Tuesday 25th of February 2020

enact brexit, with a kick up the arse: the city of london corporation and its banks have done much damage to the world..


The Spider's Web: Britain's Second EmpireFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to navigationJump to search

The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire is a documentary released in Mexico in July 2017 which details the transformation of the UK as a colonial super power to a global financial power. It suggests that the City of London Corporation and its banks have done tremendous damage to the world economy since the 1960s and that up to half of all offshore wealth (globally) is hidden in one of many British offshore jurisdictions. With contributions from leading experts, academics, former insiders and campaigners for social justice, the film claims to highlight how in the world of international finance, corruption and secrecy have prevailed over regulation and transparency, and the UK is right at the heart of this.[1][2]

The film was co-produced by Tax Justice Network[3] founder John Christensen, and is based in part on the book, Treasure Islands, by expert on British offshore havens Nicholas Shaxson; an interview with Shaxson is one of its major elements. Christensen was an advisor to the Queen’s government of the island of Jersey for a number of years.[4]


Read more:



See also:


an old tradition....


Cartoom by Gillray...

it has been rejected by the UK parliament three times...

The EU's lead Brexit negotiator has rejected Boris Johnson's demands for the Irish backstop to be scrapped.

Michel Barnier said the backstop - intended to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland - was the "maximum flexibility" the EU could offer. 

Mr Johnson has previously told the EU the arrangement must be ditched if a no-deal Brexit was to be avoided.

Meanwhile, the PM has told rebel Tories they face a "fundamental choice" of siding with him or Jeremy Corbyn.

His comments come as some MPs who oppose a no-deal Brexit - including Conservatives - are planning to take action in Parliament next week.

The UK is due to leave the EU on 31 October, with or without a deal.

The backstop is part of the withdrawal agreement negotiated between Brussels and former Prime Minister Theresa May, which has been rejected by Parliament three times.

If implemented, it would see Northern Ireland staying aligned to some rules of the EU single market, should the UK and the EU not agree a trade deal after Brexit.


Read more:


the brexiters are hedging their bets...

Gus guesses that one of the main reason some people, like Boris Johnson and his cronies, want out of Europe and that they want a sweet deal — that "he" (Johnson) might get from the Europeans — is all about the loot that is hidden in the UK tax evasion havens (see above) and it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE IRISH PROBLEM though Ireland could become (or has been) a conduit for illicit cash, including advantageous tax rates for companies such as Apple. Phew.


The point we have to realise is that many people in high places, political and financial, are tainted with secret cash. They could forgo of it in desperation to appear "clean", but the history of that cash is opened to "blackmail". Although no official records of "trusts" or other mechanisms are kept, there are some secret accounting legers in existence, otherwise robbery would be too easy. Even the President of Europe could be caught into this caper... Or the Queen as she may be... So everyone is going to try to find a discreet solution, including that the UK becomes a fully fledge tax evasion haven. And let's not forget that more often than not, sex is also used as a complement to the secret cash, and also subject to blackmail. Epstein comes to mind.


Boris might be able to extract a better Brexit deal than May ever could, because he knows the dirty cash game being played while she might have been no more than an upright stick in the mud. Here Boris had to shut down the government to minimise the possibility of a catastrophic realisation: the UK stays in Europe but has to abandon the Pound Sterling for the Euro, as well as having to clean the British tax haven dunnies — AND PAY TAX. Horror!


Oh and this financial gymnastic is why Libya was destroyed: Gaddafi wanted to create a pan-African bank that would have bypassed all the financial trickery so far designed to keep Africa in a state of slavery.


AND THIS IS WHY, THE WESTERN COUNTRIES (especially the US and the UK — and Australia) HATE the Chinese. The Chinese make deals that are mostly above board and that are improving the life of Africans (and of the pacific Islanders) in exchange for reasonable amount of cash — or resources. These moneys and resources would have been previously sucked up, plundered via illicit and corrupt ways, back to the West through the West's high interest rates in the money and low interest in the people. See Vulture banking.



See from top.

one easy step...

