Furthermore, the effectiveness of these measures is at least debatable, since fraudsters will mainly affect children. It is common knowledge that the big tax evaders do not open accounts in your own name, but hidden behind a tangle of directors trustees, nominees, and foundations. These entities, being legal persons registered in tax havens outside Europe, are not under the jurisdiction of the EU and therefore will continue to protect banking secrecy. It is a case similar to that occurring with the European Directive on the Taxation of Savings, adopted by the EU in 2005 and accepted in Andorra, Switzerland, Monaco, San Marino and Liechtenstein. The policy includes a system for the exchange of tax information on deposits held by individuals, but does not include legal persons, which enables large fortunes continue to hide under the protection of the corporate veil. Thus, those most affected by the measure are pensioners Nordic installed on the Mediterranean coast or emigrants from southern countries, which maintain accounts in their countries of origin.
Once again, there is hunting small fish and let the great escape. It is undeniable that the continuing pressure on tax havens, by governments and international organizations during the last decade has led to serious cutbacks in some cases the laws of privacy and secrecy. But it is also clear that we are not far to the end of the now called offshore jurisdictions. What we can anticipate is likely that there will be a turnaround and financial transactions increasingly move to new countries over less stigmatized, or to more discreet locations that offer similar tax advantages. Without going any further, some states in the USA or the UK itself is also true tax havens for non-residents, at least if applied strictly the definition of what the OECD defines itself as “harmful tax practices.” The double standards this organization at the time of whether or not a country in its dreaded blacklist, makes many analysts argue that their struggle is actually more to do with an economic motivation, which aims to eliminate tax competition third countries. Similarly, the pressure level has not exercised much less the same intensity in all cases. At the end of the day, it is easier to put pressure on the poor and small states of the Caribbean, face serious economic giants such as Hong Kong or Singapore or cut their own privileges of the member countries of the OECD. In any event, legal assistance agreements and tax have been forced to sign numerous tax havens in fear of sanctions, have not always been fiscal significance or, if any, affect only nationals of certain countries, especially Americans or certain EU countries.
Where transparency measures may have had a greater impact is in the banking community. Hopefully in the coming years we attend secrecy cuts here and there, especially in the more traditional tax havens and those in Europe. Thus, the standard of banking secrecy, Switzerland, may be squeezed out by jurisdictions as Panama have known more firmly defend its banking secrecy laws. In short, we are not far to the end of tax havens. There are too many political and economic interests. While there are still underdeveloped nations that have little to lose and everything to gain from the offshore business, the phenomenon will change the face, name or place, but surely continue to exist. Some of the conventional banking and tax havens will disappear but new ones take over.