UK shameful waste of tax payers funds in defense spending:
Example 2022:
The MOD’s £300bn waste of public money
The British public is facing a new round of austerity while the Ministry of Defence squanders vast sums of money on weapons that are unusable in any foreseeable conflict.
To take one current example: the ministry has spent more than £3bn of the public’s money, with the prospect of having to pay out £2bn more, on an armoured car called Ajax. The vehicle, tests show, deafens and injures the occupants, it cannot reverse over obstacles more than 20 centimetres high, and is too unwieldy to fit in the RAF’s transport aircraft.
The project was conceived in 2010 and due to be completed in 2017. By December 2021 the MoD had paid £3.2bn for just 26 Ajax vehicles, none of which it can use.
Defence minister Alec Shelbrooke said recently he “cannot determine a realistic timetable” about when the Ajax would be operational. Some defence industry commentators say it never will be.
The company pocketing billions from the Ajax is the UK subsidiary of the American company, General Dynamics. The company’s manager of the project is Carew Wilks, a former army general in charge of the MoD’s “land equipment” department. General Sir Peter Wall, a former head of the army, was appointed a non-executive director of the company.
…………….
One of Britain’s two aircraft carriers is currently being repaired. (Photo: MOD)
The allure of notionally prestigious weapons systems has seduced Labour as much as the Conservatives. Gordon Brown enthusiastically backed Blair’s agreement to build two aircraft carriers, the largest warships built for the Royal Navy, in Rosyth, close to Brown’s Scottish constituency.
Their combined cost, initially estimated at less than £4bn, rose to more than £6bn.
They are designed to carry the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) version of US F35 Lightning II jets. This version of Lockheed Martin’s F35s has a shorter range and smaller payload than the alternative catapult and arrester gear (“cats and traps”) version that was abandoned on grounds of cost.
The MoD’s plan to buy 48 jets for the two carriers – the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales – is estimated to cost £18.8bn over 30 years.
The carriers are extremely vulnerable to long range missiles being developed notably by China, making a mockery of the “show of strength” hailed by the MoD when the Queen Elizabeth was deployed to the Pacific in 2021.
Lord Richards, the former chief of the defence staff, described the carriers to me as “behemoths…unaffordable vulnerable metal cans”.
And at precisely the moment we are at greatest risk of war with Russia, one of the carriers is marooned in Rosyth, being repaired for a leaking propeller – a problem that has persistently plagued the vessel.
The government says the Prince of Wales carrier has spent 267 days at sea and 193 days undergoing repairs since it was commissioned in December 2019.
Watchkeeper is a large unarmed drone operated by the British Army rather than the RAF. It is assigned to the Royal Artillery and its primary purpose is to aid the targeting of artillery and rocket strikes.
Watchkeeper was built jointly by Thales UK and the Israeli company Elbit Systems and is based on the Elbit’s Hermes 450 drone. Fifty-four Watchkeepers were built under a £1 billion contract and were originally due to be in service in 2011. Much delayed, a small number of Watchkeepers were deployed to Afghanistan in the final weeks of UK operations there in late 2014.
Eight Watchkeeper drones have crashed in the UK during testing or training exercises since 2014.
Watchkeepers were deployed to help spot refugees attempting to cross the Channel in September 2020, but the operation was quietly ended the following month.
In September 2022, Ministers stated that £1.31 billion had been spent on Watchkeeper to date and in April 2024, the Watchkeeper was branded ‘an unmitigated disaster’ by former MoD Minister Marc Francois and member of the Defence Select Committee.
In November 2024, the Defence Secretary John Healey announced in the House of Commons that the UK was scrapping the entire Watchkeeper fleet in order to save funds. While it was initially suggested the drones could be withdrawn by the end of 2024, a new contract announcement indicated the drones would continue to be in service until March 2027.
Globally, tax payers are exploited by those determined to escape paying tax which would have, if paid, contributed to benefitting the living standards of their fellow humans.
“Bleeding the beast” refers to a practice where individuals or groups exploit government funds for purposes not intended by the government, often associated with polygamous communities. waywordradio.org
The US tax fraud list:
Tax fraud and tax evasion resulting in underpayment can take many forms, including:
Underreporting of income due to investment in offshore tax havens
Improperly transferring tax benefits from one company to another by artificially depressing the income reported by U.S. entities based on manipulation of “transfer pricing” (e.g., the prices that one subsidiary charges to another subsidiary for goods or services)
Abusive tax shelters that lack any real economic purpose other than the evasion of taxes, including “Guam Trusts,” debt straddles, lease-in/lease-out transactions, S-Corp ESOP transactions, and off-shore deferred compensation arrangements.
Circular transactions in which funds are moved from one company to another to generate artificial tax benefits
Manipulation of the recognition of revenue or profits to maximize tax benefits
Fraudulent claims for tax credits or deductions, including tax credits for renewable energy investments and sales.
Fraudulent assertions of tax-exempt status, including by organizations engaged in lobbying or other activities that prevent lawful assertion of tax-exempt status.
Such scrutiny has led to new adaptations of the offshore tax haven industry where trillions of uncollected taxpayers funds reside.
To an outsider, offshore tax havens might look like minor jurisdictions on a map, but for the world’s most wealthy, they are anything but, acting as mechanisms for protecting and controlling vast sums of money. There has always been a distance between wealth and visibility, whether through the turquoise shores of the Cayman Islands or the golden vaults of Swiss banks. But in a sudden reversal, these very havens that once promised discretion and protection no longer work quite like they used to.
Offshore finance rarely disappears. Instead, it adapts to changing rules and oversight, while steadily continuing to grow in scale. Estimates suggest that between $21trn and $32trn of global financial assets are now held offshore, although the confidentiality of these jurisdictions makes reliable figures few and far between. The Tax Justice Network believes that the world loses around $427bn in tax revenue every single year to these illicit arrangements.
But tax avoidance is not the simple affair it once was. Traditional secrecy jurisdictions face greater pressure under OECD’s Global Minimum Tax and Reporting Standard, which has made the once convenient offshore loophole more visible and costly. In response, the ultra-wealthy are not retreating, they are adapting.
When old tricks stop working, new ones take shape. Today’s high-net-worth individuals find refuge in dual passports, tax-friendly residencies, DeFi platforms and the odd private island thrown in for good measure. Some of these choices offer genuine financial advantages; others arguably offer the illusion of escape. Still, the inventiveness of these workarounds suggests that the offshore mindset remains firmly intact, only now it is just more scattered across the globe and less reliant on the familiar offshore havens.
So far, some of Jeffrey Epstein files reveal his use of charities as tax avoidance vehicles for his clients:
By 2025 the public record most reliably links Epstein’s remaining estate activity to Gratitude America’s post‑conviction donations and to transfers into Les Wexner’s philanthropic entities, while litigation and settlements with the U.S. Virgin Islands and victims substantially reduced the estate’s size and complicated distributions [1][2][3][7]. However, recent document dumps are incomplete and redacted, and reporting does not provide a definitive, public accounting of every remaining dollar or a full list of charities ultimately receiving estate funds — the chain of custody for many transfers remains contested and under review [5][6].
When you hear about billionaires giving away millions to charity, it’s easy to picture them as selfless philanthropists. But what if that generosity is also a clever financial strategy? The truth is, many wealthy individuals have mastered the art of using charitable giving as a tool to minimize their tax bills. This isn’t just about feeling good or making a difference—it’s about leveraging the tax code to keep more of their wealth. Understanding how rich people weaponize generosity for tax loopholes can help you spot these tactics and even use some of them (ethically) in your own financial planning. Whether you’re curious, skeptical, or just want to make smarter money moves, this article will pull back the curtain on the intersection of charity and tax savings.
1. Donor-Advised Funds: The Charitable Piggy Bank
Donor-advised funds (DAFs) are one of the most popular ways the wealthy weaponize generosity for tax loopholes. Here’s how it works: you donate cash, stocks, or other assets to a DAF, get an immediate tax deduction, and then decide later which charities actually receive the money. This means you can lock in a big tax break in a high-income year, but take your time doling out the funds. According to the National Philanthropic Trust, DAFs held over $229 billion in assets in 2022, and these funds’ grants are growing yearly. For the rich, DAFs are like a charitable savings account with major tax perks.
2. Appreciated Assets: Giving Away Gains, Not Cash
Instead of writing a check, wealthy donors often give appreciated assets—like stocks or real estate—to charity. Why? Because when you donate an asset that’s increased in value, you avoid paying capital gains tax on the appreciation. Plus, you get a deduction for the asset’s full market value. For example, if you bought stock for $10,000 that’s now worth $50,000, donating it lets you skip the tax on the $40,000 gain and claim a $50,000 deduction. This double benefit is a classic way rich people weaponize generosity for tax loopholes, and it’s perfectly legal.
How a Pentagon contractor built a global empire — and a massive tax evasion scheme
Douglas Edelman rose from owning a bar in Kyrgyzstan to winning $7 billion in defense contracts, only to plead guilty this week to hiding his fortune from U.S. tax authorities.
The Post Office has awarded an additional 12-month contract to Fujitsu to extend the bridge between the Japanese supplier and a replacement taking over the controversial Horizon service.
The Post Office does not expect to find a supplier to take over the running of Horizon before July next year, which means its £40m December 2024 contract, which extended the agreement with Fujitsu until March 2026, is inadequate.
Fujitsu will be paid another £41m to continue to supply and support the software at the centre of the Post Office scandal until at least March 2027. But that will not be the end of Horizon itself, which will be used until a replacement is developed by a yet-to-be contracted supplier.
“Post Office has agreed with Fujitsu a one-year bridging extension to the Horizon contract for the period 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027,” said a Post Office spokesperson. “We are committed to moving away from Fujitsu and off the Horizon system as soon as possible. We are bringing in a different supplier to take over Horizon while a new system is developed, and this process is well underway.”
Attempts to replace the Horizon system have already seen multiple extensions and a major in-house project scrapped after a government report last year found that budgets ballooned from £180m to £1.1bn.
A government contract tender published in May offered £323m to a “replacement services provider” to take over the existing Horizon services. The second part of the contract, worth £169m, was for a commercial off-the shelf electronic point of sale software provider to provide Horizon’s replacement.
The Post Office requested a four-year extension of the Horizon contract in November 2024, as the IT supplier’s European boss arrived to give evidence at the Post Office scandal public inquiry. Paul Patterson, Fujitsu’s head of Europe, told the public inquiry that any Horizon contract extension must be as short as possible and said that he did not trust the Post Office.
During his appearance at the public inquiry, Fujitsu’s Patterson said he had major concerns about the continued use of the Horizon system, which has reached its “end of life”, adding that long extensions might not be possible. He said that some parts of Horizon are so old that Fujitsu doesn’t want to turn them off as it is uncertain what would happen if it did.
Horizon continues to produce erratic figures in branch accounts, which the Post Office can’t explain, with millions of pounds being written off. According to a freedom of information response to Computer Weekly from the Post Office, in the past two years, subpostmasters identified more than 16,000 discrepancies, including both account shortfalls and surpluses.
The taxpayer-owned business wrote off £11.6m in unidentified shortfalls, subsequently recorded on the Horizon system as a loss, in its most recent financial year. In the previous year, it wrote off £10.4m as losses for the same reason.
There is anger among the public and politicians over the Post Office and government’s reliance on Fujitsu for IT services in light of the suppliers role in the Post Office scandal.
A government spokesperson said: “We are working as quickly as possible to ensure the Post Office has the technology it needs, including replacing Horizon, as a vital part of the company’s wider transformation.
“The fact they still use the Horizon system indicates past under-investment, which can’t be rectified overnight, so we need to ensure postmasters have the tools they need to continue serving their customers in the interim.”
The Post Office scandal was first exposed by Computer Weekly in 2009, revealing the stories of seven subpostmasters and the problems they suffered due to Horizon accounting software, which led to the most widespread miscarriage of justice in British history (see below timeline of Computer Weekly articles about the scandal since 2009).
The scandal is then tossed, like a hot potato, to a foreign billionaire:
What do we know about Royal Mail’s new owner?
ByLora Jones
Business reporter, BBC News
Published16 December 2024
Updated 17 December 2024
Daniel Křetínský is set to become the new owner of Royal Mail after the sale of its parent firm was approved by the government.
The Czech entrepreneur has been described as a “quiet sphinx” for his inscrutable style. So who is the low-key billionaire and what could new ownership mean for this historic British company?
According to the Sunday Times Rich List, the 49-year-old is now worth £6bn – up £2bn on 2023.
He has adopted a low-profile approach to his business dealings, but what we do know about Mr Křetínský is that he made a large part of his money in Central and Eastern European energy via a labyrinthine structure of companies.
This includes Eustream, which transports Russian gas via pipelines that run through Ukraine, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
In the UK, Mr Křetínský has built up quite a portfolio in well-known brands through Vesa Equity Investment, a private firm which is registered in Luxembourg.
He holds big stakes in supermarket group Sainsbury’s and the sportswear retailer Footlocker.
And, like others in his wealth bracket, he has a football club or two. These include Sparta Prague in his home country, as well as Premier League club West Ham United, in which he holds a 27% stake.
British Steel is set to be brought into public ownership, the prime minister has announced.
Sir Keir Starmer said legislation would be brought forward this week to give the government powers to take “full ownership of British Steel”, subject to a public interest test.
The move comes after the government seized control of British Steel’s Scunthorpe steelworks from its Chinese owners Jingye in April last year in order to halt the potential closure of its blast furnaces.
Sir Keir said the government had held talks with Jingye, but that a “commercial sale has not been possible, and now a public test could be met”.
“Public ownership is in the public interest”, the prime minister said in a speech aiming to see off a leadership challenge following Labour’s poor election results.
He said he would prove his “doubters” wrong and that for the British people, “change cannot come quickly enough”.
The steelmaking industry welcomed the announcement. Gareth Stace, director-general of industry body UK Steel, said it provided “vital certainty” for the 2,700 workforce and the company’s customers.
Private Eye is published every two weeks, and in recent times each fortnightly issue has brought a new revelation of unusual activity – mostly of the financial kind – at Teesworks Ltd and the former SSI 2,600 acre steelworks site at Redcar, now called Teesworks.
The current issue is no exception. Richard Brooks who writes the In The Back section, reported on the sale of publicly – owned Teesworks property by South Tees Developments Ltd, a subsidiary of South Tees Development Corporation (STDC) – to Teesworks Ltd. STDC in turn is a body controlled by Tees Valley Combined Authority. Teesworks and other sites form part of PM Rishi Sunak’s freeport – the brainchild of Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen.
Sell-off for a ridiculous price
The political magazine reported that land amounting to some 105 acres – which cost £100mn of public money to regenerate – has been sold by South Tees Developments Ltd at £1 per acre, a total of £110.35 (plus VAT). The two transactions took place in November and December last year. The main beneficiaries are the business leaders who now own 90% of Teesworks Ltd.
The firm was set up by STDC, a public body under Tees Valley Combined Authority, to remediate and redevelop the derelict land. The corporation created Teesworks Ltd as a joint venture, gifting half its shares to four local developers led by Chris Musgrave and Martin Corney. Then in November 2021 a further 40% of the company was transferred to interests controlled by Musgrave and Corney again without charge, leaving STDC with just 10% of the firm they had created.
The freehold sales to Teesworks Ltd are under an option to buy the land of South Bank Quay currently being developed and the land to the south of it also undergoing publicly funded regeneration. The sites will be rented by Korean wind turbine monopile manufacturers SeAH.
An original condition of the shares transfer was that the private shareholders would foot the bill for ongoing demolition and remediation work, but that condition has now been waived and the public purse via STDC will shoulder those future costs.
Demolition and remediation at Teesworks has so far cost STDC £450mn.
But up to now Musgrave and his pals have paid very little for their interest. The official version for their involvement is that they had purchased a strip of land deemed crucial to the Teesworks site, for £500,000.
The developers have already made their return. Private Eye estimated that £40mn from the sale of metal scrap on the land has so far been released to the four developers. The Private Eye report of the fire-sale of land remediated from the public purse is a serious accusation, warranting an official response.
And the mayor’s response?
Yet there has been no formal rebuttal from the mayor’s office. Our enquiries to his press office were not answered. The only response we can see is Houchen’s posts on Facebook. In response to a comment on his Facebook page – “No one on here read Private Eye then?” – Houchen wrote:
“Only people who enjoy comics and want to an escape from reality..
“It’s all public already. Accounts fully audited and published on Companies House. We have audit reports and scrutiny reports that are investigated on a monthly basis by councillors from across the region from all parties….
“I talk all the time about how much money we secured from government, the fact the [Teesworks] site had hundreds of millions in liabilities and the jobs we’re creating…
“There are so many [false reports] I’d just spend my whole time refuting nonsense. I have actually provided evidence and truth to them directly but they ignore that and print rubbish instead almost like Private Eye is a socialist comic..
“But as an example, STDC will make more than £40m from SeAH and that doesn’t include the millions a year in business rates. It’s wrong to say STDC got just over £100 😂 utter nonsense.”
Houchen’s comments were relayed to Richard Brooks on Twitter, who tweeted:
Why the secrecy?
So apart from the Facebook reactions it’s a no comment from Houchen. It begs the question – why the secrecy?
One of Houchen’s comments bends the truth. He posted:
“Accounts fully audited and published on Companies House”
But Teeswork’s accounts are not audited, they’re simply “unaudited financial statements” meaning that an auditor has not gone through the financial records with a fine toothcomb. But then Teesworks is no longer publicly owned.
Houchen and others have argued that the developers are carrying the site’s ‘liabilities’, but the developers will not be liable for any debts of the limited company and they have not invested any of their own money.
Teesworks Ltd
Then there’s the unusual origins of Teesworks Ltd which did not see the light of day as a joint venture between the developers and the STDC. In fact the company was first incorporated in December 2019 as South Tees Enterprise Ltd, equally co-owned by Northern Land Management Ltd (Martin Corney’s firm) and Musgrave’s J C Musgrave Capital Ltd. The registered office was at Corney’s mansion – Southlands in Eaglescliffe, near Stockton.
The company’s SIC code which denotes their business activity was 52101: “Operation of warehousing and storage facilities for water transport activities”. Only later was the remediation role added.
The two business owners ceased to be the controlling parties in July 2020 after two more shares were created and transferred to STDC. At the same time the company name was changed to Teesworks. So the joint venture was born from a Musgrave-Corney partnership.
In November 2021 an official notice in the government’s Gazette announced the company’s compulsory strike-off from the public register, only to be withdrawn later. That month the developers’ share of Teesworks’ ownership rose from 50% to 90%.
All the corporate documents confirm that Teesworks has never employed anyone.
Why Teesworks Ltd was created by the developers seems baffling, when STDC has access to accountants, and online company formation agents could provide an ‘off the shelf’ ready-made firm in seconds for a few pounds. It seems that the Teesworks vehicle was an unused company that was given a new name and role.
That’s not unusual. But it does beg a few questions. If the joint venture was created from the business owners’ own folder of redundant companies, were other potential business partners already ruled out? Was there any formal process to find and recruit joint venture partners? Who was short-listed? How were they screened? Where is the due diligence?
You might ask what discussions were held about the joint venture at STDC board meetings. Given the cryptic minutes and withheld documents you can ask away.
Julia Mazza grew up in Middlesbrough, the descendant of Irish Famine refugee ironworkers and a Tyne shipyard union organiser. She is in awe of how the North East industrial workers, enduring intense hardship, still managed to create a formidable labour movement. Retired after a career in campaigns and commercial and policy research, she now lives in London
We are a not-for-profit citizen journalism publication. Our aim is to publish well-written, fact-based articles and opinion pieces on subjects that are of interest to people in the North East and beyond.
Ben Houchen, Baron Houchen of High Leven (born 9 December 1986) is a British Conservative politician and life peer. He has been Tees Valley Mayor since 2017, winning the inaugural mayoral election in the combined authority. Houchen was re-elected in 2021 and won a third term in 2024. As mayor, Houchen represents the five local authority areas in the Tees Valley: Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees, Redcar and Cleveland, Hartlepool, and Darlington, and he also acts as chairman of the Tees Valley Combined Authority, the body tasked with driving economic growth and job creation in the area. After the May 2024 local elections, Houchen was the Conservative Party’s only combined authority mayor in England, until Paul Bristow won the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough mayoral election in May 2025.
Previously unreported emails – first identified by Tax Policy Associates – show Peter Mandelson discussing with his “chief life adviser”, Jeffrey Epstein, a tax avoidance structure for the purchase of a £2m1 Rio apartment, involving a Panama company.
Mr Mandelson told us that he has no recollection of the proposal, or knowledge as to the authenticity of the documents. He added that neither he nor his husband have ever owned property in Brazil, and that he has no association with any company in Panama, and holds no funds offshore.
After receiving that response, we identified a company, incorporated in Rio de Janeiro for the purpose of holding real estate, of which Mr Mandelson and his husband were the directors. Mr Mandelson has denied to us that he held Brazilian property through the company.
The emails
The email chain starts in October 2010, with Peter Mandelson deciding to buy an apartment in Rio, and sending emails asking for advice from his “chief life adviser”, Jeffrey Epstein:
About three weeks later, the documents show Mr Mandelson receiving approval from HSBC Private Bank for a loan of £1.68m to acquire the Rio apartment, secured on Mr Mandelson’s £2.4m London home.
Things progressed slowly, which is not unusual in Brazilian property transactions. In March 2011, Mr Mandelson wrote to Mr Epstein describing a highly unusual tax structure:
The dispute over the canal is just the latest chapter of Trump drama in Panama.
Before and throughout his first term in the White House, a high-profile Trump hotel project in the country was a seemingly unending source of scandal and financial problems, ranging from a partner’s bankruptcy to money-laundering allegations to long-running legal battles.
In 2011, Trump and his business partners cut the ribbon on the Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower, a 70-story, sail-shaped skyscraper that loomed large over Panama City and the Trump Organization itself.
The tower, which was first conceived way back in 2005, was Trump’s first international hotel venture and one of the tallest buildings in Latin America.
Trump capital didn’t go towards building the development itself, but the tower used the Trump name for branding, and companies controlled by the Trump Organization would manage the property, which contained a casino, hotel rooms and condos.
Even in the early days, the project seemed doomed, with one of Trump’s partners defaulting on debts soon after the tower opened and later filing for bankruptcy.
Trump opened his first international hotel venture in 2011 in Panama City with the Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower (AFP/Getty)
Subsequent investigations from news outlets alleged that one of the main brokers who sold units in the tower, Alexandre Ventura Nogueira, met repeatedly with Ivanka Trump while working on the project and did business with organized crime figures who may have used the properties for money-laundering, earning the tower the nickname “Narco-a-Lago,” a play on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.
“The Trump Organization was not the owner, developer or seller of the Trump Ocean Club Panama project,” the Trump Organization said after the money-laundering allegations. “Because of its limited role, the company was not responsible for the financing of the project and had no involvement in the sale of units or the retention of any real estate brokers.”
The company told Reuters it “never had any contractual relationship or significant dealings” with Nogueira.
Trump later fought for control of the Panama City tower with a developer who bought out the majority of units (Wikipedia)
Nogueira fled Panama on bail while awaiting trial on unrelated fraud charges, and spoke to reporters as a fugitive in disguise in Europe.
At one point, as Ocean Club condo owners objected to the Trump team’s management practices and sought to fire the company, accusing them of overspending and taking excessive bonuses. Trump responded by suing, demanding $75m for wrongful termination.
A key broker on the Trump Panama project may have sold units to organized crime figures who used properties as vehicles for money-laundering (Getty)
The litigation was settled in 2016 – the same year Trump was elected president – but the drama around the tower didn’t end there.
“President Trump removed himself from his multi-billion-dollar real estate empire to run for office and forewent his government salary, becoming the first President to actually lose net worth while serving in the White House,” Karoline Leavitt, a spokesperson for the Trump-Vance transition team, told The Independent in a statement. “Unlike most politicians, President Trump didn’t get into politics for profit – he’s fighting because he loves the people of this country and wants to make America great again.”
In 2017, businessman Orestes Fintiklis bought hundreds of units inside the hotel-condo portion of the building for between $20m and $25m from one of the tower’s bankrupt developers, making him the controlling owner. He helped lead owners of units in the building in calls to sever their relationship with the Trump companies managing the development.
The Trump Organization accused Fintiklis of violating the terms of his original acquisition deals for the units, saying he agreed not to interfere in the Trump team’s management of the hotel.
By the following year, as Fintiklis sought to assume what he argued was majority ownership of the tower, shoving matches broke out between his employees and remaining Trump Organization staff. In one incident, the Trump team allegedly barred the new owners from entering a room with computer servers and CCTV monitors, prompting the owners group to allegedly shut off power to the room.
Fintiklis accused the Trump companies of shredding documents and hastily building walls to lock the new owners out of certain areas, while the Trump Organization accused the Fintiklis group of “thug-like, mob-style tactics.”
In a 2018 suit filed in New York federal court and amended multiple times since, Fintiklis and his company Ithaca Capital Partners accused Trump companies managing the Panama tower of “intentionally evading taxes” related to their role overseeing the development, allegedly saddling the new owners with millions in liability when an alleged 2018 audit uncovered the shortfall, the suit claimed.
Later filings accused the Trump managers of understating employee salaries to reduce potential social security tax payments and painting the building’s finances in a “false light” before Fintiklis was bought in, which the company denied and called “completely false.”
“To the extent any taxes were to be withheld,” the Trump Organization told The New York Times in 2019, they were the responsibility of the new owners, the company said. The Trump Organization added it “did not evade any taxes.”
A tower built on dirty money: Trump’s sail-shaped tower in Panama laundered countless millions until it went belly up after being caught up in the finances of kleptocracy.
When the sail-shaped Trump Ocean Club first took its place in Panama City’s skyline, the building(later renamed the Trump International Hotel and Tower Panama and, still later, renamed again the JW Marriott Panama) was presented as the last word in international luxury. But by the time it opened in 2011 as the Trump Organization’s first overseas hotel, the cognoscenti realized it had become something entirely different. Instead of functioning as a glamorous oasis for the rich and powerful, it had become a high-speed laundromat that washed enormous amounts of tainted capital. At the heart of the operation was a sales team that expertly courted wealthy foreigners—many of whom were Russian or Soviet émigrés—and leveraged the Trump brand to command inflated prices and launder money.
Like most of the projects he started after his crippling bankruptcies in Atlantic City, the Panama tower was not built by or financed by Donald Trump. After all, most banks wouldn’t touch him. Moreover, Trump had become party to a scheme by which he licensed his name and provided management services so that he could shift all the risk that went along with financing and development to local partners while he benefitted from a lucrative payday. Better yet, the arrangement continued to generate millions in management fees and royalties for Trump that amounted to nearly $14 million, even though the project itself faltered and buyers were left exposed
WHO HE? Both the Trump Organization and the Trump Family denied knowing Alexandre Ventura Nogueira, the chief broker for the Trump Ocean Club. Nogueira is pictured at left with Ivanka Trump and at right with Donald Trump
Trump fostered similar relationships all over the world. In 2003, Trump had whetted Latin American interest in the Trump brand by staging the Miss Universe pageant in Panama City, Panama. Three years later, he struck a deal in Panama to develop the Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower, a sail-shaped seventy-story waterfront complex that included residential apartments and a casino. According to an investigation by Global Witness, an anticorruption watchdog, Trump was entitled to a licensing fee, 1 percent of any financing he secured, and a cut of every unit sold—all of which would add up to more than $75 million. Many of the problems behind the project led to a man named Alexandre Ventura Nogueira, the tower’s primary broker. According to a report by Reuters, Nogueira, who, with his partners, sold more than half the apartments in the project, marketed the condos largely to Russians because, a colleague said, “Russians like to show off. For them, Trump was the Bentley” of real estate brands.
According to conversations secretly recorded by a former business partner, in 2013 Ventura Nogueira said he had laundered tens of millions of dollars through real estate. “More important than the money from real estate was being able to launder the drug money—there were much larger amounts involved,” he said in the recording. “When I was in Panama I was regularly laundering money for more than a dozen companies.”
Nogueira told Reuters that he became the leading broker for the project thanks in part to the support of Trump’s daughter Ivanka, who appeared in a promotional video with him. The Trump Organization went into overdrive with the new model. Why not? Since Trump did none of the financing and almost none of the development, its risks were minimal and the upside was high. The Trump Organization’s role in the Panama project “was at all times limited to licensing its brand and providing management services,” said Alan Garten, the company’s chief legal officer. “As the company was not the owner or developer, it had no involvement in the sale of any units at the property . . . No one at the Trump Organization, including the Trump family, has any recollection of ever meeting or speaking with this individual [Nogueira].”
Meta data center water discharges suspended after contaminating the city’s reclamation water supply with bacterium — system offline for months for cleaning, closed-loop cooling system purge spread rare metal-resistant bacteria in Cheyenne’s water system
Microsoft and Nvidia market sealed liquid loops as a near-zero-water alternative to evaporative cooling, an approach that is spreading quickly as AI data centers expand into more communities. Microsoft describes cooling systems that are filled once during construction and then recirculate the same water, while Nvidia’s Rubin platform runs a coolant that is 75% water and 25% propylene glycol. That one-time fill, however, is the step that produces a discharge, and the flush water leaves the site before the loop is sealed.
Strong went on to add that the Board’s concern extends past the finding of the bacterium, because closed-loop systems can carry glycol and other chemicals that municipal treatment plants aren’t built to process. Cheyenne sprays its reclaimed water on parks, golf courses, and other green spaces, and the Board worried the bacterium could become an aerosol hazard during irrigation. Cupriavidus gilardii isn’t a regulated contaminant, yet the discharge disrupted treatment sufficiently to trigger pass-through and interference findings under the Cheyenne City Code and federal pretreatment rules.
A federal immigration officer murdered a motorist in Maine on Monday, the second time in a week that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have used deadly force and at least the ninth time since Trump began his immigration crackdown.
A family friend identified him as Joan Sebastian Guerrero who had been issued a Social Security number and moved to Maine to live and work. She told WMTW that Guerrero is survived by a wife, a 3-year-old child, and a sister. Joans wife and daughter were in the car when he was murdered.
Hundreds of protestors took to the streets, calling for the removal of ICE. Many entered the office of Maine Senator Susan Collins who recently voted to provide another $70 billion to ICE operations without reforms. Collins is up for reelection this year.
Maines Attorney General is conducting an investigation and the agent has been placed on leave. (Source: WMTW)
Source: Angry Vet, Substack
Related: Heartbroken family of Mexican father killed by ICE call for investigation
A 26-year-old Colombian father, Joan Sebastian Guerrero, was fatally shot by a federal immigration agent in Biddeford, Maine, during an attempted vehicle stop.
Witnesses reported seeing an agent fire shots after Guerrero’s vehicle allegedly tried to hit the officer, while others described an unmarked SUV ramming Guerrero’s car.
Advocacy groups stated Guerrero was authorized to work in the U.S., and Senator Angus King confirmed he was not the target of an arrest warrant, contrary to initial claims.
Homeland Security stated an ICE officer discharged their weapon after Guerrero’s vehicle attempted to flee, resulting in his death, and the officer has been placed on leave.
This incident marks at least the 11th fatal shooting involving federal immigration agents under the current administration and has sparked outrage and calls for accountability from community leaders and politicians.
The Steadfast Friend of Israel and the Two-State Paradox
If there was one cause that defined Lindsey Graham’s foreign policy soul, it was Israel. He was, in the words of Prime Minister Netanyahu, “one of its greatest friends”. Graham made numerous wartime visits to the region, championed billions in security aid, and was a vocal advocate for relocating the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. He cosponsored legislation to combat the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and fiercely criticized UN resolutions against Israeli settlements. He backed Israel’s military responses to Hamas attacks, from 2014 through the October 7, 2023, massacre that triggered the war in Gaza. Graham saw Israel not just as an ally, but as the key to regional stability.
Yet, on the question of Palestine, Graham’s position contained a fascinating and often-overlooked nuance. In one of his final interviews, given to the Jerusalem Post at a Republican Jewish Coalition summit, he made a striking admission. Pressed on the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Graham declared: “There is no other alternative” to a two-state solution. He reasoned that a one-state solution would “either end Israel as a Jewish state or leave millions without rights, which the world will not accept”. He even concluded that “to be pro-Israel, you need to be honest with Israel”.
Human rights defenders on Wednesday accused U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham of “incitement to genocide” after the South Carolina Republican urged Israeli forces to destroy Gaza—and he wasn’t the only prominent GOP figure to make such an incendiary call.
Appearing on Fox News on Tuesday night, Graham asserted that “we are in a religious war here, I am with Israel. Whatever the hell you have to do to defend yourselves; level the place.”
It is 16 years since the Supreme Court ruling which enabled people like Elon Musk to coordinate his donations with the Trump campaign.
Here are extracts from a Huffpost article from 2025:
The 2024 presidential campaign for Trump, left, directly coordinated with Musk’s super PAC to help turn out the vote in the November elections. Brandon Bell via Associated Press
Super PACs and other outside groups allowed to raise unlimited contributions are ostensibly meant to be independent from the political parties and candidates they support — at least, that was the rationale given by the Supreme Court in its 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which enabled corporations and the wealthy to make such contributions.
Since then, the courts, the FEC and opportunistic political party actors have knocked down the wall of independence between the political action committees and the campaigns that the Citizens United court had presumed.
What the country is left with is the worst of all possible worlds. The political parties are hollow and weak, especially at the state level. Members of Congress spend an inordinate amount of time fundraising, for themselves and their party. Their campaigns send out endless, often deceptive solicitations for small-dollar donations. Meanwhile, nonparty actors, fueled by billionaire donations, control what should be party activities and buy themselves an amount of power and access that was previously unheard of.
It’s time to admit an uncomfortable fact: 15 years after Citizens United, campaign finance reform is dead.
This doesn’t mean that efforts to regulate money in politics no longer exist or have no future. What it does mean is that existing campaign finance laws no longer serve their stated purpose of preventing corruption and empowering the voices of ordinary citizens. Those still on the books also face an uncertain future in the face of a deeply hostile judiciary that will only get more hostile as Trump appoints even more conservative judges to the federal bench………
But the Supreme Court’s shift to the right that began with the appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005 and Justice Samuel Alito in 2006 has effectively neutered that law.
This started in 2007 when the court blew up the McCain-Feingold limits on corporate-funded issue ads by nonprofits, ruling that the limits violated the free speech rights of those corporations and groups. Then, in 2010, the Citizens United decision vastly expanded that to all outside spending: The court ruled that corporations could freely fund independent political spending, saying that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” A lower court extended that ruling to allow funds from individuals, which enabled the creation of the super PAC.
A wide array of outside groups immediately popped up — many with explicit connections to parties and candidates, despite the court’s supposed insistence on independence. Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign incubated the super PAC Restore Our Future before he announced his candidacy and then made it “independent” afterward.
The lines of independence continued to crumble thanks to enforcement decisions by the FEC. Candidates were allowed to appear at super PAC fundraisers so long as they did not personally ask for sums exceeding the candidate contribution limit. Super PACs could use materials and information posted online by candidates and parties, including videos, images, ad messaging and targeting strategy. In the 2016 GOP presidential primaries, single-candidate super PACs effectively took over campaign operations by hosting rallies where their candidate would appear as a “special guest.” Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign was accused of openly coordinating with the super PAC Correct the Record — and was let off the hook by the FEC
The coup de grâce came in early 2024, after the law firm of Democratic Party lawyer Marc Elias petitioned the FEC to allow a Democratic-aligned super PAC in Texas to coordinate with candidates when engaged in voter turnout efforts. The FEC’s decision gave the thumbs-up to direct coordination between candidates, parties and super PACs on one of the most vital elements of campaigning: voter engagement and turnout.
But it wasn’t Democrats who took advantage. Republicans immediately seized the opportunity. Trump outsourced his ground game to groups like Turning Point USA and Musk’s America PAC while directly coordinating with them. Whatever lines existed between the independent spending envisioned by the Supreme Court in its Citizens United ruling and the candidates and parties backed by such groups were no more.
Note: Mitch McConnell’s embracing of the Supreme Court’s decision, reported here in 2014:
Even in Washington, few have embraced the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision more vociferously than long-time campaign finance reform foe Senator Mitch McConnell. In a brief to the Supreme Court in 2012, he argued that critics of the decision got it exactly wrong: despite the warnings, unlimited spending from corporate treasuries had not skyrocketed, and the decision should stand.
Senator McConnell may have a point—or half of one. While it’s impossible to know exactly how much corporate spending Citizens United has unleashed (because so much spending is no longer disclosed), four years on, it has become apparent that the biggest impact of the decision may have little to do with the spending of “corporate wealth.”
Rather, as our colleague Ian Vandewalker points out in his recent analysis of spending in the most competitive Senate races of 2014, it is now apparent that the decision’s biggest impact may be that it opened the door to two types of political spending entities that could completely undermine the integrity of what’s left of our campaign finance system: candidate-specific super PACs and dark money groups. Candidate-specific super PACs undercut federal contribution limits to candidates by allowing individuals to direct unlimited sums of money in support of someone running for office, while dark money groups evade the disclosure requirements for political contributions that currently exist under federal law.
It may be that no single race better exemplifies these developments, and foreshadows the shape of future federal elections, than Senator McConnell’s competitive re-election contest against Alison Lundergan Grimes. Perhaps unsurprisingly, considering McConnell’s current position and the potential for him to become Senate Majority Leader, the Kentucky race has attracted massive spending on both sides, including significant activity by new outside spending entities.
During 2005, President George W. Bush appointed Federal Circuit Court Judges John G. Roberts and Samuel A. Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. These appointments were the culmination of years of examination of the work, character, and temperament of both men commencing during the 2000 presidential transition. Our evaluation included face-to-face interviews; an analysis of judicial opinions, speeches, and writings; and conversation with friends, colleagues, and court experts. Based on this work, a select group of Bush Administration officials developed a set of predictors that formed the basis of our recommendation to President Bush that he elevate Circuit Court Judges Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court. This Article explains how Judges Roberts and Alito were evaluated, and our assessment of how they would perform on the Court. The Article then examines whether the Bush Administration correctly predicted how these two men would decide cases before the Court by reviewing some of their most significant opinions to date.
We begin with an explanation of the process used in developing our recommendation to the President followed by a thorough examination of the factors we weighed (such as political considerations and confirmation challenges). The Article includes a thorough, though certainly not exhaustive, review of the circuit court opinions of each man. This early body of work is then compared to their most recent work on the Supreme Court in certain key areas of the law. There is a remarkable, though not unexpected, consistency between Justices Roberts’s and Alito’s jurisprudence on the circuit courts and on the Supreme Court. Based on this comparison, the Article concludes that the Bush Administration successfully anticipated that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito would decide cases using a consistent set of principles including judicial restraint, respect for precedent, and statutory interpretation based on plain language.
There are many decisions and events that define a presidency. Sometimes a president is defined by his response to an attack on American soil, such as Pearl Harbor or September 11th. A president’s legacy has also been shaped by the manner in which he leads the country through a crisis like the Great Depression, or serves as Commander-in-Chief during a world war. One type of decision that receives too little public attention, but which often represents a president’s most enduring legacy, is a president’s appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. Because the U.S. Constitution provides federal judges life tenure, appointees serve well beyond the term of the president who appointed them, and their decisions will affect the lives of Americans spanning over several administrations. Although unelected, the votes of the members of the Court often do affect the policy decisions of the elected branches. On matters of constitutional questions, absent a subsequent contrary constitutional amendment or a change in the majority make-up of the Court, these decisions on law and policy by the Court are final and binding.
Every administration approaches Supreme Court nominations differently. President George W. Bush, understanding their importance, directed me in early 2001, as White House Counsel, to develop a list of potential nominees in anticipation of a vacancy. After consulting with some of my predecessors in the White House, my team of lawyers in the Counsel’s Office institutionalized a formal selection process. Relying in part upon that process, President Bush nominated Judges John G. Roberts and Samuel A. Alito to the Supreme Court in 2005. This Article describes the nomination process employed by the Bush Administration and examines the reasons for the Roberts and Alito nominations. Next, the Article describes our expectations in 2005 for both men as members of the Supreme Court. Finally, the Article examines the most significant of their Supreme Court opinions, and compares those to the expectations of the Bush Administration. Based on that comparison, the Article concludes that the Bush White House was successful in predicting how Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito would decide cases before the Supreme Court. As a result, one can argue that President Bush achieved his objective of nominating judges who would consistently decide cases based on a conservative set of principles, thus placing the jurisprudence of the Court on a conservative path for future generations.
There is an interesting piece about the impressive career path of Sherrill Redmon, Mitch McConnell’s first wife with whom he had 3 children. The marriage lasted from 1968 for 12 years.
Here is an extract:
Sherrill Redmon net worth has never been publicly revealed, though estimates place it around $2 million. Her financial independence stems primarily from her academic career as director of the Sophia Smith Collection rather than divorce settlement from McConnell. In contrast to McConnell, whose political career made him a millionaire, Redmon’s legacy is measured not in wealth but in the positive impact she made on feminist research and education. Her professional recognition comes from transforming the Sophia Smith Collection into an internationally recognized archive.
The political contrast with ex-husband Mitch McConnell
Redmon’s strong beliefs in gender equality and social justice often contrasted with her husband’s conservative political views. Gloria Steinem, in a 2020 email to The New Yorker, remarked: “I can only imagine how painful it must be to marry and have children with a democratic Jekyll and see him turn into a corrupt and authoritarian Hyde”. Notably, her youngest daughter Porter inherited her feminist values, working as director of the Take On Wall Street campaign with views differing vastly from her conservative father[183].
Conclusion
Sherrill Redmon’s story demonstrates how one woman carved her own path despite being overshadowed by a famous political spouse. Her decades-long commitment to preserving diverse voices in women’s history created resources that scholars still rely on today. Without doubt, her legacy lies not in her twelve-year marriage to Mitch McConnell, but in the transformed Sophia Smith Collection that stands as testament to her feminist vision and dedication to amplifying marginalized perspectives in American history.
The original line put Israel in control of a little more than half of Gaza. But since the ceasefire was announced, the shifting line means Israel now controls approximately 60 per cent of the territory, the IDF recently confirmed. Last month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to expand the zone to 70 per cent.
On June 29, several users on Telegram, Facebook and X posted a picture of one of these blocks, with some posts claiming it is now “just two metres away from Salah al-Din Road.” CBC verified that the image is new as of June 29 and authentic.
This puts the yellow line right next to a crucial transportation route that stretches across the Gaza Strip.
The shared image shows the distinctive yellow block in a nondescript field bounded by a brick wall, with a destroyed warehouse in the background.
By analyzing satellite imagery and matching it with the content of the photo, the CBC News visual investigation team tracked the block to a field a full kilometre away from the original yellow line, confirming the demarcation line is now mere metres from the Salah al-Din highway.
