Category Archives: Concealing Assets

Basic Cash Concealment Strategies

One of the topics in which readers of this blog have expressed consistent interest over the years regards the many strategies of cash asset concealment employed by fraudsters; especially by embezzlers of relatively small sums from employers, who seem particularly creative at such manipulations.  Regardless of the method used to hide ill-gotten assets, one fact remains constant; proceeds from illicit activities must be disguised in some way to avoid being discovered. Those the ACFE dubs ‘asset hiders’ have developed many sophisticated techniques for working the system and accomplishing the goal of concealing their gains; in attempting to track down and recover secret stores of cash, the fraud examiner is presented with a true challenge, and the first step in meeting this challenge is to understand how asset hiders work. This post will concentrate on the concealment of raw cash.

There are three primary ways to hide cash assets. They are:

— Currency hoards;
— Cashier’s checks and traveler’s checks;
— Deposits to financial institutions.

The most basic method for hiding cash is the currency hoard, in which a person simply stores cash in a hidden location, usually in his or her home or on her property. This is the proverbial ‘cash under the mattress’ technique. In a typical home, hiding places for currency or other valuables can range from the obvious to the ingenious.

For example, precious metals and jewelry can easily be hidden in a layer of cooking grease at the bottom of a pot. The space beneath the bottom drawer of bureaus, chests, and cabinets is also a commonly used hiding place. Loose bricks in the wall or fireplace can disguise small spaces for hiding things. A more complex scheme is to build a false ceiling below the original ceiling and then use the space between the two as a hiding place.

Another place to hoard currency is in furniture. The hollow spaces of upholstered furniture make these pieces a good hiding place. Many people find false bottoms in drawers or inside stereo speakers useful places for hiding cash.

The basic structure of the home itself provides many opportunities for creating hiding places. One of the most common spots for hiding objects is in the walls. Cunning hiders may construct false walls in closets or pantries, or they may build large cavities into a wall, which is then covered with a mirror or a painting. Installing false light switch plates and electrical outlets provides easy access to spaces between walls and generally appear quite normal, although amateurs often leave tell-tale marks on the plate screws. These marks often provide searchers with signs of tampering and can lead to the discovery of a cache. An even simpler method is to hide currency inside the electrical boxes behind real electrical plates. If a larger space is needed, hiders sometimes remove the box from the wall and build a shelf below it. Significant amounts of currency can be hidden in these spaces. Currency hoards can also be hidden above ceiling light boxes in the space below the attic.

The plumbing system provides other natural hiding places. For example, many bathrooms have access holes under the sink, which are usually covered with a removable chrome disk. These access holes are designed so a cleaning ‘snake’ can be inserted into the main drain when the lines are clogged. This space is easily utilized as a hiding space. Floor drains are also used for hiding currency. Excellent hiding places can be created by installing false pipes that appear to be part of the home’s plumbing. Some individuals hide objects and money in shower curtain rods. Other places frequently used for hiding are air ducts, doors, and stairways. Heating and cooling system ducts are generally easy to access and have plenty of empty space. Hollow core doors are easily rigged for hiding. The top surface of the door can simply be cut away, allowing access to the natural secret compartment inside. Enclosed staircases have dead space underneath that is accessible. If the staircase is not enclosed, there may be usable space for small objects behind each of the risers. Stairs can be hinged, creating a hidden compartment underneath.

Cashier’s and traveler’s checks are another method used to hide assets. These instruments are useful for several reasons:

–They allow asset hiders to easily disguise their financial dealings from asset seekers like law enforcement, CFEs and forensic accountants;
–They help disguise the asset hider’s financial dealings and reduce the amount of currency physically carried;
–Cashier’s checks or traveler’s checks in denominations of less than $10,000 are negotiable financial instruments that can be exchanged almost any place in the world.

Whilst efforts to control the use of wire transfers for money laundering have traditionally been focused on banks, examiners also need to be aware that there are non-bank money transmitters that fraudsters often use to conceal cash assets.  These non-bank transmitters specialize in money transfers for individuals rather than businesses. In addition to other services, most non-bank transmitters sell money orders and traveler’s checks. These companies range from large international enterprises like Western Union to small mom-and-pop neighborhood check cashing businesses.