Setup your company without leaving your seat





British Virgin Islands


Cayman Island





Hong Kong


St Lucia


Marshall Islands




Ras Al Khaimah (UAE)





United Kingdom


St Vincent




SFM Corporate Services is a Dubai-headquartered financial and corporate services firm specializing in offshore company formation.[1]The firm was founded in GenevaSwitzerland[2] but now has its headquarters in Dubai with additional offices in SeychellesHong Kong, and others.[3][4]


SFM was founded in 2006 in Geneva, Switzerland.[1][3] By 2011, the firm had opened offices in Seychelles (2009) and Hong Kong (2010)[5] and was helping create onshore and offshore companies around the world. Prominent locations for these offshore companies included Seychelles and Cyprus.[3] By 2012, SFM was forming companies in 15 different jurisdictions.[5] In 2013, the company moved its headquarters to Dubai. There, the company continued to offer services like international tax planning and corporate structuring (among others).[1] In April 2015, SFM collaborated with officials from the Ras al-Khaimah emirate on a roadshow in Geneva.[6] SFM is a member of the International Tax Planning Association and the International Financial Management Association.[2][4]


Services include obtaining UAE residency, corporate structuring,[1] opening bank accounts,[2] and others. SFM acts as a resident agent in order to register companies in onshore and offshore jurisdictions.[7] Most of SFM's services are provided online through its different websites, "Dubaicompany" or "SFM Offshore."




Note: has the City of London offices in Dubai? See also:





Read from top.

playing soccer with the british virgin islands...


The confidential memorandum that a high-ranking UEFA employee drafted on Dec. 15, 2016 for the association's top executives carried a rather unremarkable heading: "Internal memo." Nothing in the seven points listed below was intended for outside eyes. The case was much too sensitive. The memo, after all, documented a degree of misadministration that would put UEFA on a par with the global football association. And it's hard to sink any deeper than FIFA.

The paper pertained to payments made to the Football Federation of Ukraine (FFU). UEFA had apparently spent more than 15 years paying money that was supposed to go to the FFU or to individual Ukrainian football clubs to a company based in the Caribbean tax haven of the British Virgin Islands.

The name of the company was Newport Management Limited -- and until 2016, nobody at UEFA had apparently made a serious effort to discover who was behind Newport. Or perhaps no effort was wanted. Now, though, the "internal memo" documented the unsettling suspicion that the man who controlled Newport was none other than Igor Surkis, one of the most influential oligarchs in Ukraine.

Igor Surkis has been president of the football club Dynamo Kyiv since 2002 and is the brother of Grigori Surkis, who controlled Dynamo Kyiv from 1993 to 1998 before launching into a career as a UEFA functionary. From 2000 to 2012, Grigori Surkis was president of FFU and from 2004 to 2019, he was also a member of the UEFA executive committee, at times even acting as President Michel Platini's deputy.


Read more:



Read from top.


tax fraud scandal that exposes City’s pursuit of profits...

They have been called “the men who plundered Europe”: a group of cowboy traders, seasoned tax lawyers and mathematical whizz kids who are alleged to have conspired in the heart of the City of London to siphon at least €60bn in taxpayers’ money from the state coffers of several EU countries.

In Britain, the so-called “cum-ex” scandal, named after the complex derivatives juggling act employed, gained little attention amid the frenzied debate around the UK’s departure from the European Union when the fraud scheme was discovered in 2017.

But in continental Europe what Le Monde has described as the “robbery of the century” has done almost as much to shape the view of Britain as Brexit itself. Dutch media has called it “organised crime in pinstripe suits” and one of the original German whistleblowers saying he now welcomes Britain’s exit from the EU in the hope it could weaken the influence of London investment banking on European financial institutions.

This week, a British former investment banker involved in developing the scheme for the first time gave the public an insight into how the scheme worked and what spurred on its architects.

Speaking at a regional court in Bonn, Martin Shields, one of two former bankers on trial for 34 instances of serious tax fraud between 2006 and 2011, painted a picture of a London banking scene which lured in the brightest scientists from the country’s top universities and used them to boost their profit margins – without teaching them about the moral and legal consequences of their actions in return.


Read more:




Read from top.

the policy of destroying the mittelstand banks...


Financial syndicate wants to dry up savings banks

by Professor Dr Eberhard Hamer

Throughout the world, the financial and banking system is arranged in completely different ways: 

The respective money is supplied by the central banks, which have to control and secure the currency. In the Anglo-Saxon region (USA, UK among others), the central banks are private banks, so that their owners ultimately control currency and money supply via the central bank. In other words, they can increase (print) or decrease (crash) money at will for their own benefit. In the City of London, for example, the Anglo-Saxon financial syndicate has created a sovereign small state that is subordinate to the Queen, but not to the British government – not even to the English tax system. In the UK, 90 % of bank deposits are held by only five major banks, which thus in principle represent the entire banking system. In the USA, there are likewise a dozen big banks that dominate the banking landscape. They make their profits mainly from speculative and investment transactions (derivatives, participations, stock market launches, financial transactions, speculative loans), but also from real estate loans as well as corporate and country bonds. The big banks are also owners of the central bank and in turn belong to a financial syndicate consisting of a handful of families. 

