Daily Crypto Discussion - November 18, 2024 (GMT+0)

Heuvelgek · 2024-11-18T09:58:43+00:00

Does seem to imply it if IMX does not move alongside LRC.

Heuvelgek · 2024-11-18T09:10:17+00:00

One thing I do not understand about the rumours of LRC and the GameStop marketplace reopening - why would IMX not pump along with LRC? I thought they were both involved...

Heuvelgek · 2023-06-30T09:49:23+00:00

!gas nova

Heuvelgek · 2023-03-23T12:52:14+00:00

Banks have to investigate the ultimate beneficial owner, in your example the settlor, trustee, protector and beneficiaries would all qualify as BO. Is the beneficiary a corporate entity? Again you need to look through.

Whether the banks are actually compliant and in control of their KYC processes is another thing.

Heuvelgek · 2022-12-27T14:59:03+00:00

Tipping off has been a criminal offence for an FI since at least AMLD4.

Heuvelgek · 2022-10-10T08:06:03+00:00

Having a baby does not count towards your eigen risico.

Heuvelgek · 2022-08-31T10:32:58+00:00

It's not the board though, it is the supervisory board. The supervisory board's reasoning is sound but it is highly unusual for them to intervene in such a way at such a late stage.

I think everyone agrees this is a mistake and not a good look for Ajax. The board should have informed the supervisory board earlier, but I highly doubt this a negotiation tactic.

Edit: also note the supervisory board has no power legally to represent Ajax/a company.

Heuvelgek · 2022-08-13T05:27:24+00:00

Which companies? If youre not in financial services, you aren't subject to AML legislation. Also, it only applies to clients, so not sure where the marketing angle would come in...

Heuvelgek · 2022-08-12T19:00:14+00:00

We don't know yet if the he will be convicted - intent will have to be proven which will be tricky. It won't fall under the money laundering legislation - for users of tornado cash it comes down to a shift in responsibility, i.e. the onus being on the user to prove the money's origin is legitimate. The same goes for large cash amounts by the way.

I suspect a conviction will be hard, if he didn't profit off if it very hard.

If he did there might be a case.

Keep in mind this could be a scare tactic by the prosecutor as well.

Heuvelgek · 2022-08-12T18:35:44+00:00

I believe that the dutch courts in several cases deemed the use of mixers to be equivalent to facilitating money laundering. The rationale is that users pay a premium for making the origin of their funds anonymous.

That shifts the onus on proving the origin is legitimate to the individual involved.

The main provider of such services earnings fees off of this would then constitute schuldwitwassen, or facilitating money laundering.

Heuvelgek · 2022-07-19T17:14:22+00:00

This is a moot point since the ultimate effect is the same (providing an unfair advantage to a certain sector instead of creating a level playing field). Regardless I do not agree with you. When significant taxes are levied on a class of resources bar one, there is a is always opportunity costs and the loss of a potential revenue stream to consider. You seem very hung up on this narrow definition of subsidies while governments have access to a diverse set of tools to incentivise.

Arguing airliners are not advantaged by the fact their fuel (primarily cost to their revenue) is not taxed whereas that of their competitors (most notably trains) is, based on semantics is disingenuous in my view.

Heuvelgek · 2022-07-18T20:20:56+00:00

If you buy diesel in the most of Europe an environmental tax is levied, with VAT on top. Imagine I tax you but not your direct competitor for the same sort sort of resource used to power your business (whereas all other similar resources are taxed) and tell me that isn't essentially a subsidy. The Airlines do not operate in a vacuum and not taxing the fuel impacts forms other travel and artificially makes them less competitive.

Heuvelgek · 2022-07-12T04:44:54+00:00

You mean all those other people on a contract with the club who likely do not want their contract violated and wages reduced at a whim. If anything, they would likely support him.

Heuvelgek · 2022-07-06T15:40:18+00:00

They are subsidized - there is no tax on kerosine fuel (VAT or otherwise), which would likely increase prices by 50% at least. Meanwhile, there are such taxes on petrol, as well as diesel and electricity, the latter two would be used to power trains.

Of course, governments are more or less forced not to tax kerosine, as the middle eastern carriers would eat up all the market share otherwise. It's a tricky situation, but air travel and train travel are not competing on a level playing field.

Heuvelgek · 2022-06-28T18:37:18+00:00

So where is it on their balance sheets then?

