К оглавлению
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 
34 35 36 37 38 

The Organisation for Economic Development (OECD) is a Parisbased

organization composed mostly of former tax collectors

from various industrial nations, and it is charged with expanding

the global powers of its membership, which comprises 30 democracies

that “work together to address the economic, social and governance

challenges of globalization as well as to exploit opportunities.”

In 1998, the OECD came out with a report entitled Harmful Tax

Competition in an aggressive move to thwart countries that promoted

the tax advantages of their jurisdictions over those of others—the lowtax

countries versus high-tax countries—and encourage them to raise

their taxes so they wouldn’t attract capital away from the big guys.

They promoted their argument as “fairness” between countries.

But it is merely a strategy by OECD member nations to eliminate

the loss of business and revenues as a result of their overtaxation. If

this so-called fairness is believable, then every country is guilty of

promoting their advantages over their neighbors, including the

OECD countries. Yet only the non-OECD members are the ones

being targeted.

In the United States, we call this type of scenario the “free market,”

or fair competition. And, ironically, although the United States at first

embraced the OECD’s underhanded methods, the government came to

the conclusion that to support the OECD’s cause would be detrimental

to the U.S. economy. Why? Because as mentioned, the United States is

actually the largest tax haven in the world, attracting trillions of taxadvantaged

foreign investment capital annually. Clearly, and understandably,

the United States supports the concept of tax havens. Just not

for anybody else.

The OECD has also tried to hoodwink those who would listen into

believing that having a more harmonized and balanced tax collection

system between countries would not hurt underdeveloped nations,

but the opposite is true. Indeed, the tax havens would suffer greatly as

there is very little other industry to support their economies.

International and centralized tax collection is the name of the

game. Taxpayers would be muscled into cooperation by the threat of

antidrug and anti-money-laundering legislation with stiff civil and

criminal penalties, which, in recent years, was touted as a means for

many countries to enforce their own tax collection schemes. Fighting

crime was the ploy dispensed to sell these pieces of legislation, just

like terrorism was the justification for passing the Patriot Act with its

comprehensive anti-money-laundering legislation and other oppressions

built into it.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is an intergovernmental

body whose stated purpose is the development and promotion of national

and international policies to combat money laundering and terrorist

financing. The FATF states that it is a “policy-making body”

created in 1989 that works to generate the necessary political will to

bring about legislative and regulatory reforms in these areas. It is the

anti-money-laundering wing of the OECD. The FATF has published

the “Forty Plus Nine Recommendations” to meet this objective.

As with other governmental and quasi-governmental agencies,

many have an agenda that is not revealed in their mission statement.

On the surface, their purpose appears even noble, such as “good versus

evil.” Here, that inspiring purpose is supposedly to eliminate

money-laundering and terrorist financing. Well, most of us would

agree that getting rid of crime is good, even critical. But at what point

can we allow overzealous bureaucrats to jeopardize the sovereignty of

our nation, and other nations, or force us to relinquish our individual

rights and sovereignty in return for advancing their agenda?

More laws are passed every day in the name of security, to protect

us from terrorists and criminals. Whom do we really need to be protected

from? As the philosopher Tacitus stated, “The more corrupt

the state, the more numerous the laws.”

The U.S. Constitution left criminal justice to the states. Only three

federal crimes were written into the original Constitution, but they

have increased exponentially in the past three decades. Today we have

over four thousand federal crimes. Here is where we need a clear distinction,

not broadly written legislation designed to criminalize everything

and anyone, based on the whim or need of the moment. The

inherent danger here occurs when this type of legislation is abused to

convict people of otherwise minor infringements, or no crime at all. Is

the purpose of the law to protect us from crime and criminals, or to

gain greater control over us, and the implied threat of us as citizens

and individuals? The question bears deeper examination.

These are the countries worldwide that have become members of

the Financial Action Task Force:

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN) is an arm

of the U.S. Treasury, specifically created “to safeguard the financial

system from the abuses of financial crime, including terrorist financing,

money laundering, and other illicit activities.”

So, crime and terrorism were the justification for setting up FINCEN

in 1990, but one reason it exists is to go after your money. This

agency has been effective in financial crime investigations and is

linked to other government agencies. All the accumulated records required

by law to be filed since the passage of the Bank Secrecy Act in

1970 are computerized and available to other agencies and law enforcement,

including the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense

Intelligence Agency. The FINCEN computer system can also probe

into all U.S. bank accounts.








European Commission





Gulf Cooperation Council

Hong Kong









New Zealand








United Kingdom

United States