U.S. Summonses Singapore Bank Records from UBS (3/4/16 & 3/5/16)

David Voreacos, Is Singapore the Next Switzerland for U.S. Tax Crackdown? (BloombergBusiness 3/3/16), here.  Excerpts:

The Internal Revenue Service is seeking to force UBS Group AG to turn over records on an account in Singapore held by a U.S. citizen, potentially opening a new front against offshore tax evasion beyond Switzerland. 

The IRS last month asked a federal judge in Miami to force UBS, the largest Swiss bank, to produce documents on Ching-Ye Hsiaw, who lives in China. The judge on Wednesday told UBS to show up in court on March 31 to explain why it has refused to supply the account records. 

* * * * 

Singapore will lift banking confidentiality when foreign authorities ask it to do so and when the law is used to shield criminal activities, according to a person with direct knowledge of the city-state’s bank-regulation framework who asked not to be named because of an ongoing court case. [JAT NOTE:  See ¶ 7 in my comments below.]

* * * * 

Singapore Secrecy 

The U.S. has focused largely on Switzerland in recent years as it has fought offshore tax evasion. More than 80 Swiss banks, including UBS and Credit Suisse Group AG, have agreed to pay a total of $5 billion or so in penalties and fines. The question is where the IRS and the Justice Department will turn next as they sift through a trove of data gathered from Swiss banks and from more than 50,000 U.S. taxpayers who disclosed their accounts to avoid prosecution. 

The Hsiaw case provides some clues. IRS agents served a summons on UBS in 2013 for records of his account in Singapore from 2001 to 2011. The bank said it couldn’t produce them because Singapore’s bank secrecy laws prevent disclosure without permission from Hsiaw, which he hasn’t provided, according to a court filing. 

“Even if Singapore’s bank secrecy laws, as UBS contends, precludes disclosure of the summoned bank records relating or pertaining to Hsiaw’s Singapore account(s), international comity requires that the records be disclosed,” IRS revenue agent James Oertel said in the filing.

The case is United States v. UBS AG (SD FL. 16-mc-20653)..

Documents and JAT Comments Added 3/6/16 11:15am:

The key documents are:

• IRS Summons, here.
• US Petition to Enforce Summons, here.
• IRS Agent Declaration for Petition to Enforce Summons, here.
• Show Cause Order, here.

JAT Comments:

1.  The summons is a regular IRS third party recordkeeper summons to a bank, requiring notice to the taxpayer which was given by registered mail to Hsiaw's Shenzhen, China address..  Because it is issued to a person (UBS) with sufficient U.S. presence to permit enforcement by contempt sanctions if necessary, even over the defense that foreign law does not permit the summonsee (UBS) to comply, it is of a type called a Bank of Nova Scotia summons.  In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Bank of Nova Scotia), 691 F.2d 1384 (11th Cir. 1982).  I have only seen the BNS summons applied to banks, and it is usually described in relation to banks.  For example in a Tax Notes Today article, the author says "ts used when a branch of a foreign financial institution is located in the United States and the IRS seeks documents located at the bank's foreign location."  Marie Sapirie,  DOJ Eyes UBS Accounts in Singapore in Latest Offshore Effort, 2016 TNT 44-4 (3/7/16) (the article is good on other points, so those with a TNT subscription should read it).  However, I think it can apply to other types of entities and, in my mind, perhaps to individuals as well.  For example, in the DOJ Tax Summons Enforcement Manual, here, the BNS summons is discussed as follows (p. 74):

6. Summonses to entities located in the United States for records located abroad 

A person or entity located in the United States may have control over documents located abroad that the IRS wants to review in connection with an investigation. For example, a foreign bank might have a United States branch and the IRS may seek documents located at the bank’s foreign headquarters. E.g., In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Bank of Nova Scotia), 691 F.2d 1384 (11th Cir. 1982). Similarly, the IRS may want to review documents of a foreign accounting firm that is controlled by an accounting firm located in the United States. Cf. In re Parmalat Sec. Litigation, 594 F. Supp. 2d 444 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (holding in a tort suit that Deloitte & Touche USA had not established that it was entitled to summary judgment based upon its claim that it did not control an Italian accounting firm which was a member of the same accounting group as Deloitte & Touche USA). See also United States v. Vetco Inc., 691 F.2d 1281 (9th Cir. 1981) (affirming order enforcing summonses issued to U.S. company and to its U.S. auditing firm for records maintained in Switzerland by the company’s Swiss subsidiary and the auditing firm’s Swiss affiliate).