The German, Austrian and Swiss banking systems, on the other hand, are dominated by small local banks – in Germany, 1050 Volksbanken (people’s banks) and 450 Sparkassen (savings banks) make up 70% of all banks – and these do not lend money which has been newly created by their syndicate. Instead, they collect money from their customers and lend it – with interest gains – to small and medium-sized enterprises and households. Contrary to the speculative profit basis of the big banks, our small local banks therefore live off the interest difference between deposits and loans. 

This is reflected in the respective risks incurred by the two banking systems. While the risk of speculative banks lies in their risk transactions, the large risks of their corporate bonds or the financial standing of their debtor states, the risk of local banks is not only widely spread, but also limited to the individual risks of their diverse borrowers. So while the big banks are the “large scale economy banks” respectively the banks of international speculation and public sector loans, the small local banks are limited to their regional medium-sized customers. 

Big banks are not interested in medium-sized companies; they want to grant large loans globally and to conduct large financial transactions. The cooperative banks and savings banks, on the other hand, are regional, small and therefore also interested in small and medium-sized enterprises and private customers in their region. They have to live from this “Mittelstand”, so they are his original partner. 

About 100 years ago, there was also a flourishing landscape of small regional credit banks in the USA. Most of them have now disappeared because of the concentration pressure and currency manipulation of the big banks. By concentrating, the financial syndicate has extended its financial dominance throughout the country.

When the EU was founded, the Anglo-Saxon financial syndicate acted as a godfather, filling in particular the central positions (Goldman Sachs: Macron, Draghi, Lagarde; plus all EU presidents and most central bank heads). Almost every year, the author has warned against the financial syndicate’s wish to drag down small banks and achieve a concentration in favour of big banks also in Europe, as well as in the USA. Not only should the nation states be abolished according to the Lisbon Treaty and the will of the old and new EU Commission, but currency and finances should also be concentrated in an EU liability, debt and financial union. To this end, the syndicate wants to destroy the small local banks (Draghi: “Overcapacities in the banking sector in the euro zone”, “the number of banks is to be reduced” (21 July 2016)).

This policy of destroying the Mittelstand banks is being pursued through three measures:

Interest is being abolished, so that the savings banks and people’s banks, which live from the interest rate differential, can no longer pass on interest to their customers and can hardly take interest on their loans. In this way, the basis of existence of the SME banks – the interest-rate lending business – is to be destroyed.

At the same time, however, the speculative transactions of the big banks belonging to the syndicate are guaranteed, at the expense of the citizens, by EU rescues of banks and states in the event of loss.

By means of the so-called “banking union” all banks are to be forced to merge, so that there will be only a few big banks left per country. In particular, the joint funds already in existence make the financially sound small banks liable for the speculative losses of the big banks.

To this end, the ECB and the European Commission have tightened the supervisory requirements for banks to such an extent that small banks in particular are suffering, because they have to meet the same requirements and fill out the same forms as the big international banks.

In addition, the “Basel III/IV regulation” has decisively tightened up lending by savings banks, so that they no longer have to deposit only 8.1 % equity capital for a SME loan, but 10.5 %, which excludes most SME loans economically. In addition, the requirements for loans are formulated in a way that is hostile to SMEs: The credit basis is only the real value, i.e. the underlying real capital. The success basis of medium-sized sole-proprietor companies, however, is the entrepreneur, and their loan is therefore a personal loan. This aspect of success, which is decisive for small and medium-sized enterprises, is practically no longer allowed to be evaluated by the SME banks today. 

In this way, requirements, regulations and obstacles hostile to small and medium-sized enterprises have torpedoed the interest-rate lending business of our people’s banks and savings banks, which remained financially sound for 200 years, and these small and medium-sized personnel banks now all have their backs to the wall, and some of them are in existential need.

The German federal government does not seem to be interested in these facts. It has agreed to all the harassment against the Mittelstand banks, or it is so heavily influenced by the financial syndicate that it has not dared to object. No protest could be expected from other EU countries, because (with the exception of Austria) they do not have the typical German cooperative bank and savings bank culture. 

