US: UBS must release names of suspected tax cheats

We don't need a "presumption" of guilt, we have multiple guilty pleas in federal court by UBS executives and a signed, filed admission of guilt by UBS as part of the deferred prosecution statement that they helped people break the law - what more do you want, a singing telegram? lol.....

 

Corrections again Sammy. You have "multiple guilty pleas in federal court by UBS executives and a signed, filed admission of guilt by UBS as part of the deferred prosecution statement that they helped people break the law" in regards to several hundred accounts, implying that those are guilty.

There are several hundred thousand offshore American accounts at UBS. The Treasury/IRS is threatening to prosecute all several hundred thousand, not only those couple of hundred, along with UBS.

 

Yes, thank you for finally agreeing with me. Your acquiesence is *noted*.

 

I think its about 50,000 that the IRS is after.


MFW must work for UBS

 

its not a crime when you're rich to some people

 

My father in law does work for UBS - the above number is correct, it's about 50k names.

 

I posted this in a thread couple month back, from bloomberg

This is a step towards guilty until proven innocent, not good.

 

Seriously Sammy, what have I acquiesed? I'm really starting to wonder if, instead of being dropped on your head as a kid like I previously assumed, you were actually born with some kind of birth defect.

UBS pleaded guilty in the case of some couple hundred cases. The IRS wanted just a wee bit more number of names than that. Tens of thousands higher. It is pretty much implying that since couple hundred is guilty, the rest must also be guilty.

But of course, you can't count.

 

nevermind.

 

52,000 to be precise. Disclosure is sought for the rest.

But my god, that is a brilliant line of logic. I must work for UBS.

Btw, "US officials" state 17,000 are guilty, yet is seeking to prosecute 52,000.

 

I'm still not getting this. Where does the presumption of innocence come to bear in seeking prosecutions? Presumption of innocence is a mandate for the judge and jury, not the prosecutor. I can understand if you have some anxiety about your information being turned over to the Feds and then used in a legal action against you. I don't see how it would be unjust, however.

 

No - prosecutors can presume you are guilty, but they are not authorized to throw you in jail. They have to then collect evidence and prove it.

The prosecutors aren't throwing anyone in jail - they are seeking to collect evidence from UBS's records. If cops have reason to suspect my house is being used to stage a crime, they can get a warrant to search my house. Similarly, here they have very good reason to suspect UBS of facilitating a crime and are seeking to get access to the necessary information to determine if a crime has been committed.

 

So this is like cops getting a search warrent to see if you are hiding crack in your house?

 

forbes, a magazine for wealth people has a good article on this. being a magazine for wealthy people, it no where claims what the government is doing is wrong. the only people claiming that are posters on this site.

i will not claim to know the law, but i think what major writes is mostly correct.

from personal experience working at a bank, i was once asked to turnover files by the irs on a suspected drug dealer, and once by the irs for a suspected tax evader.

this is not out of the ordinary. the law in question according to the article posted in the op is swiss law, not us

 

No, they can search the crack house, which in this case, is UBS. UBS has admitted to intentionally seeking out and protecting tax cheats. So now they are under a wider investigation.

This is not particularly complicated stuff. Why you seem to be suggesting the US shouldn't enforce basic laws is beyond me.

 

MFW:
I haven't been keeping up with all the fuss in this thread. But I'm going to state a few things outside the criminal jurisdiction realm.

- You are supposed to report all your income to the IRS. (no-brainer but so was the issue in this thread)

- I hope you don't make a run on your bank when I tell you this, but bank accounts are NOT private information. Sure your bank account is private from me, but not the United States government.

- Thus, if your "without due process claim" was how they could reach private bank accounts. The above explains it, because bank accounts are not private at all: they do not fall under the protection of the 4th Amendment.
However, if your claim is that they won't get due process in the criminal courts . . . don't you worry, they'll get what's coming to them.

- Off-shore bank accounts were one of the biggest loopholes in the enforcement of the tax code. But still, the BIGGEST loophole (though legal thanks to Republicans) in the tax code is the removal of the so called "death tax" which allows the wealthy to escape tax on the majority of their assets. Its amazing how the GOP convinced lower to middle class Southerners and Mid-westerners to rally behind this, even though the uber-wealthy were getting away with unfair tax-treatment that they themselves would not really benefit from. But I digress . . .

You are like:



And I'm like:


I normally would not post any response, but beneath my tough demeanor I felt pity on you for being ignorant and awkward.
Although your act may be an attempt to be cheeky and cute, its wearing thin. I'm willing to put up with it, but I am also here to clean up your clumsy mess.


Oh hey, check it out Jar-Jar. I found something on my first google attempt! This may help you, but then again, I'm not sure how much you can understand based on your jurisdicational mishap.

- Here is an article that may explain what you are complaining about.

Is it more believable that this type of litigation is okay if you knew that it started under George W's first term?

Google is easy to use. Anybody can do it!

 

how uninformed could you possibly be on this topic?

 

UBS violated IRS laws, which operate under an assumption of guilt, and that it is the responsibility of the accused to show proof of innocence/