The key is that there be someone with power to actually produce the documents in the U.S. jurisdiction to impose sanctions.  UBS is present in the U.S. and thus is sanctionable.  The issue as in all BNS summons is whether the U.S. court will inflict enough pain or potential pain on UBS that UBS will comply regardless of the pain that Singapore could inflict for violating Singapore law..

2.  The facts alleged in the Agent's declaration seems to make out at least a prima facie criminal case. (I discuss the potential criminal case in more detail below in par. 4.)  Two things flow from that.  First, Hsiaw could assert his Fifth Amendment privilege to refuse to give any testimony that might incriminate him.  He is in China with no apparent plans to return (Agent Decl ¶ 9), so how much practical value his Fifth Amendment has is speculative.  Second, since he is in China with no apparent plans to return, the criminal statute of limitations will be suspended for tax crimes while he is out of the country.  Section 6531, here.  He apparently let the U.S. in January 2008 (Agent Decl ¶ 7), so the six year statute for tax crimes means that his tax years are open for prosecution of tax crimes back to at least 2002.  And, some of the facts alleged in the declaration might suggest that he committed some act in that period that refreshed the statute of limitations for even earlier years..

3.  The IRS learned of Hsiaw's offshore activity as follows:

12. Based on information that Switzerland disclosed to the IRS under the Convention between the United States of America and the Swiss Confederation for the Avoidance of Double Taxation With Respect to Taxes on Income and pursuant to a settlement of the John Doe summons that the IRS served on UBS in 2008, the IRS learned, inter alia, that Hsiaw maintained a bank account at UBS in Switzerland, referred to herein as the Swiss account. See In the Matter of the Tax Liabilities of John Does, Case No. 08-mc-21864 (S.D. Fla.); United States v. UBS AG, Case No. 09-cr-60033 (S.D. Fla.), at Doc. 20, ¶¶ 13-14, and Doc. 32.

4.  A brief statement of the prima facie criminal case:  From the UBS disclosures, it was established that Hsiaw established a UBS account in 1994 with "hold mail" instructions.  (Agent Decl ¶¶ 13 & 14.)  On 9/15/00, in response to UBS's warning about new "Qualified Intermediary" rules that would require it to identify account holders having investments with U.S. source income (see e.g., 26 U.S.C. § 1441), Hsiaw signed a UBS form, stating, in pertinent part, that he "would like to avoid disclosure of [his] identity to the US Internal Revenue Service under the new tax regulations."  (Agent Decl ¶ 15.)  One of his account managers in the period was Chris Bagios who met with him in the U.S. and has pled guitly,.  (Agent Decl. ¶¶ 16 and 17.)  It would be expected that, in any criminal case, Bagios would be able to provide damning testimony (if a jury found it credible).  In 2002,Hsiaw closed the UBS account, withdrawing $600,066 by check, the proceeds of which have not been traced, and the balance of $194,356 by transfer to a Singapore account (presumably UBS).  (Agent Decl. ¶¶ 19-21).  Of course, a criminal case would have a lot more facts than these, but these facts certainly raise a real risk of criminal prosecution.  (In this regard, the U.S. could get a sealed indictment and arrest Hsiaw should he attempt to re-enter  the U.S.; alternatively or in addition, the U.S. might get an international warrant for his arrest that, although China would not enforce, another country might if he traveled internationally, but he does not seem to be a prominent enough target that the U.S. would go to that effort.)

5.  The petition does allege that there has been no criminal referral to DOJ as follows:

22. No Justice Department referral, as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 7602(d)(2), is in effect with respect to Hsiaw for the years under examination. See Oertel Decl., at ¶ 39.

Of course, the IRS is prohibited by the cited statute from using the IRS summons if a DOJ referral is in effect.  It seems to me that there might be a potential defense to this particular summons based on this provision.  Certainly, I have reason to believe that the formal referrals mentioned in § 7602(d)(2), here.  But the milieu of the press against UBS for the documents leading to the Hsiaw (and others) might mean that the documents indicating criminal culpability were originally shared with DOJ Tax originally and certainly by the time of the summons enforcement.  If, indeed, the documents were obtained under the double tax treaty exchange of information provision, that means that they shoulkd have gone to the IRS and not to DOJ Tax (although I suspect that they did get to DOJ Tax directly or indirectly).  Given DOJ's claim that it has independent authority to investigate tax crimes, how much use is this statutory prohibition if the IRS can give documents to IRS without a formal referral for criminal investigation or prosecution?  I think there is a lot of nuance there, but can't develop it here and really can't develop it in great detail without a client willing to fund my efforts and a forum to blast out information from the IRS and DOJ (such as a pending case).  Maybe UBS's lawyers, who, I presume, are very smart and well compensated will explore this issue.  (On the other hand, if this type of argument would taint the enforcement of the summons, the Government could simply present the compulsion in the form of a grand jury subpoena rather than a summons.)