There are several reasons fraudsters like using non-bank transmitters. First, non-bank transmitters allow individuals to cash personal checks or wire money to family members nationally or in other countries. Check cashing companies and other sellers of money orders, such as convenience stores and grocery stores, provide a much-needed service to people without bank accounts. Second, non-bank transmitters allow individuals to obtain many individual traveler’s checks and money orders in amounts less than $10,000 each. Most states regulate check cashing and the sale of money orders with licensing and bonding requirements. The Money Laundering Suppression Act of 1994 required all money transmitters to register with the U.S. Department of Treasury. Furthermore, like other financial institutions, these businesses are required to file currency transaction reports (CTRs) for transactions of $10,000 or more in currency and coins, and they are required to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) with the Treasury Department for certain classes of suspect transactions.

Check cashing companies have been known to receive illegally earned or stolen currency and use it to cash legitimate checks for their customers, thus avoiding CTRs or to structure transmittals by issuing multiple traveler’s checks and money orders for less than $10,000 each. Third, the transactions of non-bank transmitters will not trigger a mechanism for identifying unreported cash. Although money transmitters are classified as financial institutions, they are not depository institutions but operate through accounts with commercial banks. And, unlike bank accounts, which contain copies of deposits and canceled checks used in locating assets, non-bank money transmitters do not maintain copies of deposits and canceled checks. Unless the money order or traveler’s check appears in the financial records of the asset hider, it will likely go undetected since there is no place for the investigator to begin a search. However, once a money order or traveler’s check has been specifically identified, it can be traced back like any other financial instrument.

Banks and other financial institutions are frequently utilized by secrecy seekers as vehicles for hiding or disguising currency. The methods used may be as simple as renting a safe-deposit box and storing currency or valuables inside.  Searching the safe-deposit box of a suspected embezzler for evidence is not easily accomplished. It requires a court order. But; even if access to the box is denied, the investigator in a hidden asset case can often make educated guesses as to the contents by observing the movements of the hider. For instance, if the subject makes a visit to her safe-deposit box after attending an antique jewelry collector’s exposition, the examiner could surmise a collection of jewelry items is stored therein. Trips made to a safe-deposit box before foreign travel may indicate that the hider is moving money from his or her native country to a foreign location.

The banking system is, without question, the most important vehicle of both lawful and unlawful financial transactions. While most bankers are not active participants in asset hiding, it can be extremely difficult to distinguish between legitimate transactions and those conducted by secrecy seekers. Some bankers even prefer to close their eyes to the sources of their deposits and, in doing so, knowingly accept tainted funds. It’s important to understand how secrecy seekers use bank deposits and funds transfers to hide assets.  For the examiner, it’s important to know that most large banks have computer programs that can retrieve a specific wire transfer record. Many medium-sized banks cannot electronically retrieve specific wire data more than a month old, and some banks would have to search manually for records. However, even small banks usually send their international money transfers through one of the large Money Center banks, thus creating a record. Many large banks have enhanced their record-keeping systems to assure themselves and bank regulators that they are in full compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act. Some institutions have systems that monitor the wire transfer activity of certain accounts and generate periodic reports highlighting the consolidation of incoming wires followed by an outgoing wire transfer. Most of these systems are designed to monitor only customer accounts and do not record funds transfer services provided for non-depositors for which the bank serves only as an intermediary.

To conduct a successful wire transfer search, the examiner should have as much information as possible relating to the transfer in question when contacting the appropriate entity. Having the following information on hand will help make the search much more efficient:

— Date of transfer
— Amount of transfer
— Names of sending and receiving institutions
— Routing numbers of sending and receiving institutions
— Identity of sender and designated receiver
— Input sequence and/or output sequence

While most banks do not actively participate in fraudulent transfers, some signs for the examiner that could indicate collusion between a bank and its customer are:
— Allowing clients whose funds are not of foreign origin to make investments limited to foreigners;
— Acting without power of attorney to allow clients to manage investments or to transmit funds
on behalf of foreign-registered companies or local companies acting as laundries;
— Participating in sequential transactions that fall under the government reporting thresholds;
–Allowing telephone transfers of funds without written authorization and failing to keep a record of such transfers;
— Entering false foreign account number designations with regard to wire transfers.

