header-logo header-logo

Panama Papers: the fallout

14 April 2016
Issue: 7694 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

How will the revelations resulting from the Mossack Fonseca leak impact lawyers?

The Panama Papers leak could lead to “a flurry of tax and crime investigations” and, ultimately, work for civil and crime litigators, a senior litigation lawyer has predicted.

About 11.5 million client files were leaked from Panamanian law firm, Mossack Fonseca. Public indignation about secretive tax avoidance schemes followed.

Writing in NLJ this week, David Greene, NLJ consultant editor and senior partner at Edwin Coe, considers the consequences of the Panama revelations for lawyers: “First, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), getting in on the act, has called on lawyers named in the Panama papers to ensure they have acted lawfully. Second, [HMRC] are likely to highlight avoidance schemes and seek to set them aside. Third, judges caught up in the moral maelstrom are likely to be more sympathetic to [HMRC’s] position declaring schemes unlawful.

“Fourth, the Panama disclosures will now be pored over by the Police and Revenue and lead to a flurry of tax and crime investigations. Civil and crime litigators will get busy again.”

The SRA has written to law firms identified in the media as being linked to the Panama Papers to ask for assurances that they have looked into the matter and have acted appropriately. The Financial Conduct Authority has also contacted banks to check if they have links to Mossack Fonseca, with a 15 April deadline for responses.

Greene also warns that some tax avoidance schemes, notably film finance avoidance schemes have been “the subject of much litigation and now convictions for conspiracy to defraud the Revenue”.

Mossack Fonseca has published a statement on its website denying any wrongdoing and defending its integrity. It reads: “Recent media reports have portrayed an inaccurate view of the services that we provide and, despite our efforts to correct the record, misrepresented the nature of our work and its role in global financial markets.

“These reports rely on supposition and stereotypes, and play on the public’s lack of familiarity with the work of firms like ours. The unfortunate irony is that the materials on which these reports are based actually show the high standards we operate under.”

Issue: 7694 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll