Money Laundering and Your Bank Accounts – Part VI – Loans


photo by Drew Hays, unsplash.com
This is the sixth part in our series revealing exactly what banks are looking for when they are combatting money laundering.

Laundering Money Through Lending Activity

Money launderers course massive sums through loans and investments. Bank authorities must perform significant due diligence to detect money laundering in these cases. To top that off, some governments try to discourage detection of such money laundering activities through legislation and regulation.

A borrower secures loans using pledged assets held by third parties unrelated to the borrower.

Launderers clean dirty money by pledging an asset purchased with dirty money to secure a clean loan. Sometimes, they course the funds through several banks, several shell companies, and one or two straw men. The bank may ask many questions to prevent any money laundering. The borrower must answer those questions convincingly.

A borrower secures a loan by using readily marketable assets, such as securities. If a third party owns the assets then the transaction is especially suspicious.

Borrowers don’t usually pledge easily marketable assets to get cash. The borrower can sell such assets with less difficulty than taking out a loan. If a borrower does not, he needs to be able to explain why. He will need to provide a convincing reason.

A borrower defaults on a loan that is secured by easily marketable assets.

The borrower probably took out the loan in order to default on it. Launderers create these schemes as a way to convert somewhat clean assets and create clean money.

Loans are made for or are paid on behalf of, a third party with no reasonable explanation.

The borrower purchases a certificate of deposit using an unknown source of funds in order to secure a loan. When funds are provided via currency or multiple monetary instruments the source of the security is even more suspicious.

Banks may permit the borrower to partially or fully secure a loan by purchasing a CD issued by the bank. However, banks that do so must thoroughly vet the source of the funds. If they don’t, regulators will suspect them of colluding in money laundering.

Banks that make loans that lack a legitimate business purpose, provide the bank with significant fees for assuming little or no risk, or tend to obscure the movement of funds (e.g., loans made to a borrower and immediately sold to an entity related to the borrower) will be suspected of colluding to launder money.

Money Laundering and Your Bank Accounts – Part V – Suspicious Activity

mental laundering - starkness
photo by Jace Grandinetti

Suspicious Activity: Any Activity Inconsistent with Your Business

This is the fifth part in our series revealing exactly what banks are looking for when they are combatting money laundering.
Money launderers sometimes try to fool banks by providing convincing evidence of their honesty when they open their account. Then when the account is running, they change their operations into money laundering mode.

A business’s pattern of currency transaction patterns shows a sudden change inconsistent with its normal activities.

For example, you operate an import-export business that receives £100,000 spread among ten customers. Then, over the course of a few months, you ramp up the deposits to £300,000 spread among several hundred customers. This is a clear change in the way you do business and would elicit an investigation. The bank would also find it suspicious if suddenly one customer paid you an unusually large amount.

Money Laundering by depositing a large volume of cashier’s checks, money orders, or funds transfers deposited into or purchased through, your account when the nature of your business would not appear to justify such activity.

This is an extension of the previous pattern but extends to domestic business and physical payments are also important.

Money Laundering through a retail business with dramatically different currency deposits from similar businesses in the same area.

Perhaps a drug gang purchases a restaurant to launder money. Similar restaurants in the neighborhood receive practically all of their payments through credit and debit cards. On the other hand, the gang’s restaurant’s receipts are almost all cash. This discrepancy will alert the bank inspectors. Because they inspect the banks, they are aware of the activity of all the banks in the neighborhood. Furthermore, this activity will alert bank software that keeps track of patterns for similar businesses, local and national.

Clients effect unusual fund transfers among related accounts or among accounts that involve the same or related principals.

The owner of either a retail business and a cheque-cashing service does not ask for currency when depositing checks. He may have another source of currency.

Retail businesses in the 21st century frequently need to request currency because of a large number of credit card and debit card transactions. And, of course, a cheque cashing business that had no requirement for cash would be odd, indeed. If they don’t require currency from time to time, this is an item to be investigated.

Goods or services purchased by a business do not match the customer’s stated line of business.

A client layers transactions to launder money. For example, a fast-food restaurant assembles payments from street-corner drug dealers. Then the restaurant pays invoices for car parts to a gang-owned auto parts dealer. The dealer assembles the payments from several restaurants and passes them up the chain to a diamond wholesaler. A fast-food restaurant buying auto parts? An auto parts retailer buying diamonds? The bank sees these transactions and checks for money laundering.