Financing Death One BitCoin at a Time

Over the past decade, fanatic religious ideologists have evolved to become hybrid terrorists demonstrating exceptional versatility, innovation, opportunism, ruthlessness, and cruelty. Hybrid terrorists are a new breed of organized criminal. Merriam-Webster defines hybrid as “something that is formed by combining two or more things”. In the twentieth century, the military, intelligence forces, and law enforcement agencies each had a specialized skill-set to employ in response to respective crises involving insurgency, international terrorism, and organized crime. Military forces dealt solely with international insurgent threats to the government; intelligence forces dealt solely with international terrorism; and law enforcement agencies focused on their respective country’s organized crime entities. In the twenty-first century, greed, violence, and vengeance motivate the various groups of hybrid terrorists. Hybrid terrorists rely on organized crime such as money laundering, wire transfer fraud, drug and human trafficking, shell companies, and false identification to finance their organizational operations.

Last week’s horrific terror bombing in Manchester brings to the fore, yet again, the issue of such terrorist financing and the increasing role of forensic accountants in combating it. Two of the main tools of modern terror financing schemes are money laundering and virtual currency.

Law enforcement and government agencies in collaboration with forensic accountants play key roles in tracing the source of terrorist financing to the activities used to inflict terror on local and global citizens. Law enforcement agencies utilize investigative and predictive analytics tools to gather, dissect, and convey data to distinguish patterns leading to future terrorist events. Government agencies employ database inquiries of terrorist-related financial information to evaluate the possibilities of terrorist financing and activities. Forensic accountants review the data for patterns related to previous transactions by utilizing data analysis tools, which assist in tracking the source of the funds.

As we all know, forensic accountants use a combination of accounting knowledge combined with investigative skills in litigation support and investigative accounting settings. Several types of organizations, agencies, and companies frequently employ forensic accountants to provide investigative services. Some of these organizations are public accounting firms, law firms, law enforcement agencies, The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI).

Locating and halting the source of terrorist financing involves two tactics, following the money and drying up the money. Obstructing terrorist financing requires an understanding of both the original and supply source of the illicit funds. As the financing is derived from both legal and illegal funding sources, terrorists may attempt to evade detection by funneling money through legitimate businesses thus making it difficult to trace. Charitable organizations and reputable companies provide a legitimate source through which terrorists may pass money for illicit activities without drawing the attention of law enforcement agencies. Patrons of legitimate businesses are often unaware that their personal contributions may support terrorist activities. However, terrorists also obtain funds from obvious illegal sources, such as kidnapping, fraud, and drug trafficking. Terrorists often change daily routines to evade law enforcement agencies as predictable patterns create trails that are easy for skilled investigators to follow. Audit trails can be traced from the donor source to the terrorist by forensic accountants and law enforcement agencies tracking specific indicators. Audit trails reveal where the funds originate and whether the funds came from legal or illegal sources. The ACFE tells us that basic money laundering is a specific type of illegal funding source, which provides a clear audit trail.

Money laundering is the process of obtaining and funneling illicit funds to disguise the connection with the original unlawful activity. Terrorists launder money to spend the unlawfully obtained money without drawing attention to themselves and their activities. To remain undetected by regulatory authorities, the illicit funds being deposited or spent need to be washed to give the impression that the money came from a seemingly reputable source. There are types of unusual transactions that raise red flags associated with money laundering in financial institutions. The more times an unusual transaction occurs, the greater the probability it is the product of an illicit activity. Money laundering may be quite sophisticated depending on the strategies employed to avoid detection. Some identifiers indicating a possible money-laundering scheme are: lack of identification, money wired to new locations, customer closes account after wiring or transferring copious amounts of money, executed out-of-the-ordinary business transactions, executed transactions involving the customer’s own business or occupation, and executed transactions falling just below the threshold trigger requiring the financial institution to file a report.