6.  Of course, the bigger news is that this summons enforcement proceeding presages an IRS and DOJ move against Singapore whose financial institutions have offered tax haven with bank secrecy to U.S. persons for many years.

7.  The petition contain the allegation that:

Even if Singapore's bank secrecy laws, as UBS contends, preclude disclosure of the summoned bank records relating or pertaining to Hsiaw's Singapore account(s), international comity requires that the records be disclosed. See Oertel Decl., at ¶ 34. The interest of the United States in combating tax evasion by U.S. taxpayers through the use of secret foreign bank accounts substantially outweighs the interest of Singapore in preserving the privacy of its bank customers. See Oertel Decl., at ¶ 34. As a consequence, judicial enforcement of the summons is required. See Oertel Decl., at ¶ 34.

Neither the petition nor the declaration provides any support for that conclusory allegation.  International comity in this case would seem to be a matter between the U.S. and Singapore, not the U.S. and UBS.  I will look forward to the briefing on this issue.

7.  If, as is likely, this works, the U.S. will have a powerful tool to crack Singapore secrecy and, as with the initial UBS summons way back in 2008, this may start a series of events that requires Singapore to open the kimona to the U.S. at least for the more egregious instances of U.S. person use of Singapore banks for U.S. tax evasion.

Belgian Charges Against UBS for Money Laundering and Tax Evasion (2/26/16)

A number of internet articles indicate that UBS has been charged with money laundering and tax evasion.  See e.g., Joshua Franklin, Belgium charges UBS with money laundering, tax fraud (Reuters 2/26/16), here.  Here are some excerpts:

A Belgian judge has charged Swiss bank UBS with money laundering and serious and organized tax fraud, Brussels prosecutors said in a statement on Friday. 

"The Swiss bank is suspected of having directly, and not via its Belgian subsidiary, approached Belgian clients to convince them to set up structures aimed at evading taxes," Brussels prosecutors said in a statement. 

* * * * 

Belgian prosecutors said they were able to firm up the case against UBS through cooperation with French authorities and the work of an inquiry committee. 

I will post more today if I obtain more details.

Interesting Report on U.S. Taxpayer Suit Against Swiss Authorities for UBS Information Turnover (12/23/15; 12/26/15)

Swissinfo reports on a case from the The European Court of Human Rights denying a U.S. person relief for the turnover of information from UBS to the U.S.  Swiss ‘justified’ in giving UBS bank data to US (Swissinfo.ch 12/22/15), here.   The case itself, apparently available only in French, is here. The result is not surprising.  The reasoning narrated in the article is surprising -- not that everyone did not already know it, but that the court would articulate the reasoning.  The reasoning, as reported, is (bold-face supplied by JAT):

The Swiss bank client brought his case to Strasbourg after his file was handed to the US in 2012. He claimed that his right to family privacy had been broken, contravening article eight of the human rights convention. 

But judges threw the case out on Tuesday on the grounds that Switzerland was justified in protecting its economic interests. The US was threatening criminal action against UBS unless the data was transmitted, which could have jeopardized the future of Switzerland’s largest bank.

I think most observers knew that Swiss banks and Switzerland justify anything based on their economic interests.  For a long time, their economic interests were served by assisting U.S. tax evasion (as well as other country tax evasion and even more dastardly conduct).  Now that is changing, so Switzerland must protect its economic interests by changing.  And, Switzerland and its banks owe no recompense to those who were affected by the change dictated by their economic interests.

Addendum:  The foregoing is as corrected pursuant to a comment by SwissTechie.  I have clarified that it was not a Swiss court who made the holding.  Rather it was the European Court of Human Rights.

Addendum #2:  Thanks to a reader for forwarding the link to the opinion.  I do not have it in English. I would appreciate receiving a copy in English or a link to a copy in English.

