[url]http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/revealed-emma-watson-named-in-latest-panama-papers-leak/[/url]
[QUOTE]However, should she wish to continue to move in political circles, Watson may face questions about her use of an offshore company. Yesterday, more details of the now infamous Panama Papers were released online in a searchable database. The database provides information regarding the many offshore companies named in the confidential documents which were first leaked earlier this year.
On looking through the database, Mr S has come across Emma Watson’s name. The Offshore Leaks Database says that ‘Emma Charlotte Duerre Watson’ is a beneficiary in an offshore company based in the British Virgin Islands.
While a spokesman for the actress confirms that Watson set up an offshore company, they say it was set up for the sole purpose of ‘protecting her anonymity and safety’. The spokesman tells Steerpike that the actress receives ‘no tax or monetary advantages from this offshore company’:
[I]
‘Emma (like many high profile individuals) set up an offshore company for the sole purpose of protecting her anonymity and safety. UK companies are required to publicly publish details of their shareholders and therefore do not give her the necessary anonymity required to protect her personal safety, which has been jeopardised in the past owing to such information being publicly available.
Offshore companies do not publish these shareholder details. Emma receives absolutely no tax or monetary advantages from this offshore company whatsoever – only privacy.’[/I][/QUOTE]
How ironic that someone who presented herself to be a woman of the people is actually just as bad as the fat cats.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Didn't read the article" - UberMensch))[/highlight]
[url]http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/the-guardian-give-emma-watsons-offshore-company-a-miss/[/url]
[QUOTE]Steerpike’s revelation yesterday that Emma Watson has been named in the latest Panama Papers leak has been followed up across the world. While the Telegraph, the Independent, the Sun and the Times all followed up Mr S’s story in the UK, across the pond USA Today, New York Post and Fox News have also picked up on it. However, there’s one paper that doesn’t appear to think the story is worth a mention. Step forward the Guardian.
...
[B]Given that the Times today reports that Watson used the company to buy a multi-million pound property in London, perhaps the Grauniad will find a space to mention it in tomorrow’s paper.[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]‘Emma (like many high profile individuals) set up an offshore company for the sole purpose of protecting her anonymity and safety. UK companies are required to publicly publish details of their shareholders and therefore do not give her the necessary anonymity required to protect her personal safety, which has been jeopardised in the past owing to such information being publicly available.
[/QUOTE]
I looked up Kim Kardashian, Jennifer Lawrence, Kayne West, and George Clooney, all people who are more high profile than her and I got nothing. I thought this might be because they are American so I decided to look up British high profile figures.
John Oliver got a few hits but to be fair, it's a common name. Daniel Radcliffe and Piers Morgan both don't have any connection to the Papers.
If you want to see Watson's connections:
[URL="https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/12126782"]https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/12126782[/URL]
[quote]
Disclaimer
There are legitimate uses for offshore companies and trusts. We do not intend to suggest or imply that any persons, companies or other entities included in the ICIJ Offshore Leaks Database have broken the law or otherwise acted improperly. Many people and entities have the same or similar names. We suggest you confirm the identities of any individuals or entities located in the database based on addresses or other identifiable information. If you find an error in the database please get in touch with us.
[/quote]
I can understand the privacy angle to an extent, but the fact she used the company to buy the property in London, is it too hard to pay from your own bank account or something. I'm unfamiliar with overseas buyers of property in the UK.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;50299000]I can understand the privacy angle to an extent, but the fact she used the company to buy the property in London, is it too hard to pay from your own bank account or something. I'm unfamiliar with overseas buyers of property in the UK.[/QUOTE]
Buying it through a company with no named shareholders, directors or officers means anonymity. It's not exactly difficult to search up property information online but in this case it would return a company with few details.
I'm just interested to see who gives her the benefit of the doubt here but not for those they disagree with.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50299009]I'm just interested to see who gives her the benefit of the doubt here but not for those they disagree with.[/QUOTE]
Eh, if she's used it for a legitimate reason she'll probably just release her tax statements to prove she isn't dodging tax.
[QUOTE=download;50299015]Eh, if she's used it for a legitimate reason she'll probably just release her tax statements to prove she isn't dodging tax.[/QUOTE]
Cameron did the same, made no difference for him.
She is still hot. I don't even care lol.
But really why would she feel lik she needs to do this? Or maybe she has someone handing her money for her that did it on her behalf?