Money laundering takes place in three stages: placement, layering, and integration. In the placement stage, the cash proceeds from criminal activity enter the financial system by deposit. During the layering stage, the funds transfer into other accounts, usually offshore financial institutions, thus creating greater distance between the source and origin of the funds and its current location. Legitimate purchases help funnel the money back into the economy during the integration stage, the final stage.

Complicating all this is for the investigator is virtual currency. Virtual currency, unlike traditional forms of money, does not leave a clear audit trail for forensic accountants to trace and investigate. Cases involving the use of virtual currency, i.e. Bitcoins and several rival currencies, create anonymity for the perpetrator and create obstacles for investigators. Bitcoins have no physical form and provide a unique opportunity for terrorists to launder money across international borders without detection by law enforcement or government agencies. Bitcoins are long strings of numbers and letters linked by mathematical encryption algorithms. A consumer uses a mobile phone or computer to create an online wallet with one or more Bitcoin addresses before commencing electronic transactions. Bitcoins may also be used to make legitimate purchases through various, established online retailers.

Current international anti-money laundering laws aid in fighting the war against terrorist financing; however, international laws require actual cash shipments between countries and criminal networks (or at the very least funds transfers between banks). International laws are not applicable to virtual currency transactions, as they do not consist of actual cash shipments. According to the website, “Bitcoin uses peer-to-peer technology to operate with no central authority or banks”.

In summary, terrorist organizations find virtual currency to be an effective method for raising illicit funds because, unlike cash transactions, cyber technology offers anonymity with less regulatory oversight. Due to the anonymity factor, Bitcoins are an innovative and convenient way for terrorists to launder money and sell illegal goods. Virtual currencies are appealing for terrorist financiers since funds can be swiftly sent across borders in a secure, cheap, and highly secretive manner. The obscurity of Bitcoin allows international funding sources to conduct exchanges without a trace of evidence. This co-mingling effect is like traditional money laundering but without the regulatory oversight. Government and law enforcement agencies must, as a result, be able to share information with public regulators when they become suspicious of terrorist financing.

Forensic accounting technology is most beneficial when used in conjunction with the analysis tools of law enforcement agencies to predict and analyze future terrorist activity. Even though some of the tools in a forensic accountant’s arsenal are useful in tracking terrorist funds, the ability to identify conceivable terrorist threats is limited. To identify the future activities of terrorist groups, forensic accountants, and law enforcement agencies should cooperate with one another by mutually incorporating the analytical tools utilized by each. Agencies and government officials should become familiar with virtual currency like Bitcoins. Because of the anonymity and lack of regulatory oversight, virtual currency offers terrorist groups a useful means to finance illicit activities on an international scale. In the face of the challenge, new governmental entities may be needed to tie together all the financial forensics efforts of the different stake holder organizations so that information sharing is not compartmentalized.

Overhanging Liabilities

Most experienced CFE’s are familiar with financial fraud cases involving the overhanging liabilities represented by artfully constructed schemes to avoid income taxes since multiple ACFE training courses over the years have focused on the topic in detail.  But for those new to fraud examination and to the Central Virginia Chapter, a little history.  Before 2002, accounting firms would provide multiple services to the same firm. Hired by the shareholders, they would audit the financial statements that were prepared by management, while also providing consulting services to those same managers. Some would also provide tax advice to the managers of audit clients. However, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) restricted the type and the intensity of consulting services that could be provided to the management of audit clients because the provision of such services might compromise the objectivity of the auditor when auditing the financial statements prepared by client management on behalf of the shareholders. Nevertheless, both before and after the passage of SOX, as subsequently reported in the financial press, both the major accounting firms Ernst & Young (E&Y) and KPMG were offering very aggressive tax shelters to wealthy taxpayers as well as to the senior managers of their audit clients.

In the 1990s, E&Y had created four tax shelters that they were selling to wealthy individuals. One Of them, called E.C.S., for Equity Compensation Strategy, resulted in little or no tax liability for the taxpayer. The complicated tax plan was a means of delaying, for up to thirty years, paying taxes on the profits from exercising employee stock options that would otherwise be payable in the year in which the stock options were exercised. E&Y charged a fee of 3 percent of the amount that the taxpayer invested in the tax shelter, plus $50,000 to a law firm for a legal opinion that said that it was “more likely than not” that the shelter would survive a tax audit. E&Y had long been the auditor for Sprint Corporation. They also took on as clients William Esrey and Ronald LeMay, the top executives at Sprint. In 2000 E&Y received:

  • $2.5 million for the audit of Sprint,
  • $2.6 million for other services related to the audit;
  • $63.8 million for information technology and other consulting services, and
  • $5.8 million from Esrey and LeMay for tax advice.

In 1999 Esrey announced a planned merger of Sprint with WorldCom that potentially would have made the combined organization the largest telecommunications company in the world. The deal was not consummated because it failed to obtain regulatory approval. Nevertheless, Esrey and LeMay were awarded stock options worth about $3ll million. E&Y sold an E.C.S. to each of the two executives. In the three years from 1998 to 2000, the options profits for Esrey were $159 million and the tax that would have been payable had he not bought the tax shelter amounted to about $63 million. The options profits for LeMay were $152.2 million and the tax thereon about $60.3 million.

Subsequently, the Internal Revenue Service rejected the E&Y tax shelter of each man. Sprint then asked the two executives to resign, which they did. Sprint also dismissed E&Y as the company’s auditor. On July 2, 2003, E&Y reached a $15 million settlement with the IRS regarding their aggressive marketing of tax shelters. Then, in 2007, four E&Y partners were charged with tax fraud. These four partners worked for an E&Y unit called VIPER, “value ideas produce extraordinary results,” later renamed SISG, “strategic individual solutions group.” Its purpose was to aggressively market tax shelters, known as Cobra, Pico, CDS, and CDS Add-Ons, to wealthy individuals, many of whom acquired their fortunes in technology-related businesses. These four products were sold to about 400 wealthy taxpayers from 1999 to 2001 and generated fees of approximately $121 million. The government claims that the tax shelters were bogus and taxpayers were reassessed for taxes owed as well as for related penalties and interest.

On August 26, 2005, KPMG in turn agreed pay a fine of $456 million for selling tax shelters from 1996 through 2003 that fraudulently generated $11 billion in fictitious tax losses that cost the government at least $2.5 billion in lost taxes. The four tax shelters went by the acronyms FLIP, OPIS, BLIPS, and SOS.  Under the Bond Linked Premium Issue Structure (BLIPS), for example, the taxpayer would borrow money from an offshore bank and invest in a joint venture that would buy foreign currencies from that same offshore bank. About two months later, the joint venture would then sell the foreign currency back to the bank, creating a tax loss. The taxpayer would then declare. a loss for tax purposes on the BLIPS investment. The way that BLIPS were structured, the taxpayer only had to pay $1.4 million to declare a $20 million loss for tax purposes. BLIPS were targeted at wealthy executives who would normally pay between $10 million and $20 million in taxes.

Buying a BLIPS, however, effectively reduced the investor’s taxable income to zero. They were sold to 186 wealthy individuals and generated at least $5 billion in tax losses. The FLIP and OPIS involved investment swaps through the Cayman Islands, and SOS was a currency swap like the BLIPS. The government contended that these were sham transactions since the loans and investments were risk-free. Their sole purpose was to artificially reduce taxes. Some argued that the KPMG tax shelters were so egregious that the accounting firm should be put out of business. However, Arthur Andersen had collapsed in 2002, and if KPMG failed, then there would be only three large accounting firms remaining: Deloitte, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Ernst & Young. KPMG Chairman, Timothy Flynn, said “the firm regretted taking part in the deals and sent a message to employees calling the conduct inexcusable. KPMG remained in business, but the firm was fined almost a half billion dollars.

Because of the Ernst & Young and KPMG tax fiascos, the large accounting firms have become wary of marketing very aggressive tax shelters. Now, most shelters are being sold by tax “boutiques” that operate on a much smaller scale and so are less likely to be investigated by the IRS.  The question that remains, however, is to what extent should professional accountants be selling services that directly or indirectly abet even lawful tax avoidance which, as the ACFE tells us,  can so easily shade into what the IRS calls tax evasion?

