This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Flash News - France Invades Switzerland!
There are some interesting implications behind a story that is out this weekend. I found the details (that have come out so far) of interest.
The IRS of France, the National Directorate Of Tax Investigations (DNEF), has covertly sent agents into Switzerland to pursue tax evasion cases against French citizens. The Agents entered Switzerland claiming they were tourists. The Agents were not sightseeing in the Alps. They were doing what spies always do. They were covertly gathering information on enemies of France. In this case, the "enemies" are French citizens.
To be clear. This is 100% illegal activity in Switzerland.
Banking secrecy is still the law of the land in Switzerland. There have been several cases in the past few years where a Swiss bank employee has stolen information on private accounts. The lists of “names” were later sold to tax authorities in the US and Germany. Switzerland has vigorously prosecuted the individuals involved. Several have gone to jail; others are pending extradition and trial.
And now French government agents are breaking the same Swiss laws. The following thoughts come to my mind about this affair:
- How desperate are the French to do this? A covert operation in a foreign country? That’s over the top. If the French tax spies are doing this, what are the other arms of government doing? Are they spying as well? Listening in on phone calls to find out if the waiters are claiming their tips? How are the French going to react? Some, do doubt, with glee. Others, justifiably, with fear.
- I’m no fan of tax cheats. I have dozens of articles that have come down against banking secrecy, and the black money that is involved. But where do you draw the line? Illegal spying is, after all, illegal. Right?
- Is the DNFE alone in this type of activity? Does the US or the UK have illegal spies gathering information in foreign countries on their citizens?
- Does the French DNFE have spies in the USA?
- There are financial considerations to this. The first is the implications to the Swiss private bankers. The outlook for the Swiss banks was terrible before this development (UBS just hacked 10k heads – 2,500 in Switzerland), the outlook is worse again, after the revelation of state sponsored spying. I would not load up on Swiss bank stocks just yet. The fact is, without banking secrecy the Swiss banks are uncompetitive in wealth management.
- The second consideration is the possible implications on the Swiss National Bank. The SNB has been pegging its currency for more than a year now. In the process, it has accumulated 100’s of billions of Euro reserves. To hedge its bets, the SNB sold off those unwanted Euros and bought dollars, Yen, Sterling, Hong Kong and Singapore dollars. Basically, the SNB has been mucking up the entire global financial system in an effort to keep global economic problems from spilling over its borders.
There is going to be a pissing match between France and Switzerland over this story (there has to be). When the cross-border shouting starts, someone in France is going to point at Switzerland and claim it is a Currency Manipulator that is hurting France (it is). This scenario is one that will bring big pressure on the Franc, and another test of the SNB’s resolve to maintain the peg.
- The SNB had billions of excess Euros as a result of intervention. It bought German Bunds with the cash. In the process, the SNB pushed German rates below zero. This forced the SNB to diversify, and buy French government bonds. So now the SNB is sitting on a huge pile of French paper. And the French are spying on the country. I’m wondering if the SNB is so happy with all those French IOU’s it is sitting on.
- Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf is the President of Switzerland, she also is the Finance Minister; so she is very much on the hot spot. The Swiss will hate the idea of French spies acting covertly in their country and breaking the law (who wouldn’t?). Eveline can't soft peddle the French spying. There has to be a next chapter to this story. I can't wait.
»
- advertisements -
I feel really sorry for the people trying to hide money, to be spied on is just awful frankly, after all the Swiss are just providing a service here, no more and no less. They have been doing so for years, and surely its not a moral question in this day and age. The Swiss will just have to make their indignation clear to everyone in this case, not just the French, otherwise they will have every country in the world trying to find out who is hiding money in their vaults.
And that's the can of worms, isn't it? As you said, "...after all the Swiss are just providing a service here, no more and no less." It would be much better for the Swiss if they just kept their mouths shut and let other people do what other people do. The service has been rendered and to step yourself into the fallout would be an ugly business.
Im with you Orly, Swiss bankers are a bunch of sneaky little bastards, to try and defend the shenanigans of the swiss, past and present, is tantamount to absurdity. But Libertards are well versed in absurdity, they long ago cut they're noses off to spite there faces...which is just as well, because their gibberish helps to hide the biggest steaming pile of shyte imaginable.
About ugliness, just remember the fabulous and historical actions done by France in north Africa !!!!