Is it really that bad you need to make an off-shore company just to stop people being able to search your address?
Edit: I don't get how easy this system must be to search for people and what they own, we might as well all get off-shore companies.
I don't care who it is. Any celeb/public figure who does this has gone down several levels in my book. It's an inherently shady and underhand thing to do.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50299019]Cameron did the same, made no difference for him.[/QUOTE]
Personally I'd say it's more newsworthy when the PM might have done something sketchy compared to some celebrity.
For the record, I don't know or think David Cameron has done something illegal, but I do think it should be publicly scrutinized when a PM (or any other politician) is involved in a case about tax evasion (or tax "optimization"). If he hasn't done anything wrong he should be exonerated of course.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50299040]Personally I'd say it's more newsworthy when the PM might have done something sketchy compared to some celebrity.
For the record, I don't know or think David Cameron has done something illegal, but I do think it should be publicly scrutinized when a PM (or any other politician) is involved in a case about tax evasion (or tax "optimization"). If he hasn't done anything wrong he should be exonerated of course.[/QUOTE]
Well, its either immoral, or it isn't, to me. Obviously a PM will have more scrutiny, but you shouldn't have double standards.
[QUOTE=ElectronicG19;50299023]I don't care who it is. Any celeb/public figure who does this has gone down several levels in my book. It's an inherently shady and underhand thing to do.[/QUOTE]
Kinda stupid considering the fact that there's legitimate uses for the company. Not really fair to immediately demonize them without proper evidence.
She always seemed like the type of person who'd do this sort of thing.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50299051]Well, its either immoral, or it isn't, to me. Obviously a PM will have more scrutiny, but you shouldn't have double standards.[/QUOTE]
Of course it's immoral. Doesn't change that I'd care a bit more about my PM doing it - Emma Watson isn't doing legislation on these exact issues, you know.
The shell company was used to buy the property, big deal. Transaction fees were paid, property tax is collected from that property, what's the problem?
[QUOTE=GayIlluminati;50299062]She always seemed like the type of person who'd do this sort of thing.[/QUOTE]
No she doesn't.
This is newsworthy because of her unprecedented celebrity political activism on humanitarian grounds.
[quote]While a spokesman for the actress confirms that Watson set up an offshore company, they say it was set up for the sole purpose of ‘protecting her anonymity and safety’. The spokesman tells Steerpike that [B]the actress receives ‘no tax or monetary advantages from this offshore company’:[/B][/quote]
???
[QUOTE=Boilrig;50299000]I can understand the privacy angle to an extent, but the fact she used the company to buy the property in London, is it too hard to pay from your own bank account or something. I'm unfamiliar with overseas buyers of property in the UK.[/QUOTE]
It means she doesn't get connected to the property during negotiations so they don't Jack up the price
Is diagon alley classed as a tax haven then?
[QUOTE=ElectronicG19;50299023]I don't care who it is. Any celeb/public figure who does this has gone down several levels in my book. It's an inherently shady and underhand thing to do.[/QUOTE]
Tomorrow's headline: Emma Watson "I just don't know what I'll do without ElectronicG19's respect."
How surprising that she'd get dragged through the mud with no evidence of any wrongdoing.
Minus fifty points from Gryffindor.
So GG and MRAs to blame?
Hah, how quaint, coming from someone like her.
[quote]"Emma (like many high profile individuals) set up an offshore company for the sole purpose of protecting her anonymity and safety."[/quote]
Right - because Emma Watson is the #1 most harrassed woman in the entire planet, to the point she turns to do sneaky things with her money, all in the name of [i]her anonimity and privacy[/i]. I guess JLaw and Kate Upton ought to learn from her, right?
[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;50299821]So GG and MRAs to blame?[/QUOTE]
Definitely - but don't worry, the UK government won't do anything against her, that'd be discrimination, guys. If her Twitter TL is to be believed, she's the most opressed woman in the west.
[QUOTE=Omali;50299689]Tomorrow's headline: Emma Watson "I just don't know what I'll do without ElectronicG19's respect."
[B]How surprising that she'd get dragged through the mud with no evidence of any wrongdoing.[/B][/QUOTE]
I mean, people have already been doing that to pretty much everyone else named in the papers. Not like Watson deserves a pass because people actually like her.
Did she spit on your dog or something, Pretiacruento?
I really don't care for tax evasions. Taxes are so fucking high, if you don't try to evade taxes somewhere, you will lose money pretty quickly.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.