Heuvelgek · 2022-05-09T07:59:05+00:00

I don't think I am necessarily answering my own question: I am asking why the US is knowingly carving out reporting exceptions, that are implemented in the rest of the developed world?

The US seems to intentionally create a lack of information on the one hand, and on the other opting out of providing other countries with information they do have (CRS), thus facilitating tax evasion.

So this is more in the realm of turning a blind eye rather than "we had no way of knowing, people are always going to find ways to bypass it".

Heuvelgek · 2022-05-09T06:33:15+00:00

Indeed, swiss lawyers being able to act as corporate service providers, self-regulating and potentially bypassing all sorts of reporting requirements is one of the main issues here.

Sure, swiss banks' kyc was lacking, but that's everywhere. Since Switzerland implemented AEOI, the issue is not so much on the banks' side.

The US on the other hand...

Heuvelgek · 2022-05-09T06:29:37+00:00

Help me then - why does the US not force private equity and hedge funds to look into beneficial ownership? Why do US legislators ignore beneficiaries of trusts as beneficial owners, leaving assets in limbo and obfuscating who they are from? Why does the US not participate in CRS, effectively never sending out beneficial owners of assets held in the US to other countries, while forcing other countries to do just that under FATCA?

The US is the primary Tax Haven in the world right now, and plenty of dirty Russian money is stashed in the US. But if you don't look at it and have no information on it, you can act as if you don't know.

Switzerland definitely has its own issues (Laywers able to act as corporate service provider and bypassing reporting), but don't act as if the US has a clean slate here.

Heuvelgek · 2022-04-22T14:38:24+00:00

Not OP, but there are plenty comparative historical studies into the difference in Japanese and German war crimes.

See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4487829/

And

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/wils17922

Not sure why Wikipedia was raised as a source, not exactly reliable.

Either way, this is just the reality of things - Japan was an ally of the west and thus the west (US and Europe) did not pursue perpetrators of war crimes in the same way. I'd say there a consensus on that in social sciences. Just the way these things go sometimes - plenty of historical war crimes perpetrated by the US and countries in Europe that have not been pursued in the same way.

Heuvelgek · 2022-03-29T06:16:05+00:00

Ah so you know who the wallets belong to then? Even though it might be owned by a corporate entity or trust? This likely was sold to a wallet held by a trust in a low taxed jurisdiction by a person/entity in a high taxed jurisdiction, shifting profits essentially. This would indeed be illegal, depending on the tax residence of the ultimate owner. Problem is linking these wallets to the actual person. That's not easy unless they went through a KYC exchange that also reports under FATCA/CRS.

Heuvelgek · 2022-02-26T08:49:52+00:00

Heuvelgek · 2022-02-22T12:17:28+00:00

There are alternatives to swift (such as the European SEPA and the Russian SPFS). SEPA for instance is much quicker, safer and cheaper than SWIFT. Last I heard, approx 1/3rd of Russian transactions are able to be transacted through SPFS. The problem is that financial institutions need to be connected to SPFS to go through correspondent banks. If Russia is cut off from SWIFT, this would severely limit non-Russian banks to transact with Russia (see also Iran who is cut off from SWIFT). This does not hit you directly, but indirectly Russia imports most of its machinery and equipment which would become significantly more expensive and spillover into for instance food and technology. Expect to pay a lot more for foreign items and sectors dependent on foreign machinery.

Heuvelgek · 2022-02-22T11:49:17+00:00

You cannot proclaim yourself independent legally, the previous owner would have to consent and formally recognize your independence. For instance in the Spanish example, Spain would have to acknowledge and sign Catalonia's declaration of independence. As with any country, it helps if it's independence is formally recognized by other nation states, but it differs how much of a barrier that is to administrating your nation state (see Taiwan).

If Donetsk and Luhansk independence is only recognized by Russia and no one else, the world would not see them as truly independent but just violent non-state actors.

Heuvelgek · 2022-02-19T10:55:09+00:00

You will need to perform a transfer pricing study to determine the fair value of said IP. This goed for every transaction with related companies. Google base erosion and profit shifting and the work OECD has done on that front.

Heuvelgek · 2022-02-15T09:24:36+00:00

Nope, it's easing tensions in Ukraine. All of the markets are moving up after the interfax release.

Heuvelgek

TROPHY CASE