The extent of the continuing crisis of 2008 may be seen in Governments going up the ladder of wealth to extract more money. So unless the wealthy begin taking down the corrupting forces at the top of Governments they will become their targets. To all you wealthy out there: it is time to join the global revolution.
Foreign tax investigators are deemed spies inside Switzerland. We already got some warrants outstanding on German tax investigators.
You're wasting your time, effort and money.
Sure, why defend your sovereignty? What is the point of that?
How on earth does keeping track of a French citizen violate the sovereignty of Switzerland?
I would love an answer and please don't say, "...w-w-well, because!"
There is no violation of sovereignty here. You may not like it. I wouldn't like it but I really don't see the diplomatic rhubarb.
What part of "it breaks Swiss law" do you not understand? If the French want to track their citizens in Fascist France, fine. However, sending in government security in a foreign country is a violation of diplomatic accords. You ask for permission.
You're right. But you know, there are spies in every country on earth. I think it's safe to say espionage is also illegal in most of those countries.
And when those spies get caught, they are jailed and occasionally shot. Which Orly doesn't seem to understand.
It's called stalking. Imagine the authorities taking up residence next door to you and constantly peering over your fence.
The real problem in France is that no one has kept track of the French government which now accounts for over 55% of spending in the economy. Think about that. Half of your working life supports another government vampire squid.
Once again, that's not the same thing. It is apples and oranges, just like the Litivenko (rest his soul...) argument above.
If my government were spying on me in my own country, then they are violating their own privacy laws. If they suspected I had a foreign bank account and wanted to see what I did in Mexico, go ahead. There is nothing they can bring back home, take to court and try me for.
Nothing. Pictures of me getting out of a cab outside of Banco Cardinale in Monterrey! Yeah? And? Any "evidence" would be thrown out so fast it wouldn't even make the after-lunch docket.
...If my government were spying on me in my own country, then they are violating their own privacy laws.
Yes, and if they're spying on you in another country, then they're violating that country's privacy laws.
Now do you get it?
Orly is not going to "get it" because she starts from the premise that the French citizens and their property are chattels of the French government. In other words, the French Tax goons are only going after what's theirs to begin with. If it happens to be lying around in Switzerland, so what? If the Swiss have laws against what the French Tax Goons are doing on Swiss soil, so what? What does France care for Swiss Sovereignty on Swiss soil?
The assumption is that whatever French citizens have in Swiss accounts belongs rightfully to the incompetent thieves in charge of France. Rees-Mogg and Davidson had it right; the nation-state has come to the end of its usefulness, if it ever had any to begin with. Governments no longer exist to govern; they exist to aid and abet the redistribution of wealth, mainly to themselves. "Who's got time to fix potholes and get the electricity turned back on after a storm, when there's all this money waiting to be stolen?"
Your position rings true if we weren't where we are in today’s political and dare I say, "terrorist" environment. The rule of law has for all intents and purposes been indefinitely suspended and at this point there are no mechanisms in place to allow for an orderly return to your idealistic view of a government entity refusing breaking "their own" laws.
The French agents lied.
From the above article:
The Agents entered Switzerland claiming they were tourists.
They gained entry to Switzerland under false pretenses.
They lied.
Right there is all the reason Swiss authorities need.
It is simply another violation of private sphere which seems to be a privilege typically francais
And the respect for the sovereignty of a State, it is also the respect for Human Rights!!!
This is the problem with taxation: no one wants to pay it and governments can't live without it- reducing them to thuggery. As long as there is taxation, there will be police states and productive people will be labeled criminals.
Most amazing are the apologists for taxation. Nothing more than wolves chewing their feet off to escape the trap they pay to have set in their woods. It is a special kind of stupid.
The lower orders of the French state should just give up on the entire European thingy and mount a political campaign to return to the franc - you can tax more of the stuff when you can print it.............its works very simply in that regard.
Capital export can also be must reduced which is a far more important consideration for any nationalist worth his or her salt.
People in the caymans or Switzerland or anywhere in the financial stratophere have claims on the "wealth" of these former nations.
Print it and their claims on wealth disappears as people working within these now rump domestic economies get a larger ratio of the remaining pie.
The banks have worked to export the cores capital base to the PIigs and Brics of this world - its time to try and save the little bits and pieces that remain.
Which means a return to national currencies and more local shorter trade & supply systems.
