View more on these topics

Pressure mounts on Cameron over Panama Papers leak

Cameron-David-2012-700x450.jpg

David Cameron is facing further questions over the Panama Papers tax dodging scandal after it emerged he raised concerns in 2013 about EU attempts to reveal the beneficiaries of offshore trusts.

The Prime Minister has been caught up in the furore after his late father, Ian Cameron, was named as a client of Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca.

The company is accused of helping clients launder money, dodge sanctions and avoid tax, although Mossack Fonseca insists it has never been charged with any criminal wrongdoing.

The FT reports Cameron wrote to EU officials in 2013 saying there were “important differences” between trust and shell companies, arguing proposals to introduce public ownership registers for firms may not “be appropriate generally”.

The disclosure comes after days of intense scrutiny of whether the PM benefited in any way from his father’s offshore investment fund. Downing Street says neither Cameron nor his wife and children stand to gain from offshore trusts or funds.

A Government spokesman says: “At the time of the PM’s letter, the government was concerned that including trusts would distract from action against those areas of most concern, such as shell companies, and, in practice, these further changes weren’t achievable.

“In the subsequent negotiations, we were able to secure a sensible way forward which ensures that trusts which generate tax consequences have to report their ownership to HMRC.”

Recommended

London-Stock-Exchange-Logo-700.jpg

New York Stock Exchange owner plots £10bn LSE bid

The owner of the New York Stock Exchange has secured funding from a group of American and Asian banks as it plots a £10bn bid for the London Stock Exchange, Sky News reports. According to the report, InterContinental Exchange has reached agreement with Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo and Japan’s Mitsubishi UFJ to provide part of […]

Woodford-Neil-700x450.jpg

Woodford-backed challenger bank launches

Atom Bank, the challenger bank backed by Neil Woodford, has launched after being granted its banking licence. The branch-fee bank has launched its banking app, nine months after getting its banking licence. The challenger bank had originally planned to launch in 2015. The app is available to all pre-registered customers on iPads and iPhones, with an […]

UK-Currency-Money-Pound-GBP-620x430.jpg
12

FCA under fire over advisers’ £74m regulatory bill

The FCA has come under fire over its budget for 2016/17, which again hands huge bills to advisers. Published as part of its business plan this week, the proposals show the FCA will ask investment, mortgage and general insurance advisers to pay 28.4 per cent of its budget. As a result some £133m that will […]

Trott

Claire Trott: A Budget boost for Sipps and SSASs

As a result of the continued stockmarket volatility, savvy investors have spent the past few months looking for stable assets to invest in for the long term. Although it is true stockmarkets can be stable over the long term and looking at short-term volatility is not the way to think when investing for retirement, there is no doubt […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Julian Stevens 7th April 2016 at 9:53 am

    If “neither [David] Cameron nor his wife and children stand to gain from offshore trusts or funds”, then for whose benefit did his father set up the trust fund in the first place?

    Also, offshore trust funds, often set up to take advantage of gross roll-up, aren’t in themselves illegal. The issue is whether or not any monies from them brought back into the UK are properly declared for tax purposes.

  2. @Julian Stevens, to answer your question in a nutshell, a sceptic might read into the previous statement about the PM, his wife or family do not stand to gain from….. “in the future” as meaning any of the afore mentioned may well have ALREADY benefited with nothing else to come in the future.
    Surely if they had not done so the PM or the press office at no 10 would have stated ” The PM, his wife or family do not stand to gain from….. in the future, NOR have they ever done so in the past”.
    That could be what a sceptic may think. Far be it for me to mis-trust the “clarifications” that emanate from Downing Street. They are our leaders and masters so whatever they or their officials tell us, it must be true

Leave a comment