Thursday, December 17, 2015

Three More Banks Obtain NPAs under DOJ Swiss Bank Program (12/17/15)

On December 17, 2015, DOJ announced here that Bordier & Cie Switzerland (Bordier), PBZ Verwaltungs AG (PBZ) and PostFinance AG  have entered NPAs under the DOJ program for Swiss banks, here.  The penalties, aggregating $15.397 million are:

Bordier & Cie Switzerland (Bordier)
$7.827 million
Verwaltungs AG (PBZ)
$5.57 million
PostFinance AG
$2 million

Key Excerpts are:
For one account, a U.S. taxpayer-client refused to provide a copy of his passport, despite repeated requests from Bordier, and in 1998, this client signed bank forms with a fake signature to avoid potential recognition.  This accountholder eventually told Bordier that he did not want to declare the account in the United States because he was a lawyer and would be disbarred.  
* * * *  
In a limited number of instances, Bordier actively facilitated the evasion of U.S. taxes and reporting requirements for some of its U.S. accountholders.  For example, Bordier made repeated transfers of undeclared assets under $10,000 to the Montreal bank account of a U.S. taxpayer-client in Canada in order to help the client avoid U.S. tax and reporting obligations and keep the undeclared assets hidden. For one such transfer, the U.S. taxpayer-client requested his “usual order of chocolate” from Bordier in order to institute these transfers.  Bordier was aware that the U.S. taxpayer-client withdrew the amounts in cash: “Telephone [call from U.S. taxpayer-client].  Please transfer US$8,000 to Montreal as usual.  He will pick up the cash. . . .”  In 2002, according to file notes made by the former relationship manager, Bordier transmitted undeclared assets to a U.S. taxpayer-client in a hidden manner (“sous forme cache” in French).  Bordier’s conduct allowed the bank to increase the undeclared U.S. taxpayer assets that it managed, thereby increasing the fees it generated.  
* * * *  
PostFinance has never offered private banking or wealth management services to any of its customers.  Instead, PostFinance engaged in basic consumer retail banking and payment services. U.S. taxpayers resident in Switzerland, as well as U.S.-Swiss dual nationals, may obtain “current” accounts, which are comparable to checking accounts in the United States. Savings accounts, fixed income retirement accounts and credit cards may be obtained only by Swiss residents.  
PostFinance was aware that citizens and resident aliens of the United States had a legal duty to report their assets and income to the IRS and to pay taxes on the basis of all their income, including income earned from accounts that PostFinance maintained on their behalf.  Largely due to its obligations under Swiss law, however, PostFinance nevertheless opened and maintained undeclared accounts belonging to customers who were subject to U.S. tax and were not complying with their U.S. tax obligations.

The banks will be added to the IRS's Foreign Financial Institutions or Facilitators, here.  As indicated in the last quoted paragraph, accountholders in the listed banks joining OVDP after one of their banks are listed will be subject to the 50% penalty in OVDP (provided that they do not opt out, in which case, who knows).

Here are the updated statistics for the Swiss Bank Program:
US DOJ Swiss Bank Program
Number
Number Resolved
Total Costs
   U.S. / Swiss Bank Initiative Category 1 (Criminal Inv.) *
16
4
$3,470,550,000
   U.S. / Swiss Bank Initiative Category 2 **
94
69
$757,418,990
   U.S. / Swiss Bank Initiative Category 3
14

$0
   U.S. / Swiss Bank Initiative Category 4
8

$0
Swiss Bank Program Results
132

$4,227,968,990




* Includes subsidiary or related entities counted as separate entities, so the numbers may exceed the numbers the IRS and DOJ posted numbers which combine some of the entities.



** DOJ says original total was 106 but that it expects about 80 to complete the process.



No comments:

Post a Comment

Please make sure that your comment is relevant to the blog entry. For those regular commenters on the blog who otherwise do not want to identify by name, readers would find it helpful if you would choose a unique anonymous indentifier other than just Anonymous. This will help readers identify other comments from a trusted source, so to speak.