The proposed new law would force the owners to publicly declare themselves, and thus would be a valuable measure against misuse of shell companies, if it actually comes to anything, which is now even more in doubt than it was.Ī second key test of the new government will be whether it follows through on plans to make it harder for oligarchs to use British courts to bully journalists. (Thanks to Richard Smith for this example).ĭARVEL INVESTMENT TRADING (SCOTLAND) PARTNERSHIP SP is nominally a Scottish qualifying partnership but, if you look at its partners, you will see that they are a trust in South Dakota and a shell company in the British Virgin Islands called - no joke - “Untitled Managers Ltd.” If you wanted to find out who actually owned this supposedly Scottish structure, you’d need to bring cases in Sioux Falls and Tortola, so good luck with that. If you’d like an example of what anonymity looks like in practice, look up SG000601 on Companies House. So the first key test of Liz Truss’ intentions will be whether she keeps her predecessor’s promise to pass new legislation to open up their ownership, and thus prevent their misuse by criminals. One of the many things Johnson’s government promised action on was Limited Partnerships, which have been used to conceal the ownership of laundered money for an age (including a large chunk of the $230 billion moved via Danske Bank’s Estonia branch, in what is probably still the biggest money laundering scandal of all time). Braverman has up to now primarily been famous for her attacks on “woke” people, which is the latest enthusiasm of the tiresome-est stretches of the Tory Party’s right wing. There is a lot of scope for improvement here, though I see precious few grounds for hope from Suella Braverman, who is apparently taking over Patel’s job. Until a few hours ago, she was home secretary and thus in charge of law enforcement.īut Johnson’s government never did much about dirty money except talk. We will never cease in our determination to change our laws to root out corruption, dirty money and protect our national security,” wrote Priti Patel last month.
The scale of the economic crisis facing the UK will severely limit both candidates’ scope for democratic leadership,” wrote Maxine David, a lecturer at Leiden University.Ĭredit where credit’s due: Boris Johnson was good at sending Ukraine the weapons it needed, when doing so was neither profitable nor popular, even though he increasingly came to resemble President Zelensky’s needy friend as his premiership collapsed. “While there are differences between Sunak and Truss, neither gives much cause for optimism that the UK fully understands the Russian threat or that it can help to lead in making Europe more secure, except in relation to the provision of equipment and training to Ukraine.
So, what does this mean for the oligarchy, for Britain’s role as “Butler to the World” and for the prospect of a unified Western response to kleptocracy, above all to that coming from the Kremlin? Truthfully, I can see few reasons to be cheerful. Anyway, the campaign to be prime minister is over, the 170,000-odd (mostly-) old (mostly-) white (mostly-) men who got to vote have had their say, and life must now continue. I’m really struggling to get my brain back in its post-holiday box, not least because by ignoring the last few weeks I’ve been able to ignore the increasingly dystopian nature of British politics. 7 September, 2022 NEW GOVERNMENT, OLD PROBLEMS
0 kommentar(er)
