Banking confidentiality is still important

Austria shows the way.

In a world where financial privacy is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain, it’s heartening to hear that Austria is toughing it out alone and refusing to relinquish its constitutionally protected banking confidentiality.

It is now the only EU country to take this stance, after Luxembourg, another historic centre of financial discretion, this week agreed to disclose its foreign residents’ financial details with the governments in their home countries. HNWs who originally chose Luxembourg for its banking confidentiality must be encouraged to hear that, at least for the time being, there is one other European country that does not seem intent on blabbing about its citizens’ private matters in the interests of fighting tax evasion.

When European finance ministers meet this weekend in Dublin, Maria Fekter, Austria’s finance minister, will make the important point that fighting tax evasion is not mutually incompatible with preserving financial confidentiality. She has said today that Austria will "stick to bank secrecy", at the same time as doing everything it can to prevent tax evaders and money launders storing their money there. How long Austria can hold out, however, is uncertain, as she will no doubt come under heavy fire from her European counterparts.

As I wrote last week when the Guardian unveiled its investigation into offshore banking on the British Virgin Islands, not everyone who chooses to place their money in a jurisdiction other than that in which they live or do business is involved in nefarious goings-on. Clients have a right to expect privacy in their financial matters when they are doing nothing wrong.

But this distinction — between criminality and legitimate, private, offshore banking — is increasingly being blurred by the media and governments. Austria’s commitment to retaining banking confidentiality proves its commitment to the latter, rather than constituting an invitation to those who have something to hide.

This piece first appeared in Spear's magazine

City of London. Photograph: Getty Images

Mark Nayler is a senior researcher at Spear's magazine.

Getty
Show Hide image

Watch: The evidence Nigel Farage said money sent to the EU should go to the NHS

After the EU referendum result, Nigel Farage said it was a "mistake" for Leave to suggest funds could go to the NHS. But what's this?

Remember Friday? (I know: it's not necessarily a pleasant thing to do, but bear with me.) On Friday, hours after the result of the EU referendum was announced, Nigel Farage appeared on Good Morning Britain and said that the Leave campaign advertising which linked the extra "£350m a week" Brexit would allegedly gift us with the NHS was a "mistake".

Sure, it was on posters, and emblazoned on a bus, and he didn't speak up to disabuse anyone of the notion. But let's give Farage the benefit of the doubt and pretend he does sorely regret the fact that, through no fault of his own, members of the electorate may have been led to believe that that money would be put into healthcare. It must be tough, when you ought to be high on your victory, to have to answer for other people's mistakes

Ah. Hold that thought.

It looks like the Independent has unearthed a video of Nigel Farage on television before the vote, and  strange thing  he tells Hilary Benn that the money currently being sent to Europe should be spent on, er, "schools, hospitals and the NHS".

Well, this mole isn't sure what to say. Maybe Farage doesn't remember this specific moment? Maybe when he said "schools, hospitals and the NHS" he actually meant something different, like "negotiating our exit from the EU", or "paying to access the common market despite no longer being a member"? Or maybe when he said that money should be spent on these things, he didn't mean it necessarily would be, and it would have been entirely unreasonable for the voting public to make such an absurd leap?

All I can suggest is that you watch and decide for yourself, dear reader.

I'm a mole, innit.