Financing in the Dark

money-laundering_1A reader of our last blog post on risk assessment, a CFE employed as an internal auditor by a large overseas financial services firm, has been asked, (in light of the Panama Papers), and as a member of an evaluation team, to perform a review of the controls comprising his company’s anti-money laundering program.  I thought his various questions about ACFE guidance on money laundering might furnish interesting matter for a blog post.  The ACFE has long identified money laundering, including terrorist financing, as a global problem.

Due to government concerns globally, laws have been enacted in countries such as the United States (the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), Canada (Proceeds of Crime, Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act), and Australia (Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act, 2006) to combat money laundering and financing of terrorist activities. Such legislation embodies recommendations from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a Paris-based intergovernmental body formed in 1989 by the Group of Seven industrialized nations. As a result, financial institutions in many countries have taken initiatives to implement appropriate policies and infrastructure for ensuring compliance with applicable money laundering requirements and practices. One such step has been to implement anti -money laundering/ counter-terrorist financing programs based on FATF recommendations.  Our reader’s company is to be commended for undertaking the review since independent testing by knowledgeable assurance professionals (including CFE’s) is a critical component in ensuring existing anti-money laundering programs remain robust and fully aligned with regulatory requirements. The testing of these programs should be cohesive and integrated and include a well-defined strategy that takes a risk-based, enterprise wide perspective.

According to the ACFE, an effective anti-money laundering program includes:

–Appointment of a senior officer responsible for ensuring risks are understood, addressed, and mitigated enterprise-wide;
–Development of formal policies, procedures, and controls that are aligned with Federal and local regulations;
–Implementation of a risk-based approach for identifying risks by client, geography, product, and delivery channels;
–Implementation of a program of dynamic rules-based transaction monitoring for purposes of identifying and reporting suspicious activities;
–Implementation of training programs customized to specific functions and activities;
–Independent, periodic testing of the program.

The ACFE stresses that to be successful it’s necessary that the review team understand the organization’s products and delivery channels as well as its types of clients and their geographic location(s). It’s also necessary to understand the company’s organizational structure, infrastructure, policies, procedures, and controls for mitigating money laundering and terrorist financing risks. Also as part of the audit strategy, auditors should list all anti-money laundering regulatory requirements in the countries in which the organization does business. Once these components are clearly defined and understood, a risk profile can be developed (using the interviewing strategy featured in our last post) to ascertain risk levels and enable the creation of appropriate audit programs, staffing, and overall management of the review assignment. Needless to say, the audit strategy should always be formally approved by the organization’s chief audit executive.

The temptation to use boilerplate or template audit programs should be minimized by the development of tailored audit programs fitted to the specific nature of the business process being audited. One of the biggest challenges in developing such audit programs for money laundering is determining appropriate sampling methodologies for performing the required testing and validation. Inappropriate sampling will lead to incorrect and unsupportable conclusions. Sampling criteria and attributes must be defined clearly and be consistent with audit objectives. Once again, the audit manager should approve the sampling methodology before execution.

Our reader’s audit team will need to verify compliance with local regulations, which is not an easy task due to the high transaction volumes characteristic of industries like his. However, in most financial organizations, transaction-based processes must be automated to work and queries can be developed to create exception reports where deviations from expected outcomes exist. Out reader asked for examples of such automated exception reports and some common ones recommended by the ACFE are:

–Cash deposits of US $10,000 or greater where the required regulatory reporting has not been completed. (This threshold applies to Canada and the United States and may vary in other countries);
–Transactions with countries where trade sanctions exist;
–Industry codes listing clients in high risk industries to assess the level of enhanced due diligence performed;
–List of employees who have not completed required anti-money laundering training;
–List of clients with Post Office box addresses;
–List of clients with missing Taxpayer Identification Numbers;
–List of wire transfers from accounts owned by governments into accounts of private investment companies and politically exposed persons;
–Validating that “know your client” and customer identification requirements are compliant with local regulatory requirements;
–Validating that enhanced due diligence is performed on high-risk businesses.