The block was placed near the entrance to two major refugee camps, Nuseirat and Al-Bureij, and the intersection with Al-Dawa Street, which leads to the Gaza power station.
“Controlling the Salah al-Din Road is part of the IDF’s interest in terms of carving up the territory, making it easier for the IDF to control movement of people and thereby also impose what is, effectively, now an illegal occupation,” Krieg said.
See UNOCHA report, 3 July 2026, here are highlights:
Highlights
In just two weeks, over 9,000 cases of chickenpox were reported across 130 health facilities in Gaza, half of them in Khan Younis.
Although only 85 per cent of the solid waste generated in Gaza is collected, combined with pest control, the overall health and environmental risks from unmanaged waste and pest infestation have not increased.
A shortage of sodium bicarbonate, due to chronic underfunding, at the Al Shifa Hospital is said to be severely affecting haemodialysis services, reducing treatment capacity for about 240 patients with end-stage kidney disease.
A new humanitarian assessment in two Palestinian communities in the West Bank found that the establishment of nearby settlement outposts has been accompanied by repeated settler attacks, mounting insecurity and deteriorating access to essential services.
More than 2,300 Palestinians have been displaced across the West Bank in 2026 due to settler attacks and related access restrictions.
Demolitions in East Jerusalem neighbourhoods on the ‘West Bank’ side of the Barrier now account for 37 per cent of all lack-of-permit demolitions in East Jerusalem, nearly double the average recorded over the previous six years.
![To: jeevacation@gmail com[eevacation@gmail com]
From: Peter Mandelson
Sem: Sun 11/7/2010 2 34 57 PM
Subyect: Fwd Rio apartment
Seat to mys bank manager Gratetul tor helpful thoughts trom my chief lite adviser
Sent from ims iPad
Bevin torwarded messave
From: Peter Mander iS
Date: 7 November 2010 [4 29 12 GMI
Subject: Rio apartment
P| ag awe dpeecussed Pan consdernne a purchase of an apartmentin Rion Ttisain](https://taxpolicy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Screenshot-2026-01-31-at-21.27.15.png)
![To: jeevacationg@gmail comieevacation@gmail com]
From: Peter Mandelson
Sen: Sun 11/7/2010 2 34 57 PM
Subject: Fwd Rio apartment
Sent to my bank manager Gratetul for helpful thoughts from my chiet ite adviser
Sent from ms 1Pad
Beuin tonvarded message
From: Peter Mandelson Po :
Date: 7 November 2010 14 29 12 GMI
Subject: Rio apartment
as we discussed, | am considering a purchase of an apartment in Rio It isin
a block under construction in [panema [tis being re-sold off plan bs the onginal
purchaser Asking price ts § 350 000 nals | am told that this value will rise on
construction and will follow Rio property prices up in coming sears
Tcan forward property details to vou m nest few dass but | would be grateful for advice
trom sou on how HSBCPB in Rio can assist in helping me take the decision on
this particular property and ina purchase [also need some advice on tas
mplications in Brazil and UK
Lam minded to place ownership, once secured. in Reinaldo’s name and advice on this
would also be welcome
Please let me know whether and how sou can help on this
Best regards from Beying
Peter
Sent from my iPad](https://taxpolicy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/upload_73f957b3-5d51-4d36-9449-a9bef95c2947.jpg)
![To: jeevacation@@gmail com[jeevacationgggmail.com]
From: PETER MANDELSON
Sent: Wed 12/1/2010 10:07:26 PM
Subject: Fw: Re: Rio apartment
I cannot tell you how nervous this makes me. Going to bed now
On 24 Nov 2010, at 16:34, EE wrote:
Peter,
| am pleased to confirm that | now have approval to provide you with a loan on the following headiine
terms:-
Borrower You
Amount £1.68m
Purpose Assistance with purchase of holiday home in Rio
Term 5 years
Repayment £24,000 per quarter
Security Mortgage over 4 Park Village West
Valuaton The property wall be valued by one of the bank's panel valuers, at your cost.
We require a minirnum valuation of £2.4m
Interest 2.25% over 3m LIBOR - 1. approx. 3% p.a. at the present time. This 16 a
discount to our revised standard pricing of 2.5% margin, and unfortunately | am unable to reduce tt
further
Fee 0.75% (£12,600)
Other For the duration of the facilty, it1s a conditon that you maintain a maumum credit
balance with us of £100.000
Please advise iffhow you wish to proceed. As you may recall, from the end of this week | will be on
holiday untd 13th December, but Sam will be able to take matters forward in my absence.
Regards
HSBC Private Bank
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR | Media & Entertainment
HSBC Private Bank (UK) Limited, 78 St. James's Street, London. SW1A 1JB](https://taxpolicy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/upload_f224aa92-4eca-4653-bdd8-1e8a40477fab.jpg)
![To: jeevacation@gmail.comfjeevacation@gmail.com]: Jeffrey Epsteinfjjeevacation€@gmail.com}
From: Peter Mandelson
Sent: Wed 3/30/2011 3:41:59 PM
Subject: on
A lawyer in Rio has pointed out two problems in Reinaldo purchasing the Rio flat by means of a
cash transfer from me: we would be liable to taxes in both UK and Brazil, and the purchase itself
would be liable for two forms of property taxation in Brazil, 4° and 6°o respectively of the full
purchase price. This would be prohibitively expensive.
The lawyer suggests the following scheme which he has operated for others. He would
buy‘create an offshore company in Panama and this company would open an account with
HSBCPB in London. We would also create a Brazilian company which would have the
Panamanian company as a partner (shares held by Reinaldo and me). The Brazilian company,
managed by Reinaldo, would purchase the flat. The flat purchase would be financed by means of a
loan from the Panamanian company's account in London to justify the offshore (non-taxable)
ongin of the moncy.
The lawyer proposes that | invest US$S0,000 to buy the shares of the Brazilian company (making
a residence permit in Brazil also possible).
The company would be liable for tax at 20 on the property purchase (rather than 4% and 6°o).
The company would have a Brazilian bank account (Safra or HSBC 7). The lawyer would have
power of attorncy to sign legal documents etc.
As directors of the Brazilian company, Reinaldo and | would have joint control over the property.](https://taxpolicy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/image-4.png)
You must be logged in to post a comment.