The end of the Euro will kill the Brics..............the problem for the French is that the yanks will eat up all the surplus oil on new cars and shit.......but they can't do much about that anyhow.
The Gaullist euro dream was a bankers illusion so as to capture certain sections of the French political elite.
Switzerland may be a large financial / gold centre but it is a small physical economy - for example what happens or not happens in switzerlands domestic economy does not concern oil very much.
Another great example that the rule of law means absolutely zero to all those eurocrats when it comes to their very own agenda. Be it the bond market or some hidden spy operation by tax authorities, they either break the laws or change the laws hand over fist. But since the financial repressions are just about to begin, I assume we are going to see more and more of such actions.
Sorry, little Switzerland has to kiss U.S ass just like every other nation in the world because of the U.S. military mostly. The last time the French invaded Switzerland was under NapoleonI. This whole banking thing is a sticky issue. The elite want to keep the money they have siphoned, but in this day and age, I think more than anything the bankers ( especially of the western world) are all in it together to squeeze the last drop out of poor emaciated 'Bess'.
My guess is paper goods in Swiss banks are no safer there than anywhere else in the world no matter who thinks they have a claim on it. Let's not overlook the massive monetary inflation happening there over the CH/Euro lock.
You should review your history books as well as the economic's !!!
jessie, Napoleon Bonaparte invaded and occupied Switzerland in the 1790's. This was the last time Switzerland was invaded by a foreign nation.
If you are alluding to the economics of Switzerland still being a safe haven in banking, maybe so. I don't trust any banks anywhere much as of late.
If you care to elaborate on your critizism, it woule be welcome.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
The French Frogs were unfortunately invited in by the Swiss Frogs.
Actually, Switzerland was then a mess along religious faults, linguistic faults, urban/rural faults, class faults, geographic faults, it couldn't been screwed up much worse, since it was basicly in the middle of a "soft" civil war, and with Napoleon being an often shrewd strategist...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_in_the_Napoleonic_era#Fall_of_t...
As America's adversaries salivate...
Hitler did not try and seize Switzerland, even though a land with a majority of his fellow German-speakers ...
Napoléon, however, did achieve control over Switzerland 200 years ago, with more clever and wily tactics, and while partly spreading ideals which were much more sympathetic.
The question is partly whether the EU is more like Napoléon ...
And also whether, from the Swiss point of view, it will be just like waiting out Hitler and Mussolini ... a couple decades of fascism back then, a couple of decades of 'EU fever' now ...
And the EU may yet crash and burn on the rocks of brutal 'austerity' in the Mediterranean countries, ravaging the lives of the common people and leading to a new wave of quasi-nationalist revolutionaries
The Swiss have bent with the wind, indeed, but they are also likely waiting to see what is left after the euro possibly explodes ... with plans to seal the borders, as I recall BK has noted
Add the French, Italian, and Romanche speakers together and the German
speakers are in a minority in Switzerland.
Switzerland was a hard nut to crack,and too useful as a bolt hole,/ntermediary
to invade, for Hitler.
The French better beware, or the Swissy will become unpegged from the Euro.
The solidarity of the EU is rotting from within because of the EUs actions, if anything the EU is now having a unifying impact on the Swiss Cantons. Even with Sarko playing the role of Mini-Me Bonaparte, Herman & José's Excellent European Adventure is not going to successfully resurrect Napoleonic strategy.
Hopefully it will be a LONG COLD HELLISH winter, and the mindless German leadership will finally seek to responsibly balance its currency's value vis-a-vis the dollar. Otherwise all of Europe will suffer the stench of the unbathed masses as cheap exports are needlessly traded for expensive energy.
so it's ok for americains to spy abroad but not others? so naive, bet you still believe in emerican exceptionalism, lol
This is not technically spying, in my opinion. If the law in country A says that you cannot keep wads of money overseas without reporting it but it is well known that certain people have wads of money stashed in country B, then why is it spying to keep an eye on these people when they travel to see if they visit a foreign bank?
Just because you went to the bank doesn't make you a criminal. All it is is circumstantial evidence anyway. There are no hard, concrete facts, thus, it is not spying.
The same can be said here in the States. Suppose a person goes to Colorado from Utah to purchase marijuana. It is legal in Colorado but not in Utah. The authorities know this person is travelling there to get pot, so they wait at the border and when they come back with more than an ounce in possession, they get pulled over, searched and, if they have an ounce or more they are arrested.
