matter of fact I would argue the opposite︀ ... it is the taxed money that is dirty since it is obtained by extortion︁ not by free interchange. Furthermore, it is not those that resist extortion (by the organized︂ crime syndicates calling themselves "States" or "Government") that are criminals, quite the opposite, they are︃ the victims of those that resort to violence (or threats thereof).

Though, the English language︄ is in a sorry state today ... just as George Orwell predicted. Newspeak and doublespeak︅ is the order of the day.

As long as you do OBEY and do not︆ think you will be OK.
 
The Swiss decided years ago on a white‍ money policy. They no longer found it acceptable to take black money and funds hidden⁠ from tax man.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=30ede261-abe7-4b37-abe4-f34cb9589bc6

Hiding dirty untaxed money behind banking secrecy and lack of information exchange at⁢ the time was never a clever strategy for Swiss banks. They got their day of︀ reckoning and now the Swiss banks are failing when faced with a level playing field.︁ The only victims are governments that were starved of tax dollars. Developing countries whose leaders︂ stole and hid their countries wealth meant for the people in Swiss banks. The chickens︃ have come home to roost.
 
Your comments do not seem to bear much relevance to my observations ... beyond continued‌ use of the very language that I criticize.
 
Just the facts matter to me and your demonstrating a clear lack of them sadly.‌ However your personal observations are always welcome in the mix even if they are not‍ based on any sound evidence or facts.
 
Sorry if

Hi Martin,
Sorry if i’m answering to this old⁤ thread, about IRS automatic exchange information, is that available only for personal bank account or⁣ also for corporate bank account?
 
So for example for an offshore company with bank account in usa active in trading‌ of products business that not get interest in us bank account will not be reported‍ is that correct?
 
@Osleak, yes corporate accounts are still not reported. But take care of the "John‌ Doe Summons" . In case you are a big fish, major US banks will disclose‍ UBO. So better look for someone who can form the company account without telling the⁠ real UBO to the bank. Can be done with a "dual-nominee" setup, it's some kind⁤ of grey zone if done right with purchase agreements. Look at the advertisers.

That a⁣ John Doe Summons was granted to a non US country is quite new, but I⁢ guess more will come.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/cour...ing-information-about-finnish-residents-using
 
Thanks for your support @neweraoffshore, in my case my customer are buying a shelf Dubai offshore with nominees director︀ and shareholders, the consultant has offered me also a solution for nominee service for bank︁ account but he told me that the ubo will be showed to the bank.... you︂ can offer solution to avoid to show real ubo?
 
Depends if the US Financial Institution knows where the foreign entity has certified‍ it is tax resident.

For example where the entity i.e Seychelles IBC specifies it is⁠ tax resident in i.e UK due to central management and control being in UK the⁤ bank will report it to UK under definition of "Reportable Account" in FATCA agreement. However⁣ the bank will need to have this information available.
 
Okk but⁣ only in case of account with interest paid is that correct? For current bank account⁢ of an offshore entity that doesn’t get interest, and the business is trading of goods︀ and payments come from eu companies there is not exchange informations is that correct?
 
Wrong

Read the definition of i.e "United Kingdom Reportable Account" and notice‍ the "or" in the statement.

---quote

The term “United Kingdom Reportable Account” means a Financial⁠ Account maintained by a Reporting U.S. Financial Institution if: (i) in the case of a⁤ Depository Account, the account is held by an individual resident in the United Kingdom and⁣ more than $10 of interest is paid to such account in any given calendar year⁢; or (ii) in the case of a Financial Account other than a Depository Account,︀ the Account Holder is a resident of the United Kingdom, including entities that certify that︁ they are resident in the United Kingdom for tax purposes, with respect to which U.S.︂ source income that is subject to reporting under chapter 3 or chapter 61 of subtitle︃ A of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code is paid or credited.

----- end quote
 
Noted so it s needed the fiduciary service to hide ubo? Is that correct?

Or it’s just ok the nominees director and shareholders to avoid facta to eu members states?‌
 
Please read the full text of the FATCA agreement that affects‍ you. It will save you time and a lot of heart ache in the long⁠ run thu&¤#.

As I wrote above. A good idea⁣ however is to totally avoid the US and FATCA. Why dangle your nuts in a⁢ lions mouth if you don't have to.
 
If you⁠ could persuade the nominee service to take full ownership and add on a X year⁤ call option for 100% of the capital you would achieve the objective you seek. However>⁣

1. You may find it difficult to persuade a nominee to take that deal (risk⁢ of piercing corporate veil)
2. You cannot pay out dividends ... except to the nominee︀ (normally to cover his fees)
3. You may still show up as a person of︁ significant control depending on circumstances and bank policies
 
Nominee would just walk of with your⁠ money and laugh at you after a while. After all who are you going to⁤ complain too? Not the US where you just committed bank fraud and not in Dubai⁣ either...lol. You would basically open yourself up to blackmail with no comeback.
 
That would be breach of⁤ the conditions of the options contract. So no half-decent nominee would do that ... unless⁣ they are running for the hills anyhow.

There is no bank fraud as long as⁢ the "nominee" is the beneficial owner and not a nominee.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

JohnnyDoe.is is an uncensored discussion forum
focused on free speech,
independent thinking, and controversial ideas.
Everyone is responsible for their own words.

Quick Navigation

Forums

User Menu

Login
Community platform by JohnnyDoe © 2025 JohnnyDoe
Top Bottom