On November 2, the New York Times published an op-ed I wrote; “Delaware, A Den of Thieves.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/02/opinion/delaware-den-of-thieves.html?_r=0
The article discusses how Delaware and other states offer “shell companies” and do not disclose “beneficial owner” information. With this type of secrecy law enforcement officials cannot follow the money trail.
However, the reason for this blog entry is to point out an error. I included a number of examples of international and domestic investigations into money laundering, corruption, tax evasion and other financial crimes that involve “Delaware corporations.” Some of the examples were edited or omitted due to word count. I understand that. However, one example that was included in the op-ed was a domestic case involving a “Nevada-based corporation that had received more than 3,700 suspicious wire transfers totaling $81 million over two years.” However, because the authorities were not able to obtain beneficial ownership information the case was closed.
In the final editing, somebody unknown added to the description of the above case the words, “In one case I worked on.” However, I NEVER WROTE THAT and never saw that line in the last version of the op-ed forwarded to me for review. In short, I DID NOT work the referenced Nevada case. That is not to say the case is invented.
If anyone wishes to google the phrase, “Nevada-based corporation that had received more than 3,700 suspicious wire transfers totaling $81 million over two years,” a number of entries will appear. This case has often been quoted by law enforcement officials and others frustrated with lack of beneficial ownership information.
I do not want to appear to take credit for working a case I wasn't involved in. Besides being untruthful, it goes against law enforcement etiquette. I don’t know why those words were included in the op-ed but to repeat I never wrote them.
John
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/02/opinion/delaware-den-of-thieves.html?_r=0
The article discusses how Delaware and other states offer “shell companies” and do not disclose “beneficial owner” information. With this type of secrecy law enforcement officials cannot follow the money trail.
However, the reason for this blog entry is to point out an error. I included a number of examples of international and domestic investigations into money laundering, corruption, tax evasion and other financial crimes that involve “Delaware corporations.” Some of the examples were edited or omitted due to word count. I understand that. However, one example that was included in the op-ed was a domestic case involving a “Nevada-based corporation that had received more than 3,700 suspicious wire transfers totaling $81 million over two years.” However, because the authorities were not able to obtain beneficial ownership information the case was closed.
In the final editing, somebody unknown added to the description of the above case the words, “In one case I worked on.” However, I NEVER WROTE THAT and never saw that line in the last version of the op-ed forwarded to me for review. In short, I DID NOT work the referenced Nevada case. That is not to say the case is invented.
If anyone wishes to google the phrase, “Nevada-based corporation that had received more than 3,700 suspicious wire transfers totaling $81 million over two years,” a number of entries will appear. This case has often been quoted by law enforcement officials and others frustrated with lack of beneficial ownership information.
I do not want to appear to take credit for working a case I wasn't involved in. Besides being untruthful, it goes against law enforcement etiquette. I don’t know why those words were included in the op-ed but to repeat I never wrote them.
John
RSS Feed