Business culture has traditionally revolved around management of risks relative to sales, markets, economic trends, and reputation. Only relatively recently has regulatory risk as it relates to money laundering requirements received more intense scrutiny. Regulators have adopted a zero tolerance position, as evidenced by penalties against financial institutions for noncompliance with the ever growing body of legislation.  Financial institutions like our reader’s are considered an integral defense in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. It’s thus imperative that these organizations implement effective independent testing programs to assess the quality of controls relative to their anti-money laundering programs.  Sound independent testing by assurance professionals who have in-depth knowledge of fraud and regulation, as well as of risks, controls, and business processes in general is considered a key control within any organization. Fraud risk assessment review work of the anti-money launder business process provides management with the necessary intelligence for proactively managing deficiencies and ensuring that a well-aligned top-to-bottom control environment with appropriate resources and infrastructure is in place for mitigating money laundering risk.

Because fraudsters and criminals are creative and money laundering methods and techniques change constantly in response to evolving countermeasures, a useful reference for CFE’s and for auditors of all kinds is always the ACFE which provides live seminars and on-line training insights into emerging money laundering related threats as well as on-going suggestions for new areas for investigation and testing.

It’s Not Just About Tax Avoidance


Register Today for Investigating on the InternetMay 18-19 2016 RVACFES Seminar!

The ACFE tells us that countries in virtually all parts of the world, but especially those located in the Caribbean and South Pacific, are commonly regarded as tax havens.  A tax haven is a country whose laws, regulations, traditions, and treaty arrangements make it possible for a person to reduce his or her overall tax burden. Secrecy is basically supplied by such countries in two ways.

1) Domestic bank secrecy laws: Laws which bar insight by outsiders;2) Blocking statutes: Statutes which effectively prevent the disclosure, copying, inspection, or removal of documents located in the host country in compliance with orders issued by foreign authorities.

Moreover, in many countries, legal depositions may not be taken on national territory in connection with judicial proceedings being undertaken abroad. Many countries, such as the United Kingdom, France, South Africa, Germany, Australia, Norway, and Canada have comprehensive statutes to guard their sovereignty from the extraterritorial reach of foreign authorities. Although these countries are not generally thought of as tax havens they have laws which can be used by the asset hider. In addition to asset hiding, some foreign countries have a legal, banking, or economic climate that provides an excellent site for laundering money. Historically, places such as Panama, the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas, Switzerland, and the Netherlands Antilles have been associated with hidden bank accounts, fictitious corporations, and money laundering.

The most popular off-shore jurisdictions in the news recently are:

–Cayman Islands
–Netherlands Antilles

Countries like Panama with relatively small, open economies have often embraced the financial secrecy business as a way of promoting economic development. With some notable exceptions, these countries are geographically isolated with a narrow production concentrated on a few major commodities, usually for export. This tends to make them vulnerable to adverse climatic conditions and international market development. It also limits their ability to produce an adequate domestic market, invest in an infrastructure, attract foreign direct investment, and gain access to a diversified mix of importers and exporters.

It’s important for CFE’s to understand the general concept of a financial center with regard to financial havens.  Financial centers are of two types:

–A functional center is defined as country where transactions are actually undertaken and the value added is created in the design and delivery of financial services. Examples of functional centers include New York, London, Singapore, Bahrain, and Hong Kong.
–A booking center is defined as a country where transactions are recorded but the value added involved is actually created elsewhere. Examples in this category include Panama, the Bahamas, Cayman Islands, Seychelles, and Vanuatu.

Accordingly, the ACFE classifies the tax havens of the world into four broad categories:

No Tax Havens – these countries have no income, capital gains or wealth taxes. It’s legal to incorporate and/or form a trust. The governments of these countries do earn revenue from corporate registration fees, annual fees and a charge on the value of corporate shares. Examples of “no tax” havens are the Bahamas, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, Nauru, the Turks, Caicos and Vanuatu.

No Tax on Foreign Income Havens – These countries impose income taxes, but only on locally derived income. Any income earned from foreign sources that involves no local business activity (apart from simple housekeeping and bookkeeping matters) is exempt from taxation. There are two types of “no tax on foreign income” havens. Those that:

–allow corporations to conduct both internal and external business, taxing only the income from internal sources;
–require a decision at the time of incorporation as to whether the company will conduct local business or will act only as a foreign corporation. If the company elects the latter option, it will be exempt from taxation. If it chooses to conduct local business, it incurs the appropriate tax liabilities. Examples are Panama, Liberia, Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Gibraltar, Costa Rica and Hong Kong.

Low Tax Havens – These are countries that impose some income tax on company income, wherever it is earned. However, most have double taxation agreements with “high tax” countries. This agreement can reduce the withholding tax on the income derived from a high tax country by local corporations. Examples of “low tax” havens are Cypress, the British Virgin Islands and the Netherlands Antilles.

Special Tax Havens – Special tax havens are countries that impose all or most of the usual taxes, but either allow concessions to certain types of companies, or allow specialized types of corporate organizations such as the flexible corporate arrangements offered by Liechtenstein. Tax havens offering special privileges for holding companies are Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Austria.

Understanding the role of tax havens, involves distinguishing between two basic sources of income:

–Return on labor
–Return on capital

The return on labor refers to earnings from salary, wages, and professional services – your work. Return on capital describes the return from investments such as dividends from shares of stocks; interest on bank deposits, loans or bonds; rental income; and royalties on patents. Placing “return on capital” income in certain tax havens can benefit the secrecy seeker. By forming a corporation or trust in a tax haven this income may become tax-free or be taxed at such a low rate that the taxation is hardly noticeable.

In the case of Panama, for example, off-shore banking and incorporation are a major source of revenue. It’s also a good country for laundering drug money through its banks. It was reported by the financial trade press some years ago that at one time $200-$300 million a month was laundered through Panamanian banks. Panama is one of the most effective off-shore havens for money-launderers, offering tremendous secrecy. As the Panama papers seem to bear out, its banking haven business has always been regarded as supplemental to its status as a tax haven.

Before asset hiders and money launderers can utilize off-shore secrecy havens, they must first establish secret off-shore bank accounts. The off-shore account provides asset protection because the existence of such an account will not readily be known by someone seeking to collect against assets. Foreign banks, regulated by their own authorities, are under no obligation to inform the fraudster’s home country bank examiners of the ownership of the accounts they hold. Even if the existence of an off-shore account does come to light, judgments from home country courts are generally invalid in foreign countries, so creditors normally have to get a judgment in the country where the account is located. This allows time for the individual to fight the action or, unless the court immediately issues an order prohibiting the transfer of assets, simply move the assets out of the account.

So why do fraudsters and others secretly move money off-shore?  Not just tax avoidance. There are many additional benefits of doing so, extending well beyond simple tax avoidance:

–Off-shore bank accounts allow an individual to invest in foreign stocks and mutual funds that are not registered with home country government agencies;
–In some instances, off-shore bank accounts offer more flexible customer options than home country accounts;
–The account can be used to profit from currency fluctuations, buy stocks from mutual funds, purchase foreign real estate, and earn the high interest rates available in many foreign countries;
–Foreign accounts are used to trade precious metals and other assets through the banking system;
–For U.S. citizens, off-shore banking income is not presently considered “subpart F income” on U.S. tax returns. The profits accumulate in the off-shore bank and are compounded free of U.S. taxes;
–Most off-shore banks allow transactions to be conducted by mail, fax, or telex.

Keeping money in off-shore bank accounts is generally considered to be a safe move. On the rare occasion when a bank fails, in most developed countries the major banks in the country will take over its business to ensure that depositors do not lose any money. Some countries even have stronger capital requirements for banks than the United States.

The off-shore financial safe haven sector constantly evolves and adds more attractive customer services over time, just like every other dynamic market place that wants to retain and grow its customer base.  To effectively investigate the role off-shoring plays in many high profile frauds, CFE’s need to realize that tax avoidance is often just the tip of the concealment iceberg.