Viernes, 24 de mayo de 2013

Once again, the Corporate-Government wins in its equally Corporate Courts owned by the Corporate ‘Crown’: UK Uncut have lost their case against Goldman Sachs:

"Humpty Dumpty is too big to fall." by DonkeyHotey

“Humpty Dumpty is too big to fall.” byDonkeyHotey

‘In the 1990s, Goldman Sachs set up a company offshore in the British Virgin Islands called Goldman Sachs Services Ltd, which appears to have been designed to conceal the size of their bankers’ bonuses. Goldman Sachs also begrudged paying its share of UK national insurance on these six-figure bonuses.

The company, along with 21 other investment banks and other firms, purchased blueprints for an avoidance scheme called an employee benefit trust (EBT). It took the Revenue until 2005 for the courts to rule that these EBTs were merely illegitimate tax avoidance devices. Whilst the other firms surrendered and handed over what they owed, Goldman Sachs refused to pay its £30.81m bill.

By 2010, it is estimated that the unpaid bill with accumulated interest had mounted to at least £40m.

In April 2010 a judge threw out the claim from the bankers that their true employer was in the British Virgin Islands. In July 2011, HMRC’s own QC, Malcolm Gammie, gave “broadly positive” advice that the government was in a strong position to get all of its money.

However, it has been reported that on 30 November 2011, a high-level HMRC committee heard that their top expert, David Hartnett, had met Goldman’s tax director, Mike Housden, and as a result “a late submission had come in about a deal on which Hartnett had ‘shaken hands’ with Goldman Sachs”. The government was not going to get its full £40m, but only £30m.

The legal action will put further pressure on David Hartnett, Permanent Secretary for Tax, as it follows the leaking of documents which show how top tax officials shook hands late last year on a secret settlement with the multi-billion dollar bank, an agreement that UK Uncut Legal Action claim was contrary to HMRC’s own policies and strategy and therefore unlawful.’
-Why Goldman Sachs? – UK Uncut Legal Action

Basically, the case was about the £10 million loss of interest on the illegal tax-avoidance scam and with the somewhat predictable ‘not-guilty’ verdict, HMRC is ruled to have acted lawfully in securing a deal with G-S that left the UK tax office with £10 million less revenue:

‘JA judge listed a number of HMRC failings, including Dave Hartnett, then permanent secretary for tax, wrongly taking into account “the potential embarrassment” to Chancellor George Osborne if the settlement worth up to £20 million did not go through.

Mr Hartnett initially shook hands on the deal on November 19, 2010 following a long-running dispute with Goldman Sachs over National Insurance contribution payments dating back to the 1990s.

Mr Justice Nicol, sitting in London, said it was “not a glorious episode in the history of the Revenue”.

But he ruled case law showed that “maladministration and illegality” were separate issues, and allowing the deal to go ahead was not itself unlawful.’
Defeat for UK Uncut as High Court rules Goldman Sachs ‘sweetheart’ tax deal is flawed but lawful – The Independent

HMRC and our potentially ‘embarrassed’ government may have won the battle but they have not yet, by any means won the war and whether we like it or not, the truth is, we are in the grip of nothing short of Economic Terrorism. The recent Court Judgement has chosen to ignore very serious tax-fraud at the heart of this case, with one of the worst offenders500px-Goldman_Sachs.svg[1] i.e. Goldman Sachs ultimately profitting by a cool £10 million, rather than being publicly exposed & prosecuted for taking part in a scam that saved them £30 million in taxes over a ten-year period.

So, okay, G-S paid the £30 million they owed from the 1990′s and yet, were relieved of paying £10 million in interest = WHY? It appears HMRC made an ‘error’ and therefore, no laws were broken. Except the law HAS been broken, it was broken by all those off-shore corporations who purchsed EBT’s for tax-avoidance = DELIBERATE attempt to deny the UK people their RIGHTFUL share of revenue from corporate profits earned in the UK – basically, all of these corporations conspired for no other purpose than to STEAL what should have been their UK employees National insurance contributions.

Make NO mistake, what this recent Court ruling reveals is that when it comes to Corporate-Financial ‘WIZARDS’, it is perfectly alright for tem to steal £30 off you so long as 10 years later, they pay it back and no, you have no right to any interest on that £30 which 10 years later is worth LESS, the thieves are not punished nor fined in any way for their crimes and indeed, they are afforded a “sweetheart” tax-deal between HM Revenue and Customs.

HM Revenue & Customs is a privately owned corporation owned by the ‘Crown’ and the ‘Crown’ has a very special relationship with Goldman Sachs via their heavy involvement with J.P Morgan who happens to be a major G-S creditor/investor:

Launched in November 2011, the Royal London International Government Bond Fund is an actively managed and globally diversified portfolio of government bonds. The fund invests primarily in non-Sterling denominated government bonds, with foreign currency exposure hedged back to Sterling.  The fund is benchmarked against the JP Morgan Traded World ex-UK Government Bond Index.
International Government Bond Fund – Royal London Asset Management

‘London, 19 October, 2011 – J.P. Morgan’s Worldwide Securities Services (WSS) business today announced it has been appointed by the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to provide global custody and related services to the Royal County of Berkshire Pension Fund. The Royal Borough has appointed J.P. Morgan to provide custody, accounting, performance measurement, private equity and fund order routing settlement services for the Royal County of Berkshire Pension Fund. J.P. Morgan was appointed following a competitive tender. Nick Greenwood, Pension Fund Manager, said: “The Royal Borough appointed J.P. Morgan based on the high level of service offered and their strong global position.”
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Awards Custody contract to J.P. Morgan – JPMorgan Chase & Co.

