Trust Estate
Assaults On Financial Privacy Aren't Over - Conference

Is financial privacy utterly doomed or are certain developments reminding voters, as well as policymakers, that confidentiality is worth defending? A recent Breakfast Briefing debated the issues.
  Wealth management practitioners painted a broadly bleak picture
  about the state of financial privacy in the UK and certain other
  developed countries, arguing that upcoming 
  European Union rules about data protection are unlikely to
  herald a major pushback.
  
  Industry figures gathered at the Carlton Club, St James’s Street
  in London, to discuss the theme of “The attack on privacy and
  controlling information for UHNW families investing and holding
  wealth.” The Breakfast Briefing event, sponsored by law firm
  Druces, was organised
  by the publisher of this news service. 
  
  Speakers on the panel were Robert Macro, partner at Druces;
  Charles Spragge, partner at Druces; Julius Bozzino, director at
  the Vistra Private Office, Vistra; Julie Collins, executive
  director at EFG Wealth Solutions (EFG Private Bank).
  
  The wealth management sector has seen a number of alarm bells
  sounded over loss of privacy. A few weeks ago, a paper published
  by law firm Mishcon de Reya
  argued that the Common Reporting Standard was a 
  “disaster waiting to happen”. CRS is a global network of
  agreements enabling governments to demand information from
  countries. Assaults on privacy were also bemoaned at last week’s
  Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners conference in
  Interlaken, Switzerland.  
  
  The Breakfast Briefing event was held at a time when the Paradise
  Papers and 
  Panama Papers “leaks”, coupled with the rollout of the Common
  Reporting Standard, erosion of Swiss bank secrecy and calls for
  registers of beneficial ownership of companies and trusts, have
  put financial privacy not just under pressure, but removed it in
  some cases completely. 
  
  Druce’s Macro told delegates that the right to financial privacy
  was an important right, but was in danger of being lost. “Having
  privacy over your money doesn’t mean you are evading tax,” he
  said. He argued that much media reporting of events such as the
  Panama Papers had been unbalanced. “We in the industry need to
  speak up,” he said.
  
  Asked by WealthBriefing what it would take to restore
  respect for privacy, Macro said a problem is that when people
  think the privacy of wealth, they assume it means tax
  evasion. 
  
  With the EU’s data protection directive, aka GDPR, due to kick in
  from May, there might be hope that such a focus on guarding data
  and gaining consent for how it is used might counter some of the
  pressure on privacy. However, Macro wasn’t convinced: “We know
  that government requirements and concerns over-ride everything.
  That is what has happened around the erosion of privacy.”
  
  Panelists argued that while events such as the Edward Snowden
  exposé of US spying on its citizens, new data protection
  legislation and cyber-security breaches, had put privacy on the
  agenda, there remained a sense that with rich people, their
  financial affairs were fair game.
  
  There is a difference between what people expect in the case of
  other people and their financial affairs, and what they want for
  themselves, Bozzino told delegates. There is a presumption that
  high net worth people should be under a particular obligation to
  disclose what they are doing. Other panelists suggested that
  politically, it is difficult to make much ground pushing back at
  the assault on privacy. 
  
  Collins said a worrying recent development was the UK’s register
  of beneficial ownership of trusts – introduced recently – that
  goes beyond the disclosure requirements required under CRS, for
  example. Persons who are not beneficiaries of a trust will be
  drawn into the system, she said. She reminded the audience that
  trusts originally were founded not to mitigate tax but to protect
  people. 
  
  Courts have been more willing to challenge what are deemed “sham
  trusts”, Bozzino said. He said there is a problem with
  politically exposed persons using offshore structures to shield
  their wealth, and that this can bring the system into
  disrepute.
  
  Macro added, when considering how the words “offshore” and
  “onshore” are used, that much tax evasion and handling of illicit
  funds occurs in onshore financial hubs. “The last place you want
  to put your [dirty] money is into a place where it’s easy to get
  into but hard to get out of,” he said. 
This news service is holding a conference GDPR and how it affects the wealth management sector, on 21 February, in London. See more details here.