A client pays for goods or services with checks, money orders, or bank drafts not drawn from the account of the entity that made the purchase.

Businesses should never pay on behalf of other businesses or individuals. Third-party transactions can mask illegal payments. Accountants will discourage such payments. Banks will suspect them.

Money Laundering and Your Bank Accounts – Part IV – Automated Clearing House (ACH)

dirty money needs laundering
image by Vitaly via unsplash.com

This is the fourth part in our series revealing exactly what banks are looking for when they combat money laundering.

Automated Clearing House Transactions – Policing Money Laundering

“Automated Clearing House” or ACH refers to all clearing houses, not only to the U.S. one with that name. GIRO, NETS, ACH, CHAPS, EFT, BACS, PEACH, SDD and others are all automated clearing houses. Launderers attempt to route transactions through them to bypass some anti-money laundering safeguards.

FinTech

The rapid rise of financial technology (Fintech) third party quasi-banks has created new openings for money laundering. PayPal was one of the earliest Internet Fintech companies but many have followed in its wake. Fintech quasi-banks carve up the banking product into pieces. Each fintech company provides one or two services, adding to the burden of regulators. Ayden, LendingClub, Addepar, Commonbond, Kabbage, Transferwise, etc. are a few of the many third party fintechs. Fintechs are generally on the up-and-up but it is reasonable to assume that some are designed as money laundries and are even capitalized by dirty money.

Non-customers launder money by using large-value, ACH transactions through third-party service providers (TPSP) that don’t perform effective due diligence.

Regulators don’t control TPSPs as rigorously as banks. So money launderers can move money into the banking system without the usual controls. ACH systems must flag such transactions. Regulators are looking at the TPSP environment now. Even so, they only look at deposits, checks payment, and money lending.

TPSPs violate ACH network rules, or generate illegal transactions, or process manipulated or fraudulent transactions on behalf of their customers in order to facilitate money laundering.

Regulators should close down TPSPs after catching them breaking the law, but often they don’t. Usually, regulators don’t consider the transgressions to be bad enough to put them out of business and may impose lesser penalties. Bank regulators will look for regular patterns of abuse by TPSPs. When they find an abusive TPSP, they will punish banks that have done business with it. But that takes time. Meanwhile, money launderers and their crooked clients continue to operate.

Layers of TPSPs that appear to be unnecessary are involved in transactions in order to launder money.

Always and everywhere, officials use complexity to facilitate fraud or theft. Complex tax codes such as that of the U.S. are examples of regulations designed with malicious intent. Complex financial deals are often designed to defraud. Regulators find such fraud hard to detect if they were designed with care. Launderers use TPSP layers to facilitate much of the money laundering outside the main banking system.

Clients initiate an unusually high level of transactions over the Internet or by telephone.

This is simply smurfing by another means and is as easy to track as any other kind of smurfing. Banks will usually detect this in the twenty-first century, and if they don’t, their regulators will.

NACHA information requests indicate potential concerns with the bank’s usage of the ACH system… i.e. they may suspect money laundering.

NACHA doesn’t communicate directly with end users of the US ACH. That is important for you to know because fake NACHA emails are a goldmine for phishing attacks. However, NACHA does have a set of rules and the ability to fine members who do not obey them. Furthermore, banks can alert NACHA of suspicious transactions they see. Third party software such as that provided by NICE•Actimize can automatically detect the misuse of ACH transactions. Those are reported to NACHA and bank regulators.

Can Money Launderers penetrate the system?

Yes. Many people try to game the system and succeed. It is clear that in many governments themselves are anxious to leave some channels available to move dirty money with little friction. Power and money laundering go hand-in-hand.

How do money launderers work in the 21st century?

In one scheme, criminals route debt obligations across multiple borders to clean dirty money. For example, X takes out a loan for a million dollars from a peer-to-peer fintech lender in the U.S. He deposits the loan in his U.S. account. He then funds the repayment of the loan from a Bank of Cyprus account using a UK peer-to-peer fintech fund offset service. Money crossed no borders under this scheme. On the other hand, the launderer moved a million dollars from his Russian-controlled Cyprus account into the U.S. When he repays in amounts of around $5,400 per month they will be thought to be normal payments for a thirty-year loan. Only the structure of the transaction would give a clue as to what was going on and given the separation in location and time, no alarms will sound.

We will discuss other schemes later in this series.