Addendum #3 12/26/15 3:30pm:

Addendum 12/26/15 3:30pm

The English Press Release is here.  Here is a cut and paste of the key parts of the English press release:

Decision of the Court

Article 8

As regards the legal basis for the measure, the Court reiterated that Agreement 09 and Protocol 10 had been negotiated and concluded by the Federal Council, approved by the Federal Parliament and then ratified by the Government in accordance with the procedure for concluding treaties set out in constitutional law. Inasmuch as the applicant submitted that the AFC’s decision of 1 September 2009 lacked any basis in law because Parliament had not yet approved Agreement 09 at the time, the Court agreed with the Government that the AFC had only taken the decision so that it could assess whether the conditions for affording cooperation had been met. At all events, the immediate implementation of Agreement 09 on a provisional basis had been confirmed by the Government at the time of its approval, and that of Protocol 10 had been confirmed by the Federal Parliament on 17 June 2010. 

As regards the foreseeability of the impugned measure, the Court reiterated that the European Convention of Human Rights should be interpreted in line with the general principles of international law. Indeed, under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties regard should be had to “any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties”. In the present case the Court considered relevant the Federal Court’s and the Government’s argument that Article 28 of the Vienna Convention allows the parties to an international treaty to go against the principle of non-retroactivity and provide for the consideration of acts or facts which occurred  before the treaty in question entered into force.  

In the present case the Federal Court had settled case-law to the effect that provisions on administrative and criminal-law cooperation requiring third parties to provide specific information were procedural in nature and consequently applied, in principle, to all present or future proceedings, including those relating to tax periods predating their adoption. The applicant, assisted by a lawyer, could not reasonably have been unaware of that judicial practice. He therefore could not validly submit to the Court that the interference had occurred in a manner which he could not have foreseen. The impugned measure could therefore be regarded as being “prescribed by law”. As regards the legitimacy of the aim pursued by the measure, in the knowledge that the banking sector is an economic branch of great importance to Switzerland, the Court held that the impugned measure formed part of an all-out effort by the Swiss Government to settle the conflict between the bank UBS and the US tax authorities. The measure might validly be considered as conducive to  protecting the country’s economic well-being. The Court accepted the Government’s argument that the US tax authorities’ allegations against Swiss banks were liable to jeopardise the very survival of UBS, a major player in the Swiss economy employing a large number of persons. Therefore, given Switzerland’s interest in finding an effective legal solution in cooperation with the US, it had pursued a legitimate aim within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention. 

As regards whether the measure had been “necessary in a democratic society”, the Court noted that the Federal Administrative Court had ruled that the conditions set out in Article 8 for any interference with private or family life had been met in the instant case. The major economic interests at stake for the country and the Swiss interest in being able to honour its international undertakings had taken precedence over the individual interests of the persons concerned by the measure. 

With particular regard to the applicant’s situation, it should be noted that only his bank account details, that is to say purely financial information, had been disclosed. No private details or data closely linked to his identity, which would have deserved enhanced protection, had been transmitted. His bank details had been forwarded to the relevant US authorities so that they could use standard procedures to ascertain whether the applicant had in fact honoured his tax obligations, and if not, to take the requisite legal action.  

Finally, the Court observed that the applicant had benefited from various procedural safeguards. He had been able to lodge an appeal with the Federal Administrative Court against the AFC’s 7 June 2010 decision. The latter court had subsequently set aside the said decision on the grounds of violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing. The AFC had invited the applicant to transmit any comments he might have, of which right the applicant had availed himself. On 4 November 2010 the AFC had given a fresh decision finding that all the conditions had been met for affording administrative cooperation. The applicant had subsequently lodged a second appeal with the Federal Administrative Court, which dismissed it. The applicant had consequently benefited from several effective and genuine procedural guarantees to challenge the disclosure of his bank details and obtain protection against the arbitrary implementation of agreements concluded between Switzerland and the United States. 

It follows that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention. 

Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 

The Court found, essentially on the same grounds as those mentioned above in support of the absence of violation of Article 8, that the applicant had not suffered  discriminatory treatment for the purposes of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8. It added that the applicant had provided no evidence to permit an assessment of whether his treatment would have been any different in another Swiss bank. 

Therefore, there had been no violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention.

TNT has this article:  William Hoke,  Human Rights Court Rejects Appeal on UBS Data Transfer to IRS, 2015 TNT 248-2 (12/28/15), no link available.  It adds some background details, but I am not sure that it contributes anything that would be particularly informative to most readers of this blog.