August 7th, 2016
These days, in the face of the new money laundering and moratorium promoted by the Government through Law 27260, we read and hear insistently the refrain that we must enter and that it must be done for all the assets not declared to the Federal Administration of Public Revenues (AFIP), that is, without leaving anything outside of state control. These opinions repeat in unison the argument of the benefits and opportunities presented by the new regime and can leave many people with the feeling that there is no other path than the one that leads to externalization, and in a total, not partial, manner.
What many people and families who have worked and saved all or part of their lives are asking themselves is whether it is really worth taking advantage of the money laundering or moratorium, perhaps because they know or sense that they will be more vulnerable to the force of the State and fear being immersed in a sort of prison in which their ability to choose, plan and negotiate is significantly reduced or even reduced to nothing.
Out of necessity, convenience or other reasons, an ever-growing portion of the world's population wants to keep or move their jobs and savings outside the orbit of state regulation. That's why the so-called shadow economy is growing steadily.
As governments push for compliance with financial regulations and tax burdens or the C system increases, more people are jumping into the world of the collaborative economy without taxes, foreign exchange regulations, labor laws or intellectual property protection, for example, dubbed by Robert Neuwirth the D system, which in some regions reaches 60% of GDP.
The reality is that Minister Alfonso Prat-Gay's prophecy: "There will be no place to hide the money," even with the supposed elimination of cash boasted by central banker Federico Sturzenegger, has no basis, unless a totalitarian surveillance regime is implemented like that of Big Brother described by George Orwell in 1984, since, otherwise, there will always be spaces off the state radar, as Adam Dubove instructs in his column: "The new 500-denominated bills, and the last ones?"
It is already known that the United States will not participate in the announced automatic exchange of tax information that is planned to be implemented between some countries starting in 2017. Although the beginning of negotiations was publicized, the truth is that Argentina does not have a bilateral agreement that authorizes the provision of information for tax purposes, and that with the countries with which it shares information, the information of the partners of the companies that own assets or obtain income is not compromised, since the United States does not currently reveal the data of the ultimate or final beneficial owners.
On the other hand, the reportable income and assets are those registered in favor of the holders of certain accounts in financial institutions, so all assets of the real economy and operations that do not pass through the accounts of those holders and that do not exceed certain amounts are excluded, in addition to the fact that the fiscal periods involved are always limited and known in advance. For example, Switzerland and Uruguay will supposedly make it operational only from 2018 or 2019.
The growing acceptance of Bitcoin can be explained by the problems of transporting and storing tangible assets such as cash and gold, and the countless financial damages caused throughout history by the monetary and fiscal policies of governments, plus the increasing penetration of state agencies into the private actions of individuals and human groups. As Jon Matonis points out for Forbes, Bitcoin may become the currency of the D system.
The menu of options for achieving some protection against state actions advancing under the euphemism of "international fiscal transparency," in addition to virtual currencies, includes countries that do not exchange information, real-economy assets, more sophisticated structures, more traditional variants such as cash, precious stones and metals, and the myriad of existing options and those yet to be created thanks to human creativity.
The director of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, recently warned of the greater risk of suffering a financial crisis in emerging markets due to the growing abandonment or reduction of operations by banks in the United States and Europe, due to costly regulations to combat money laundering, with the examples of Santander, which withdrew from Chile and Colombia; HSBC, which left Chile, Mexico and Panama; Citibank, which is leaving the Czech Republic, Costa Rica, Egypt, El Salvador, Guam, Guatemala, Hungary, Japan, Nicaragua, Panama and Peru, in addition to the announced exit from the retail business in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Korea.
Therefore, one of the issues to be taken into account in the face of the risks and dangers involved in entering into money laundering is whether the Government can produce a leap in quality by eliminating the causes that generate the growth of the informal economy and the flight of capital, which are in the size and the actions of the state conglomerate itself, which overwhelm the economy and endanger privacy, rather than attacking the shields that people find to avoid them.
By Daniel Rybnik I Source: infobae
The author is a lawyer, professor and PhD candidate (UBA). Master of Laws (Fordham University). Founder of EnterPricing.