Those who deal with people’s banks know about the existential need now prevailing there. At the same time, however, the Mittelstandsinstitut Niedersachsen points out that a decline or even dying of this branch and of the local banks will necessarily have a more disastrous effect on the German economy than it would have on that of other countries, because 94% of our companies are medium-sized single proprietor companies, which in turn depend existentially on the financing of their local Mittelstand banks (cooperative banks, savings banks). Any decline of these important middle class banks also affects the financing of the Mittelstand (SME’s and middle class), undermines its existence, because in contrast to Ludwig Erhard’s times politics today prevent enterprises’ self-financing from profit by means of maximum taxation, and so make the enterprises dependent on outside credit. If, however, outside credits are also no longer to be got, not only the local banks die, but so does the Mittelstand in Germany. And if this decreases, the main pillar of our economy will collapse, which is still supporting half of our national product, two-thirds of our taxes and social security contributions and three-quarters of jobs in our economy. 

So if the international financial syndicate gains control over all the banks in Europe in the banking union, it will impose its quite different international banking structure on us and not only cheat German savers out of 360 billion interest as it already does, but it will also use the zero interest rate to torpedo the livelihood of our SME banks – and thus the financing of our SME sector and our middle class. To wit, anyone who no longer has an interest rate differential between income and expenditure will no longer be able to grant loans to his SME customers. And if the local cooperative banks and savings banks are no longer able to grant personal loans, small and medium-sized enterprises can no longer grow, can no longer finance themselves, can no longer create jobs, and in many cases can no longer survive.

In the great game of money, credit, debt and speculation, the financial jugglers of the Anglo-Saxon financial syndicate are deliberately destroying medium-sized banks and promoting big banks. And if the latter should collapse, they do not even have to bear their own risks and debts.

It was not for nothing that the financial syndicate prevented the steady and reli­able German Bundesbank President ­Weidmann in the ECB by appointing the willing Goldman-Sachs servant Lagarde, who promised unlimited state funding, zero interest rates and centralisation.

As finance scientists and researchers, we are left with only appeals. Unfortunately, politicians are not personally liable for their mistakes. But since there is an imminent danger for the majority of our companies, for jobs and for the welfare of our state, our entreaty should also hold an appeal to the majority of our population; it is but a question of journalistic presentation to make people understand and see the danger and protest against it. The danger could be averted if the policy were forced to be corrected by the voters!•

(Translation Current Concerns)


Read more:



Read from top.

the money laundering capital of the world...

Britain is due to leave the European Union later this month but there is no sign of banks quitting the City of London, one of the main claims made by Remainers in the run-up to the Brexit referendum. But are the wheels of the City of London only kept turning by laundered money?

Nicholas Wilson, a financial services whistleblower who was fired by UK law firm, Weightmans, after exposing millions of pounds in unfair customer charges, claims the City of London relies on "dirty money" and says the world economy would collapse if the City stopped laundering it.

UK Tried To Block EU Bid To Tighten Up On Money Laundering

Mr Wilson, a former litigation manager, said: "The EU wanted to tighten up on money laundering and the UK was the only country who voted against it."

He said: "Capitalism relies on a swash of dirty money which is moved around and supports investment around the world."

report last year by the Centre for Banking Research at Cass Business School painted a rosy picture of the City of London post-Brexit.

The report’s co-author Professor Barbara Casu Lukac wrote: “London will continue to be a key player in the global financial services industry and capital markets following Brexit. However some of its operations, capabilities and margins will be affected by the long-term political regulatory uncertainty underlying the Brexit process.”

It comes in stark contrast to the dire utterances about the City's future made by the then Chancellor, George Osborne, as part of his “Project Fear”, before the Brexit referendum in 2016.

After the referendum David Cameron resigned and was replaced by another Remainer, Theresa May, and when her efforts to push through a Brexit deal failed she was succeeded by Boris Johnson, who had been an enthusiastic supporter of leaving the European Union all along.

In June 2019, during the Conservative leadership contest, Boris Johnson bragged about how much he had done for the City of London.

Johnson renegotiated a new deal with the EU but the future of the City of London will be part of negotiations on trade later this year.

Banks will be able to continue providing services during the transition period, which will begin on 1 February, but they are due to lose their “passporting rights” which allow them to offer services to customers in the 27 European Union states.

One possible solution is that UK banks might have to set up a subsidiary in an EU member state and apply for a passporting licence there.

FCA Chief Promoted But Was He 'Asleep at the Wheel'?

Last month the government announced Andrew Bailey, the current head of the Financial Conduct Authority - the regulator which oversees financial services and markets in the UK - would take over as Governor of the Bank of England in March.