Money Laundering and your Bank Accounts – Part III – Funds Transfers


image by Vitaly via unsplash.com

This is the third part in our series revealing exactly what banks are looking for when they are combatting money laundering.
Transferring funds is at the heart of commerce and is the most important function performed by modern banks. Transferring funds is also at the heart of money laundering. Move dirty money through enough hands by sufficiently devious means and at some point, it magically becomes clean.
Think about this, if we can describe an activity, it is possible to write software to detect it. Banks do just that.

Bank Checks on Money Laundering Funds Transfers

You transfer funds in large, round dollar, hundred dollar, or thousand dollar amounts.

This is classic smurfing. Sudafed smurfs were buyers for meth labs who would go from drugstore to drugstore purchasing Sudafed cold medicine containing pseudoephedrine. The manufacturer then made crystal meth from the pseudoephedrine. Smurfing has expanded into money laundering. Smurfs typically deposit small amounts to many accounts. The money from those accounts is then assembled and transferred to a master account in another country. Then someone transfers the money, this time to the actual beneficiary. Dirty money often travels through several jurisdictions before arriving at the final destination.

Funds transfer activity occurs to or from a financial secrecy haven, or to or from a higher-risk geographic location without an apparent business reason or when the activity is inconsistent with the customer’s business or history.

“Higher-risk geographic locations” tend to be tiny island nations such as the Cayman Islands, Vanuatu or the British Virgin Islands. But, they are also places such as Luxembourg and Gibraltar. Banks maintain a list of risky jurisdictions. Transactions involving such jurisdictions receive extra scrutiny.

Funds transfer activity occurs to or from a financial institution located in a higher risk jurisdiction distant from the customer’s operations.

There might be a logical reason for a Florida business to be remitting to or receiving funds from the British Virgin Islands, which are close by. On the other hand, it is unlikely that they’d be doing much business with the Cook Islands in the South Pacific. Again, banks will pay extra attention to such transactions.

Your accounts receive many small, incoming transfers of funds, or receive deposits of checks and money orders. Then, almost immediately, all or most of the transfers or deposits are wired to another city or country. Usually, the transfers are in a manner inconsistent with the customer’s business or history.

Again, we see smurfing on a large scale. Drug cartels purchase chain restaurants, casinos, entertainment and sports venues in order to be able to launder money through them. These venues typically have large numbers of small transactions; ideal for throwing banks off the scent. But law enforcement has statistical data that can sniff out this sort of money laundering.

Your accounts receive large, incoming funds transfers on behalf of a foreign client, with little or no explicit reason.

Banks want to know what to expect. If you are going to be receiving a large amount of money, it is wise to tell them in advance what is going on. Ensure that they write it down so that you can avoid suspicion. You may think it is troublesome, but having the FBI knocking on your door is real trouble.

Transferring funds is unexplained, repetitive, or shows unusual patterns.

To the average person, the world seems jumbled, chancy, ad hoc. But those who pay attention see patterns. So it is with bank accounts. Observe enough bank accounts and you’ll see that 99.9% of them follow predictable patterns. If your account is in the one-tenth of one percent, the bank will examine it closely.

You receive payments or receipts with no apparent links to legitimate contracts, goods, or services.

If you run an asphalt business and suddenly receive payment in your account for a Ferrari, that may well be flagged. Receive payment for a Ferrari and a luxury condo and it will be flagged.

You send funds to the same person using different accounts or to different accounts. Or the reverse.

Well Sir Smurf-a-lot, banks figured out this channel a long time ago. It can work, but only by using multiple aliases or smurfs at many banks over a long time.

You don’t provide enough information regarding funds transfers, not only the why but also the who of related parties.

Banks detect these omissions sometimes but they fall into a gray zone. Protect yourself by being open and up front in describing both why the transaction is taking place and who the beneficiary is.

Money Laundering and Your Bank Accounts – Part II – Avoiding Scrutiny


image by Andrew Gook

This is a continuation of our series on money laundering and bank accounts. We hope to help you avoid making yourself look guilty during the normal course of business. Keeping things above board is the surest path to a sound sleep.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

When interacting with the banking system you have no assumption of innocence working on your behalf. With over a trillion dollars having already been laundered and billions more being laundered every year, monetary authorities are nervous. Furthermore, only 0.2% of the money laundered is caught. Every citizen pays the cost for this in higher taxes and higher prices.
Know what the cop on the beat is looking for and you can stay above reproach. Sometimes this may seem troublesome, but in the long run, your life will be easier.

Common Efforts to Avoid Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirements

You try to persuade a bank employee not to file required reports or maintain required records for your bank accounts.

This is a high-speed train to prison. Don’t even think about it.

You are reluctant to provide information needed to file a mandatory report, to have the report filed, or to proceed with a transaction after being informed that the report must be filed.

Reluctance looks like guilt. Know in advance everything that is required of you. If the workload is too great or the information too sensitive, don’t open an account.

You hesitate to furnish identification when purchasing negotiable instruments in recordable amounts.

Negotiable instruments are cumbersome, but in sufficiently large quantities can be useful to money launderers, especially if they are smurfing. (Doing many small transactions to avoid alerting authorities.) Banks know this. Bank examiners know this. Never, ever hesitate to show your identification.

You ask to be exempted from reporting or record-keeping requirements for your bank deposits.

When it comes to money, criminals don’t want perfect records. Sloppy/missing records are the hallmark of criminal intent. Keep perfect records and give the banks what they ask for and be happy to do so.

You often use the automated teller machine to make several bank deposits below a specified threshold.

Banks look for multiple small transactions (“structured transactions”) which are used to get around the $10,000 limit. Using an ATM or multiple ATMs won’t hide the structured deposits. Make deposits to different accounts and in different amounts and collect them ultimately in one account and you’ll set off an alarm. Don’t bother to try.

You deposit funds into several bank accounts, usually in amounts of less than $3,000.Then you consolidate them into a master account and transfer them outside the country.

Bad move. If you send the money to or through a suspicious location you may hear a knock on your door. This is just one small step more complicated than the earlier approach. They will notice.

You access a safe deposit box after completing a transaction involving a large withdrawal of currency or accesses a safe deposit box before making currency deposits structured at or just under $10,000, to evade the bothersome CTR filing requirements.

The bank tracks everything you do with its computers. You can’t fool them with something this simple. Why try?

Money Laundering and Your Bank Accounts – Part I – Hiding Information

money laundering machine
Businesses and individuals don’t know what banks are looking for when deciding to open an account; it used to be so easy!  Anti-money-laundering and terrorist financing detection regulations are the problems.

Over the next few blogs, we will alert you to a number of things that legitimate banks must check. If you want to avoid difficulties, don’t stray into any of these areas.

The first customers that regulators look for are those who provide insufficient or spurious information. When such situations arise, the money laundering alarms will ring and the bank will take significant actions to resolve the situation; usually not to your benefit.

Identification Problems

The customer uses unusual or suspicious identification documents that cannot be readily verified.
His chances of opening an account are almost nil at any bank that he can actually trust with his money if they don’t believe his identity is real.

When the customer first opens the account he gives a taxpayer ID and then later provides a different sort of taxpayer ID. For example, in the U.S. he provides an individual taxpayer identification number after earlier providing a Social Security number.

The customer uses different identification numbers with variations of his or her name.
The customer may not know this, but banks design their software to detect such frauds.

A business won’t provide complete information about the nature and purpose of its business, anticipated account activity, prior banking relationships, the names of its officers and directors, or information regarding its place of business.
Of course, a customer who conceals facts sets off money laundering alarms.

Verification

The phone company says that customer’s home or business telephone is not in service.
Why would someone opening a legitimate bank account provide a bad phone number? In fact, banks don’t believe they would; they’re probably money laundering or terrorists.

Suspicious Activity

The customer’s background differs from that which would be expected on the basis of his or her business activities.
If someone leaves his job in one field to start a business in another field may have this problem. He will need to give a convincing reason for accepting this.

The customer makes frequent or large transactions and has no record of past or present employment experience.

The customer is a trust, shell company, or Private Investment Company and is reluctant to provide information on controlling parties and underlying beneficiaries. In such cases, beneficial owners may hire nominee incorporation services to establish shell companies and open bank accounts for those shell companies while shielding the owner’s identity.
Anonymous intermediaries are one of the most common problems banks have with prospective accounts. Unsurprisingly, bank regulators don’t trust them and proper jurisdictions provide one way or another for revealing the beneficial owners of the account. Banks must know their customers and anonymous intermediaries prevent that.

You must beware of over a hundred other things that banks may use to impair your account. Deal with the professionals at Hilda Loe Associates to maximize your chances of opening a bank account.

Singapore Government Sets Small Business Controllers Astir As AEOI Comes Knocking

singapore registered controllers red tape
Image by James Petts
Until now the controllers of most local businesses could sit quietly in the background, passively earning money. To the world at large they appeare to be unconnected with the company providing their income or wealth. In the new world of AEOI and FATCA, goverments no longer condone such anonymity. These folks are now deemed Registerable Controllers” whom we describe in more detail further on.

For government departments to learn who actually controls the business is a significant chore today. So legislation will now go into effect on 31 March 2017 to rectify that problem.

From that time forward, some companies must maintain a register of their “Registerable Controllers”. Government owned companies, financial institutions and companies traded on a stock exchange are exempt.
Their registrar’s office or the registered address will keep a new document known as the “Register of Controllers”. You can find more detail on it here

Registerable Controllers

The legislation is interesting in that it doesn’t say who IS a registerable controller; it defines who isn’t one.
If you (either as a person or a company) control a company indirectly through one or more controllers, you aren’t a controller. In that case, don’t have to appear on the register. In other words, for example:

  1. If you are company A and own or have a significant interest in company B and
  2. company B owns company C,
  3. then B would have to register with C as its controller and
  4. A would have to register with B as its controller.

Because 25% interest in the company or in its voting shares is the cut-off. A company could have up to four registered controllers, if they each controlled 25% of the voting shares.

More Information

This is just a brief summary of how the law works. There are more details for the immense variety of ownership and control structures that could exist, but the principal is always the same:

  1. If the company is already statutorily required to keep a record of its controllers somewhere, it isn’t required to maintain a second copy.
  2. If an individual or legal person controls a company indirectly through one or more companies, they need only be listed at the directly owned company(ies) subject to a above.

As always, the devil is in the details, which you can find here.

AEOI Forcing Moves from Offshore to Midshore

AEOI drives Putin offshore
AEOI and FATCA make it more and more difficult to shield one’s income in offshore havens. Today, many people are finding that the risks and inconvenience of banking offshore merely to save on taxes no longer make sense. For that reason, more and more individuals and companies are moving to midshore locations. Locations that have strong banks and banking sectors and favorable tax systems are termed “midshore’.

Midshore Locations

Midshore locations are relatively few. The best are Singapore, Hong Kong, The Netherlands, Ireland and Delaware. If you know how to take advantage of their tax systems, then your real taxes can be quite reasonable. In addition, business that move to a mid-shore jurisdiction start being taken seriously. The reality isk that no one trusts businesses from offshore jurisdictions; their purpose is known by everyone. But a business in a midshore location can have low taxes but enjoy the benefits of the reputation of the jurisdiction.

Everything Leads to Trump

Much of the world knows about the Christopher Steele dossier about the Russian Government’s kompromat bribes and promised bribes to Donald Trump and his rather motley crew. The dossier claims that Vladimir Putin promised to give Trump a 19% share in Rosneft when he kills the sanctions on Russia. Now, you may choose not to believe the dossier, and that’s understandable. However, it is indisputable that the deal was funded by only 300 million euros. And 19.5% of Rosneft is worth at least 10.2 billion euros.

When the new owners of the transaction are traced, it turns out to be a Cayman Islands company. To top that off, of the three owners of the Cayman Islands company, no one knows who the third party is. But the other owners are a Cayman Island company owned by a Cayman Island company.  When it came time to regularise the deal and present a respectable face to the world, they chose to form a Singapore company, QHG Shares Pte. Ltd. Clearly midshore companies make sense, even when buying a President.

Rosneft boss, Oligarch, former Putin aide and Tillerson friend, Igor Sechin revealed the deal on December 7, 2016, exactly one month after Donald Trump was elected. In the process, Putin pounded another nail in the coffin of the Cayman Island’s reputation. He gloated that the deal was a sign of international faith in Russia in spite of the sanctions.

He could have boasted that it was a cheap price to pay to buy the President of the United States. Dirty dealings. And that’s why no one respects offshore companies. And shady types love them.

AEOI Says Now’s the Time

AEOI kicks the comfortable in the rear and says “Wake up!” It’s time to get moving and stay ahead of malevolent bureaucrats who would do you harm. Contact us to get started on regularising your operations. We have a number of competitive, high-reputation midshore locations to choose from.

New Country. New Business. New Life. AEOI & FATCA Part II

Where not to do business:

By Sbw01f [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Percentage of People living on $1.00/day or less

We ended the first part of this discussion of inequality. While extreme equality isn’t needed to make a country a good place to do business, extreme inequality is a significant barrier to doing business in a country. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t a good place to settle down, but it does mean that must either concentrate on making your money elsewhere or concentrate on a business serving those who control the wealth.

This is the same table we presented in Part I of this essay:

Country Tax Percent
of GDP
HDI Ease Of
Doing Business
Inequality* 2025 Population Growth** Economic Freedom*** 2015 Real GDP Growth
New Zealand 27.8 0.913 1 0.362 5.6 3 3.00%
Singapore 13.5 0.912 2 0.464 0.7 2 2.00%
Denmark 34.8 0.923 3 0.248 0.7 18 1.00%
Hong Kong 12.5 0.910 4 0.537 -1.2 1 2.40%
Korea 13.9 0.898 5 .0302 -0.2 23 0.50%
Norway 22.4 0.944 6 .0268 3.4 25 1.60%
U.K. 25.0 0.907 7 0.324 2.2 12 2.20%
U.S.A. 11.4 0.915 8 0.450 3.0 17 2.50%
Sweden 43.3 0.907 9 .0249 2.2 19 4.20%
Macedonia 16.4 0.747 10 .0436 -1.6 31 3.20%

* The data isn’t available from a single source so Wikipedia has used a combination of CIA, World Bank and UN data. You can use the links on the Wikipedia site to get to the original data.

** Based on UN constant fertility forecast for the period 2025-2030. I selected this period because almost all population rates of growth are declining and if you are going to have a business, it is important to have an idea of whether you are enterenting a market that growing, static or shrinking. For comparison, the least developed countries have a forecasted birth rate of 27.3 births per thousand and that rate is increasing.

*** This data is from the Heritage Foundation which is a conservative political group in the U.S. that views the U.S. as a socialist state. (!) That should be borne in mind when interpreting the results…at least for the U.S. In any case, most of these countries rank fairly well on the scale of economic freedom.

Population Growth

Throughout the developed and developing world, the rate of population growth is dropping. In much of Eastern and Northern Europe as well as some other countries, the population is declining. We have not yet developed an economic system able to cope well with declining population. If you plan on doing business, you are far better off doing business in a country that is both prosperous and experiencing a reasonable rate of population growth. I’ve selected a date a bit into the future as it is important to know what is coming in this case, not what has passed.

It would probably be optimal to live in a society of zero population growth where there was full employment for everyone who wanted it as they were engaged in improving the quality of life rather than simply producing more and more stuff. Of the countries in this table, those showing positive growth are all reasonable choices based on this one criterion. Barring a change in economic systems in the next ten years the ones showing negative population growth should be avoided.

Economic Freedom

The following components go into the makeup of the Heritage Foundation calculation.  Heritage is not an honest broker so its judgement as to what exactly comprises economic freedom is skewed towards the Burkean ideal rather than that of Voltaire. Furthermore, they have an incentive to make the U.S. look bad when Democrats or moderate Republicans are in office.  That is something to keep in mind.

RULE OF LAW GOVERNMENT SIZE REGULATORY EFFICIENCY OPEN MARKETS
Property Rights Government Integrity Judicial Effectiveness Trade Freedom
Government Spending Tax Burden Fiscal Health Investment Freedom
Business Freedom Labor Freedom Monetary Freedom Financial Freedom

Real GDP Growth

This is a number that is fairly difficult to tinker with over the short term, but, of course, countries such as China have regarded it as just another piece of propaganda for so long that it is difficult to know what the actual facts are in their GDP reports. Having said that, the countries in our top ten are fairly consistent in their reporting methodologies year-over-year so we can be fairly certain that these growth numbers are real, even if their absolute GDP numbers may not be.

For lack of space we did not list Human Freedom or Polical Risk on the list at the top.  They appear below.

Political Risk

This is not a measure of political freedom. One can make a case that increased democracy brings with it increased political risk. Of course, one can say the same for totalitarianism. For business purposes, one doesn’t care particularly whether a country is democratic or autocratic, the one thing it must be is stable. So lower political risk is a measure of stability, not a measure of freedom.

Human Freedom

This may be the most important of all freedoms but, as business is defined today, it isn’t considered a necessary component although it is hard to point to any countries that have had long term business success without a great deal of human freedom. For that reason, we are presenting the scores here. First is a list of all the many indicators that are used and then the scores. You can download the report here:

Healthcare System Efficiency

WHO measures the health systems of the world to determine the quality and equity of the system in three areas, health outcomes, responsiveness and fairness in financing. From these they calculate a composite index which is what we display here. Because a poorly performing healthcare system adversely affects a country in numerous ways. It is an important measure to look at on its own, as we do here.

Best Countries to Live In

U.S. News & World Report uses sixty-three criteria to determine which the best countries are to live and work in. Among the criteria used for Entrepreneurship, for example, are: Provides easy access to capital, Well-developed infrastructure, Transparent business practices, Educated population, Skilled labor force, Entrepreneurial, and Connected to the rest of the world. These are just a few of the many scorings used. This is clearly an important adjunct to making your final decision as to where to live and to have a business.

Human Freedom Index
(1=best)
2016 Political Risk
(100=best)
WHO Health System Ranking
(1=best)
U.S. News Best Country Index
(1=best)
1. Hong Kong 92 n/a n/a
3. New Zealand 87 14 41
5. Denmark 82 34 12
6. U.K. 81 18 3
13. Norway 81 11 10
15. Sweden 88 23 6
23. United States 85 37 7
35. Korea 81 58 23
40. Singapore 91 6 15
55. Macedonia n/a 89 n/a

 

How Not to Pay Taxes in the U.S. (Hint: Copy Amazon)


Amazon is one of the world’s biggest companies and it isn’t just a digital company – it does physical things in the real world. Amazon has a physical presence in thirty countries and a digital presence everywhere. It had US$136 billion in revenues in 2016, a stock market valuation of more than US$450 billion. But it has never made a profit! And it probably never will. Think about that.

Vampire Profits

How do you grow a great company? Reinvestment, of course. If you pay taxes, that is money that isn’t available to reinvest. How do you avoid paying business income tax? That’s easy: don’t have profits; think of profits as a vampire, sucking away at your wealth.
Now you may need to adjust your way of thinking here, after all, wasn’t it the profit motive that got you into business in the first place? Probably not. You probably got into business to feel a sense of achievement, have some control over your own destiny and to accumulate wealth. None of those involve profits. Because of business tax laws, in fact, profits reduce your ability to accomplish your goals. If you don’t have profits you can use the money that you would have paid in taxes to undercut your profit-making competitor’s prices and to expand your business.

But How do I Make Money?

If your goals are as outlined above, money, per se, is incidental. You can eventually convert wealth to money if that is what you or your heirs want, but the wealth you will pass to your heirs is your company.

You may draw a salary for living expenses on which you may or may not pay taxes depending on how you have arranged your tax domicile. Through appropriate tax domiciliation and aggressive but legal use of company expenses, you should be able to avoid all or nearly all taxes.

How Well Does This Work?

Amazon is probably the foremost practitioner of the zero-profit strategy. Jeff Bezos intentionally started the company in a garage and grew it to today’s gargantuan size. Intellect, luck, hard work, and cost-avoidance were his tools and can be yours, too. Avoiding making profit taxes has given the company tens or hundreds of billions of dollars to use elsewhere. Amazon has kept prices down, made award-winning movies, provided low-cost delivery, and spun off new businesses. Jeff Bezos is not starving nor is it necessary for him to engage in complex tax-avoidance practices for the company. Nick Hanauer, Bezos’ first outside investor is doing just fine as well, largely as a result of Amazon’s success.
Not even Amazon can avoid making a profit forever. For all fast-growing companies there comes a point where good ideas become scarcer, execution becomes slower and the income continues to rise. When you hit that point, you’ll start making profits. This is part of the self-reinforcing feedback mechanism that leads to concentration of wealth. If you get to this point, you are truly on the gravy train.

Can I Replicate This?

Every business is different, but generally speaking, the idea of reinvestment and keeping prices low to foster growth will work for almost any business. All you need to do is to build the discipline into your everyday thinking. Do that and the world will look like a very different place. Your opportunities are far greater than you ever imagined.

How do FATCA and AEOI Affect Me?

The short answer to this is that there is no change except that if you minimize your salary as we suggested above, you won’t have much to be concerned about. Report your modest taxes honestly to your tax domicile and the tax authorities will be, at most, a minor nuisance and your taxes a minor expense or none at all.