Different govts, different actions on PanamaLeaks

KATMANDU: After intense investigations in 297 cases launched right after the disclosures of Panama Papers in April this year, until now the Indian government has sent references in around 100 cases to different offshore jurisdictions, 2nd Asian Investigative Journalism Conference “Uncovering Asia” in Katmandu, Nepal was informed.

Talks of journalists at the conference and subsequent discussions showed different governments in Asia reacted differently depending on the names which appeared in Panama Papers or subsequent disclosures about offshore companies of the powerful and the mighty. 

The conference attended by more than 350 investigative journalists from 51 countries is jointly organized by Global Investigative Journalism Network (GIJN), Centre for Investigative Journalism (CIJ) Nepal and Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.

Ritu Sarin, Executive Editor, News and Investigations, the Indian Express told The News that the Indian government started investigations immediately after Panama Papers were unearthed and notices were served upon 297 people.

She said after thorough investigations, references against around 100 people were sent to a dozen of offshore jurisdictions for obtaining more details of companies and assets of these individuals and to finalize legal action against them. 

“The references sent to offshore jurisdictions involve those individuals who haven’t disclosed their offshore wealth in their Income Tax Returns (ITRs) or have committed any kind of violations,” Sarin explained adding, “Initially, progress reports about investigation into Panama Papers were being submitted to the Prime Minister Office (PMO) fortnightly and these continued to be submitted to PMO onmonthly basis even now”.

Wahyu Dhyatmika of PT Tempo, Indonesia informed the conference that some of the cabinet members of his country were also named in Panama Papers. He said a tax amnesty scheme is being launched to give an escape route to those named.

Ritu Sarin reported for The Indian Express on July 19, 2016, “Of the 297 individuals, 120 were said to have admitted to Income Tax authorities, wholly or partially, that they had incorporated the offshore entities which figured in the data.

The 12 countries to whom the references have been sent are the British Virgin Islands, Bahamas, United Arab Emirates, Luxembourg, United Kingdom, Gibraltar, Jersey, Singapore, Seychelles, United States, Switzerland and Cyprus.

Officials said these references have been sent for those who have denied the existence of offshore entities linked to them and have been categorised as “high risk” individuals or those who have admitted to the offshore linkages but have not declared or only partially declared these in their tax returns.

The largest number of references have been dispatched via the FTTR (Foreign Tax & Tax Research) division by Income Tax (Investigation) units in Delhi (25), followed by Mumbai (22) and Hyderabad(16). Other references have been sent from Ahmedabad (9), Kolkata (9), Bengaluru (6) and Pune (4).” 

The same story also added, “Besides this, as many as 360 ‘summons’ have been dispatched by the Income Tax authorities in connection with the Panama Papers. This figure is higher than the “action list” of 297 since in many cases several more individuals have been named as being either shareholders or beneficiary owners of an offshore entity.”

On May 24, 2016, Global Indonesian Voices (GIV News) reported a statement made by Mr. Bambang Brodjonegoro, Indonesian Minister of Finance, before Commission XI of the House of Representatives.

According to the statement, Indonesian government was OK with Indonesians keeping money overseas so long they pay taxes. The Indonesian minister argued that problem could arise if people do not report to the government their purpose of placing money in foreign countries. 

“The government is not against any Indonesian investors and business people putting their money abroad. Indonesia’s law on foreign exchange allows money inflow and outflow to and from the country,” Brodjonegoro was quoted as stating before a parliament’s commission.

However, Indonesian government worked side by side on a legislation allowing whitening of black money kept abroad by Indonesians if they opt to declare the same in their homeland.

Journalists were of the view that overall not very serious investigations could be observed because of the very reasons that those who owned offshore companies and never declared them at their home countries include politicians or the powerful and mighty who influenced the attempts or calls for investigations in their respective countries.