What's the difference?
It seems the French have just as much right to protect their banking laws as do the Swiss.
:D
Orly
where to begin?...
Anywhere you like. I'm listening.
The law in country A is ENTIRELY IRRELVANT. Actions within the sovereign territory of country B are governed by laws of county B.
For example, the KGB spying on Soviet dissidents in the US during the cold war was clearly not a violation of the laws of the USSR.
Why should it be against the law in the US? Another Red Scare, perhaps? McCarthy run amok and that's okay?
If they want to waste their time collecting unusable circumstantioal evidence on someone, let them do it. As long as there are not Swiss nationals or institutions aiding and abetting said collection, then what's the problem?
What did the Soviets do with that information? Stamp their feet and blow blue smoke from their ears is my guess.
Feet stamping and blue smoke may be the Swiss way but there is nothing they can do about it.
Yes, let's just pass laws that make all totalitarian measures legal and then, where's the fuss? I mean, it's our government, they're always acting in our best interests? Spying on our activities is perfectly fine. More film, more cameras, put them in our houses, what do we have to hide?
How can you miss the point so completely?
No, the question is how can you miss the point so completely? You want to live in a "free society"? Then live in a free society. You cannot make laws in a free society about what an Irishman can do there versus what a Frenchman can do.
It's okay for the Brits to ask questions and take pictures but not the Germans! They are spying!
My idea is the reverse of a totalitarian state, whereas you would prefer that the state pick and choose. So, which is it, Sean?
There is nothing to be had of value in this spying game, on either side. It is much ado about nothing.
You should know that in Britain, there is a camera on every lampost and the government asks all citizens to keep an eye on the cameras and, if there is a conviction, you get the hundred pound prize.
But that's okay with you, I suppose. It seems you're very confused about what constitutes freedom and what makes a totalitarian regime.
No, your ideas are confused. You have no understanding of whom a nation's laws apply to: everyone, foreign and domestic, unless they have diplomatic immunity and even then, they can be forced to leave. Whether there is anything of value is immaterial. That is an ends justify the means argument. If the SPIRIT of the law is violated, it has been broken.
Let's see if I can make this simple enough for you: sending an agent into a country is an act of aggression against that country. That is why countries have diplomatic protocols, why cooperation is an action that involves BOTH countries- otherwise it is a violation of sovereignty and can be prosecuted.
As for Britain, you do understand sarcasm or do I need to explain that as well?
What a complete moron.
In other words, you have nothing real to offer, so you resort to name-calling.
I hope you're the same blond chick from your avatar, as it would explain this misunderstanding.
According to your theory, a state has unlimited jurisdiction over it's citizens regardless of where they are. How do you define political asylum then?
In other words, you have nothing real to offer, so you resort to name-calling.
What name calling?
I politely asked you a question, do you want me to repeat it?
If you repeat it politely and stop calling me "that (dumb) blonde chick," then I would be happy to entertain any query.
Fair enough.
Define 'political asylum' (under which circumstances one may get it and who gives permision), 'renounciation of citizenship' and 'intrusion of privacy' (under which circumstances it is legal to breach one's privacy), please?
I understand your question as it pertains to the issue of a foreign nation following a citizen across borders, even if they were to renounce their citizenship of that country or even if they were to seek politcial or religious asylum somewhere else.
Two different things come to mind. If the person were to renounce their citizenship and defer it to another country in order to escape the legal jurisdiction of their home country, then that should not be granted. For instance, if a Frenchman had $7B stashed in a Swiss bank account, then renounced his French citizenship simply to avoid paying taxes or to go to jail because he made his money in the heroin trade and was facing trial, then that would not be proper and should not be accepted as a basis for asylum.
However, as in the late days of the Soviet Union, when Yakov Smirnoff defected from a ship in New York City ("easy as cake"...), then that is a different story altogether; or in the case of a Yemini female who feels persecuted under the dominant religion in her home country. I think we can all agree to these points, as they are pretty obvious.
The sticky point comes when a person travels to a foreign destination with the expectation the he will be able to deposit French funds into a Swiss bank, secretly and without repercussion because his own government has no right to follow him around and see what he is going to do with that $7B. He is travelling with French funds, in Euros, that will likely to be converted into CHF upon his arrival. He made that money in France and is obligated to pay French taxes on that money. He does not do that but instead takes all the money and moves it to Switzerland.
First off, that is stealing, which is a crime in France, if I am not mistaken, so the French government then has the right to track him as a criminal. Second, he is in clear violation of French banking laws, so the same thing applies.
But what if the money were already there, in Switzerland, as most of these cases seem to be? In that case, as to my points earlier, it may be too late to do anything about it. The French can spy on these people, find out if they are pulling money out of the banks but there is very little they can do about it. They can take pictures, record details but in a French court of law, this is merely circumstantial evidence and would not be allowed at trial. Therefore, all the resources and all the time spent gathering the information would be a waste of time because the government cannot use it against them.
The only difference would be if the French authorities hacked into a Swiss bank, for instance, stole the data and then presented it to the court. That is spying. That is against international treaty and, again and as the French authorities are well aware, it would not be allowed in court. In short, all of the stalking and all of the spying is for nought because there is no way you can nail anyone on either circumstantial evidence or evidence gathered illegally.
It is just a vacuous threat against the French people who have money in those accounts, signifying nothing.
"In short, all of the stalking and all of the spying is for nought because there is no way you can nail anyone on either circumstantial evidence or evidence gathered illegally."
Technically speaking it won't be for naught 'cause the French will draw upon themselves a lot of Swiss rage turning their bilateral relations into a cold turkey, which is exactly what B.K. and everyone else here is trying to explain. But thanks anyway for finally proving our point!
My point is that it is much ado about nothing and the Swiss have provided a service (illegally under international law?) and should just shut up about "sovereingty" and let the chips fall where they may. If they keep it up, the UBS fiasco is only the beginning. In other words, "Il est préférable de laisser assez bien seul."
That's all.
The Swiss should shut up about sovereignty? LMAO! Provided a service illegally? ROFL I wonder what you have to say about the legality of all the EU dough that was poured into Switzerland obligations this past year...
Just because the Swiss bit the bullet and for a whole lot of reasons turned a blind eye to the Empire's demands (suffering great damage on their reputation) doesn't mean they're ready to kneel before an arrogant socialist frog-eater.
You know, it could be brought up in the World Court (ha!) that Swiss banking secrecy laws are tantamount to war, as no other country recognises it and the Swiss have been asked politely to stop their financial transgressions. Therefore, any retribution on the part of sovereign nations to preserve their capital from Swiss banking "crooks" should also be perceived as an act of war and spying on their citizens during wartime is not a criminal act but is instead to be expected.
Therefore, with all being equal in that way, all's fair in money and war and the Swiss should pipe down while they're ahead.
_______
And by the way, what do you mean by: "I wonder what you have to say about the legality of all the EU dough that was poured into Switzerland obligations this past year..."?
More acts of economic warfare? Hmmmm?
What international law have the Swiss violated?
NAME A SINGLE INSTANCE
The Americans on the other hand...
Who have failed to even ratify UNCLOS much less the ICC, unlike Switzerland. What's wrong, afraid your dear leaders are going to hauled off on put on trial for their crimes against humanity?
I don't think international law means what you think it means.
THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY OF CURRENT NATION STATES EXPLICITLY SEEK TO PUT THE UNITED STATES "IN ITS PROPER PLACE" THROUGH THE TERMS INCLUDED IN THE CURRENT MAJOR MULTILATERAL TREATIES UNDER NEGOTIATION.
The consequences of this broader ignorance of international law by Americans will be extremely expensive for all Americans. The fight right now is to extend the canon of jus inter gentes to include the ATT. The issue of granting supra-national taxing authority to the Secretariat (where the US has no veto) has been dropped from the formal discussions of the treaty, but the dependent financial organ suspiciously remains in the treaty text, which can be amended by simple majority consent. The doctrine of living tree judicial interpretation is being simultaneously advanced in the United States, which would serve as a basis for reinterpreting the Supremacy Clause to render Reid v. Covert a moot decision.
Once this goal is achieved the Durban plank of UNFCCC can be implemented (TPTB are hoping that they don't have to postpone the current 2015 deadline). In short, while roughly 50% of Americans want Obamaphones and 50% of Americans think Obamaphones are an Obamination, they can both look forward to collectively footing the bill for well over 6 billion foreign Obamaphone recipients. The fool who thought Obama was going to pay her mortgage is going to be in for a rude awakening when she finds herself having to pay for Obama's half-brother's mortgage, but such is the cost of ignorance of the development of international law.