Mr Bailey said: “The Bank has a very important job and, as Governor, I will continue the work that Mark Carney has done to ensure that it has the public interest at the heart of everything it does. It is important to me that the Bank continues to work for the public by maintaining monetary and financial stability and ensuring that financial institutions are safe and sound.”

But Mr Wilson said in the last 12 months Mr Bailey had failed on several high-profile scandals  including the collapse of mini-bond firm London Capital and Finance, the implosion of Woodford Investment Management and the gating of the M&G Property Portfolio over liquidity issues.

He said: “He has certainly failed over many years on his handling of the HSBC fraud I first reported to the FSA in 2012.”

Mr Wilson was fired after he pointed out HFC Bank, a subsidiary of HSBC, was illegally imposing a 16 percent surcharge on customers who had defaulted on hire purchase credit payments and sub-prime loans.

In 2017 he won his battle against HSBC, who were forced to pay back more than £4 million to thousands of customers.

Then in 2019 another 18,500 victims were identified. HSBC has so far agreed to pay out £30 million and Mr Wilson believes the total will eventually reach £200 million.

In March 2019 Adrian Hill, the former CEO of HFC Bank, drowned himself at his luxury home in Oxfordshire.

An inquest into his death heard had been suffering from stress was was convinced he was going to be sent to prison as a result of the FCA investigation into HFC.

Mr Wilson pointed out the Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell had said in Parliament on Wednesday, 8 January, Mr Bailey’s record at the FCA should have been taken into account before he was appointed.

Mr McDonnell said Mr Bailey had been "asleep at the wheel during his period of office at the FCA.”

The Chancellor, Sajid Javid, insisted Mr Bailey was "an outstanding candidate, the standout candidate for being the next Governor of the Bank of England."

'UK Most Corrupt Country in the World'

In 2016 Italian journalist Roberto Saviano, who has spent most of his career investigating the mafia, claimed Britain was the most corrupt country in the world.

Saviano told an audience at the Hay-on-Wye Book Festival: “If I asked you what is the most corrupt place on Earth you might tell me well it’s Afghanistan, maybe Greece, Nigeria, the South of Italy and I will tell you it’s the UK. It’s not the bureaucracy, it’s not the police, it’s not the politics but what is corrupt is the financial capital. 90 percent of the owners of capital in London have their headquarters offshore.”

Mr Wilson said: “I would agree with that. He is talking about the City of London. It is the money laundering capital of the world.”


Read more:




Read from top.

the freeport solution...

While the UK and EU are negotiating a bilateral trade agreement, the Johnson government has started laying the groundwork for Britain's independent economic development by pushing ahead with a "freeport" plan. European academics have weighed up the pros and cons of the UK's new strategy.

On Monday, the UK government kicked off a 10-week consultation on the establishment of up to 10 free port zones in the country to boost growth and seize on the opportunities Brexit has presented. It is expected that the location of the new zones will be announced at the end of this year to make them operable in 2021.

According to the government website, the 2020 free ports model offers a vast number of benefits, including:

·         "goods brought into a freeport do not attract tariffs until they leave the freeport and enter the domestic market";

·         "no duty is payable if they are re-exported";

·         "when raw materials are imported and processed into a final good, duties are only paid on the final good";

·         "innovative environments to trial new technologies".

Additionally, the "freeport zone" does not necessarily have to be located in a port. However, the idea of Singapore-style free ports – formulated by Boris Johnson during his November 2019 campaign – has come under heavy criticism from the European Union, which suggested that the endeavour could be "potentially vulnerable to money laundering or terrorism financing".

Freeports Untie Hands of Employers, May Become Havens for Fraud

According to Charles Woolfson, professor emeritus of Labour Studies at the Institute for Research on Migration, Ethnicity and Society at Sweden's Linköping University, by implementing the Freeport project Johnson is seeking "to realise full ‘regulatory divergence’ from EU controls – the glittering prize of Brexit".

"These free ports will be situated mainly in declining and ‘left-behind’ parts of the UK such as Teeside," the academic elaborates. "Such zones are not specifically precluded by EU regulations, although it is true to say that they are regarded by the [European] Commission as potential havens for counterfeiting goods and money laundering."

He notes that there are currently over 80 free ports in the EU, the majority of which are located in the newer member states of Eastern Europe. In January 2020, the European Commission introduced new regulations governing freeports obligating national authorities to take measures to identify and report suspicious activities at the freeport zones, citing a "high incidence of corruption, tax evasion, and criminal activity".



Read more:




See also: