RP's Bank Secrecy Law is Protecting Plunderers and Money-Launderers (Angay ba ni Tangtangon?)

[bleedingboi]

---

off topic :constitutions dont create rights, how could it protect something that doesnt exist before hand.

OT: We have certain rights because the laws dicates so. Example: we have the right to drink alcohol, because the law has given us that right. The right to breathe, live or eat is on another side of the spectrum. But they all are rights. This is where things gets intwined and confusing.

just to clarify your stance, you are not agreeable to government randomly peeking at your account without being charged of a particular crime?

Technically, everyone hates it when someone takes a glance at your finances. But to prevent illicit activities like Fraud, Drug Money from Cartels, Fund Malversation, Plunder, Tax evasion, etc... The loosening of Bank Secrecy has become an "inappropriate" necessity.
If developed countries like Germany, UK, USA, and 77 more countries are ending bank secrecies, why can't we? This country is not a financial haven like Switzerland, UAE or Singapore where banking is their main trade. So my stance is ----> End Bank Secrecy.
I'm a taxpaying citizen with a legitimate business and work, and they can peek into my accounts 24/7 with no restriction. I'm not hiding anything.

[emow]

OT: We have certain rights because the laws dicates so. Example: we have the right to drink alcohol, because the law has given us that right. The right to breathe, live or eat is on another side of the spectrum. But they all are rights. This is where things gets intwined and confusing.




Technically, everyone hates it when someone takes a glance at your finances. But to prevent illicit activities like Fraud, Drug Money from Cartels, Fund Malversation, Plunder, Tax evasion, etc... The loosening of Bank Secrecy has become an "inappropriate" necessity.
If developed countries like Germany, UK, USA, and 77 more countries are ending bank secrecies, why can't we? This country is not a financial haven like Switzerland, UAE or Singapore where banking is their main trade. So my stance is ----> End Bank Secrecy.
I'm a taxpaying citizen with a legitimate business and work, and they can peek into my accounts 24/7 with no restriction. I'm not hiding anything.

off topic: i beg to differ. the law doesnt give any right., it can only protect it or abuse it. if you can drink alcohol its because you have the right to your liberty. if the law forbids you to drink alcohol, that just means your right has been infringed by law. its not confusing. unless we begin to discuss positive and negative rights. there are only three natural rights, life, liberty, and property, and all of these are negative rights.

on topic: it is not because swiss and the likes are financial haven first that they need to protect bank secrecy but it is because of bank secrecy that makes them so. the cause and effect cant be interchange. just wait, if we manage to keep bank secrecy and more countries remove this, then we will also attract inflow of capital funds. our economy will benefit from this.

[yhokz101]

on topic: it is not because swiss and the likes are financial haven first that they need to protect bank secrecy but it is because of bank secrecy that makes them so. the cause and effect cant be interchange. just wait, if we manage to keep bank secrecy and more countries remove this, then we will also attract inflow of capital funds. our economy will benefit from this.

so which one should they prioritize in this instance? wait til we attract inflows of capital funds? or make necessary changes to make these "public servants" exempted from the Bank Secrecy Law?

[emow]

so which one should they prioritize in this instance? wait til we attract inflows of capital funds? or make necessary changes to make these "public servants" exempted from the Bank Secrecy Law?

neither... leave the bank secrecy alone. charge corrupt politicians then scrutinize his account, but we already have that in place... if we want rapid sustainaned capital inflows, government better remove the 60/40 protectionist policy. if we want to fight corruption, attack it at its roots, reduce government spending... this issue about bank secrecy and corrupt politicians are already on the branches.

[makie29]

Whether it's tight or loose, there will always be consequences or disadvantages on this one.
If its too tight, suspects could use it as an excuse not to disclose their bank accounts.
If its too loose, it can be used by identity thieves and other criminals to extort information and even money for that matter.
I'm not sure about the ruling but if I own a bank, I won't disclose information of the Binays as well because it might end up of me losing my license to operate as a bank.
At the end of the day, we simply need people smarter than these criminals. Families like the Binays are too smart and will always use the law to their advantage.
I have nothing against the bank secrecy law but maybe it needs some revisions and adjustments for things like this (Binay issue).

[emow]

just to add to my point, it is folly to assume that government will always do the right thing. often times, it leads to many unintended consequences far worse than the problem it tries to address.

[bleedingboi]

just wait, if we manage to keep bank secrecy and more countries remove this, then we will also attract inflow of capital funds. our economy will benefit from this.

How can you be sure our economy will benefit? Which in fact these 80 countries who have signed against it are slowly blacklisting states that promotes Bank Secrecy. Which is why Switzerland, UAE and Singapore are planning to loosen it by 2018. This trend will end, no doubt about it. Bank secrecy will be an extinct ideology in Finance.

Another thing, our infrastructures are way too underdeveloped to be a Trade/Finance/Banking center.

off topic: i beg to differ. the law doesnt give any right.

Do you know why this statement gets a bit confusing? Because Laws and Rights are defined in different spectrums. And not all rights are present when one person is born, and a number of these rights are thereby "synthetic". The quote: " Law only protects or abuse rights" is purely a textbook quote.
Here's an example: 6th, 8th and the 13th amendment. Your right against an excessive bail, the right to vote, or legal counsel only happens when a law for this certain process is created. So logically, that right won't be present unless a certain timeframe or requirement is created by any Human law.

[emow]

How can you be sure our economy will benefit? Which in fact these 80 countries who have signed against it are slowly blacklisting states that promotes Bank Secrecy. Which is why Switzerland, UAE and Singapore are planning to loosen it by 2018. This trend will end, no doubt about it. Bank secrecy will be an extinct ideology in Finance.

Another thing, our infrastructures are way too underdeveloped to be a Trade/Finance/Banking center.



Do you know why this statement gets a bit confusing? Because Laws and Rights are defined in different spectrums. And not all rights are present when one person is born, and a number of these rights are thereby "synthetic". The quote: " Law only protects or abuse rights" is purely a textbook quote.
Here's an example: 6th, 8th and the 13th amendment. Your right against an excessive bail, the right to vote, or legal counsel only happens when a law for this certain process is created. So logically, that right won't be present unless a certain timeframe or requirement is created by any Human law.

good, then that will be creative a maximum advantage on our country if we keep the secrecy, just like how it benefited theirs. their governments may repeal bank secrecy but their citizens will surely find ways to hide it, and we can be that option. the inflow of capital will develop our financial sector, i dont see how that is a problem.

off topic: positive rights, just like right to bail, right to education, right to habeas corpos, etc... should not be interpreted in the same light as negative rights, life, liberty and property. apples and oranges my friend.

[bleedingboi]

just to add to my point, it is folly to assume that government will always do the right thing. often times, it leads to many unintended consequences far worse than the problem it tries to address.

I think it's pretty stupid for one Government to risk a million dollar lawsuit by tampering an ordinary Joe's bank account containing $10,000. Again, this new rule against bank secrecy has been working for years in the US and European states.
And I believe it will work in this country. The European union alone lost 130 Billion Euros every year due to Tax Evasion and Corruption. And now they are slowly turning things around.

off topic: positive rights, just like right to bail, right to education, right to habeas corpos, etc... should not be interpreted in the same light as negative rights, life, liberty and property. apples and oranges my friend.

That's the reason why my second sentence says it. Rights are defined in different spectrums.

[emow]

I think it's pretty stupid for one Government to risk a million dollar lawsuit by tampering an ordinary Joe's bank account containing $10,000. Again, this new rule against bank secrecy has been working for years in the US and European states.
And I believe it will work in this country. The European union alone lost 130 Billion Euros every year due to Tax Evasion and Corruption. And now they are slowly turning things around.



That's the reason why my second sentence says it. Rights are defined in different spectrums.

government has never been a voice of reason. everyone is presumed guilty of tax evasion now in the us, unless they prove their innocence, quite a reverse on the standard innocent until proven guilty. i dont know what barometer u are using to reach a conclusion that it has been working for them. US and EU are on printing overdrive. 130billion euros pales in comparison to the 60billion a month overprinting of fiat. it will devalue its money over 20 percent by end of year. switzerland just removed its confidence on EU by releasing the 1.2:1 ration on francs. what is it that we miss on what is working on eu? capital outflows threatens to dismember eu. US is no different, its saving grace is the bretton woods.

taxation is another issue. tax evasion is a symptom of over taxation, people will vote with their feet and shift their capital elsewhere. this overreaching into private property is a sign of desperation and generating an imaginary problem which is just a symptom of over taxation. increased tax rates always diminish tax compliance by capital relocation and maximizing tax lopeholes thereby decreasing net tax revenue. over taxation also destroy business by diverting capital from productive economy to government, which is always unproductive.

offtopic: there are only two, positive rights aka privilege, and negative rights aka natural. the difference between the two is obligation for its exercise. right to life doesnt place an obligation on someone else. right to council places an obligation on everyone else to supply council.