“differences of opinion on transparency” of their work led the Nobel economics laureate Joseph Stiglitz and the anti-corruption expert Mark Pieth to resign Friday, August 5, the expert committee set up after the scandal of the “Panama papers.” In a joint statement issued Saturday at the Agence France-Presse (AFP), the American and the Swiss back on the reasons for the decision
Read also:. Three months later, that have changed the “Panama papers”?
“We believe it is essential that our findings are made public and that the committee be allowed to freely discuss” , they argue, after receiving end of July a letter from their Panamanian government reporting that only the president of the country could decide to publish them. At the first committee meeting in New York in early June, the need for a commitment from the executive to publish the results of their thoughts was consensus, say the two men.
restrictions seen as a “censorship”
Mr. Stiglitz, professor at Columbia University in New York who won the Nobel Prize in 2001, told AFP he was “very disappointed.” M. Pieth and he were “very reluctant” at the idea of abandoning this mission, he revealed. In their statement, the two men believe that restrictions on the definition of the scope of their work, the ability to speak freely and guarantees that the report would be published “were akin to censorship” . And call for the dissolution of this structure. “How do you have a committee on transparency itself is not transparent” , said Mr Stiglitz told AFP.
The council, composed seven members – three foreigners, MM. Stiglitz, Pieth and a Costa Rican, Panamanian and four – had been set up in late April by Panama to conduct an audit of its notoriously opaque financial system in response to criticism related to the scandal known as the “Panama papers.” He was to eventually allow it to adapt to the standards of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). A report was expected by the end of the year
Read also. “Panama papers”, where is the inquest?
“from business pressure”
“We had a problem with the government of Panama, not with the other group members’ , told AFP Mr Pieth, professor of law at the University of Basel. “The government made promises, but they are not acted upon, there is no implementation. “ He said the executive ” suffers from business pressure “ ” It’s going backwards. “
Read also: Is a world without fraud possible?
“Panama papers” published in April by several international media including Le Monde , gather more than 11.5 million documents of Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca. They reveal the financial details of numerous offshore accounts in the country and could be used to avoid taxes.
The “Panama papers’ three-point
- Le Monde and 108 other newsrooms in 76 countries, coordinated by the International Consortium of investigative journalists (ICIJ), had access to a wealth of new information that cast a harsh light on the opaque world of offshore finance and tax havens.
- 11.5 million files from the archives of the Panamanian firm Mossack Fonseca, specialist domiciliation of offshore companies between 1977 and 2015. This is the biggest leak of information never exploited by the media.
- “Panama papers” reveal that in addition to thousands of anonymous numerous heads of state, billionaires , the biggest names in sports, celebrities or personalities within the scope of international sanctions have used offshore arrangements to conceal their assets
.
No comments:
Post a Comment