On 2nd April 2004, it was reported in ‘Investment & Pensions Europe’ that ‘UK – Royal London Asset Management is to outsource 4.5 billion pounds (6.75 billion euros) in unit trust fund accounting to J P Morgan Investor Services’ i.e. yet more evidence of Royal financial interests connected with USA JP Morgan.’

Gordon Brown

Gordon Brown

Considering H.M. Queen Elizabeth has financial interests in the privately owned, foreign corporation called ‘JP Morgan’ and since JP Morgan has heavy financial interests in the Goldman Sachs corporation, perhaps this is why Goldman Sachs approached Gordon Brown during his services to UK Parliament via a member of Mr Brown’s own staff, and persuaded him to give much needed ‘aid’ in order to prevent a global financial meltdown? The ‘aid’ came in the form of no less than HALF UK gold-reserves, the sale of which was intentionally orchestrated to force gold-prices down to all-time lows and thus allow the JP Morgans of the world buy their much needed gold supplies at a drastically reduced rate:

‘Goldman Sachs, which is not understood to have been significantly short on gold itself, is rumoured to have approached the Treasury to explain the situation through its then head of commodities Gavyn Davies, later chairman of the BBC and married to Sue Nye who ran Brown’s private office.

Faced with the prospect of a global collapse in the banking system, the Chancellor took the decision to bail out the banks by dumping Britain’s gold, forcing the price down and allowing the banks to buy back gold at a profit, thus meeting their borrowing obligations.’
Revealed: why Gordon Brown sold Britain’s gold at a knock-down price – The Telegraph

Here we have direct evidence linking Goldman Sachs and their corporate interests to the UK Treasury via not only Gordon Brown, but also, the present Chancellor George Osborne (who was apparently, due to suffer “embarrassment” if the reduced settlement did not go through). It is interesting to note that in the period G-S approached Mr Brown i.e. the late 90′s, they were already taking part in a tax-avoidance scam as well as manipulating democratically elected UK politicians, into parting with UK = publicly-owned gold for no other purpose of protecting their own foreign, financial interests.

Were the UK electorate consulted about sale of our gold? Were WE given a chance to buy any? How many even KNEW the sale was on? Is Britain responsible for keeping USA Banking Corporations afloat?

Not only did Goldman Sachs both heavily influence and hugely benefit from the knock-down sale of UK gold, they have the AUDACITY to complain about paying a measely £10 million in interests on the £30 million they had denied in UK National iunsurance payments on behalf of their workforce – and worse still, they are let-ff with the £10 million in interest because it might embarrass George Osborne? Oh really? No embarrassment for Goldman Sachs & Co then for outright tax-fraud?

George Osborne

George Osborne

David Hartnett, Permanent Secretary for Tax – note the word ‘PERMENANT’ = non-elected = SHADOW Government – he claims his involvement with G-S was impartial and unbiased:

‘Hartnett initially shook hands on the Goldman Sachs deal on 19 November 2010 after a long-running dispute over national insurance contribution payments dating back to the 1990s.

The Goldman Sachs deal was exposed by the HMRC solicitor Osita Mba, who wrote to Amyas Morse, the auditor general of the National Audit Office, in March 2011, outlining his concerns. The subsequent NAO report did not name Goldman Sachs.

Hartnett discussed the NAO report with the Treasury select committee in September 2011 and said the Goldman settlement had been reached properly.

Hartnett denied any personal involvement in the settlement. When asked by Jesse Norman, a Conservative member of the committee, whether he had ever received corporate hospitality from Goldman Sachs, Hartnett responded: “I have been to a supper with Goldman Sachs … I knew nothing of Goldman’s tax affairs when I was at that supper. I do not deal with Goldman’s tax affairs.”
UK Uncut loses legal challenge over Goldman Sachs tax deal with HMRC – The Guardian

Hartnett ‘SHOOK HANDS’ on the G-S deal in 2010 and yet, DENIES under OATH any personal involvement with G-S or their tax-affairs – so, WHY was the UK Permanent Secretary for Tax having SUPPER with Goldman Sachs???

In light of the evidence, the greater battle needs to be fought via Appeal on the grounds that the UK Government & HMRC are compromised and corrupted by their deep involvement with Goldman Sachs and its Corporate interests who, seem to have more Government influence than the UK electorate and to such a degree, that UK people are literally being robbed for sake of foreign corporations who even connive to avoid paying the taxes which every UK citizen is compelled to pay: It appears the ‘Corporate-Crown’ is quietly assisting corporate appropriation British (and other nations) Government & Public Wealth = Collective wealth of the UK Sovereign citizens whom the Government legally is supposed to represent (unless the law is broken), for purpose of fattening its own purse and those of its overseas cohorts: If this isn’t PROOF of Treason, I don’t know what is.

Publicado por NataliaEsVedra @ 11:38
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar