How a big US bank laundered billions from Mexico’s murderous drug gangs

As the violence spread, billions of dollars of cartel cash began to seep into the global financial system. But a special investigation by the Observer reveals how the increasingly frantic warnings of one London whistleblower were ignored

On 10 April 2006, a DC-9 jet landed in the port city of Ciudad del Carmen, on the Gulf of Mexico, as the sun was setting. Mexican soldiers, waiting to intercept it, found 128 cases packed with 5.7 tons of cocaine, valued at $100m. But something else more important and far-reaching was discovered in the paper trail behind the purchase of the plane by the Sinaloa narco-trafficking cartel.

During a 22-month investigation by agents from the US Drug Enforcement Administration, the Internal Revenue Service and others, it emerged that the cocaine smugglers had bought the plane with money they had laundered through one of the biggest banks in the United States: Wachovia, now part of the giant Wells Fargo.

The authorities uncovered billions of dollars in wire transfers, traveller’s cheques and cash shipments through Mexican exchanges into Wachovia accounts. Wachovia was put under immediate investigation for failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering programme. Of special significance was that the period concerned began in 2004, which coincided with the first escalation of violence along the US-Mexico border that ignited the current drugs war.

Criminal proceedings were brought against Wachovia, though not against any individual, but the case never came to court. In March 2010, Wachovia settled the biggest action brought under the US bank secrecy act, through the US district court in Miami. Now that the year’s “deferred prosecution” has expired, the bank is in effect in the clear. It paid federal authorities $110m in forfeiture, for allowing transactions later proved to be connected to drug smuggling, and incurred a $50m fine for failing to monitor cash used to ship 22 tons of cocaine.

More shocking, and more important, the bank was sanctioned for failing to apply the proper anti-laundering strictures to the transfer of $378.4bn a sum equivalent to one-third of Mexico’s gross national product into dollar accounts from so-called casas de cambio (CDCs) in Mexico, currency exchange houses with which the bank did business.

“Wachovia’s blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations,” said Jeffrey Sloman, the federal prosecutor. Yet the total fine was less than 2% of the bank’s $12.3bn profit for 2009. On 24 March 2010, Wells Fargo stock traded at $30.86 up 1% on the week of the court settlement.

The conclusion to the case was only the tip of an iceberg, demonstrating the role of the “legal” banking sector in swilling hundreds of billions of dollars the blood money from the murderous drug trade in Mexico and other places in the world around their global operations, now bailed out by the taxpayer.

At the height of the 2008 banking crisis, Antonio Maria Costa, then head of the United Nations office on drugs and crime, said he had evidence to suggest the proceeds from drugs and crime were “the only liquid investment capital” available to banks on the brink of collapse. “Inter-bank loans were funded by money that originated from the drugs trade,” he said. “There were signs that some banks were rescued that way.”

Wachovia was acquired by Wells Fargo during the 2008 crash, just as Wells Fargo became a beneficiary of $25bn in taxpayers’ money. Wachovia’s prosecutors were clear, however, that there was no suggestion Wells Fargo had behaved improperly; it had co-operated fully with the investigation. Mexico is the US’s third largest international trading partner and Wachovia was understandably interested in this volume of legitimate trade.

Jos Luis Marmolejo, who prosecuted those running one of the casas de cambio at the Mexican end, said: “Wachovia handled all the transfers. They never reported any as suspicious.”

“As early as 2004, Wachovia understood the risk,” the bank admitted in the statement of settlement with the federal government, but, “despite these warnings, Wachovia remained in the business”. There is, of course, the legitimate use of CDCs as a way into the Hispanic market. In 2005 the World Bank said that Mexico was receiving $8.1bn in remittances.

During research into the Wachovia Mexican case, the Observer obtained documents previously provided to financial regulators. It emerged that the alarm that was ignored came from, among other places, London, as a result of the diligence of one of the most important whistleblowers of our time. A man who, in a series of interviews with the Observer, adds detail to the documents, laying bare the story of how Wachovia was at the centre of one of the world’s biggest money-laundering operations.

Martin Woods, a Liverpudlian in his mid-40s, joined the London office of Wachovia Bank in February 2005 as a senior anti-money laundering officer. He had previously served with the Metropolitan police drug squad. As a detective he joined the money-laundering investigation team of the National Crime Squad, where he worked on the British end of the Bank of New York money-laundering scandal in the late 1990s.

Woods talks like a police officer in the best sense of the word: punctilious, exact, with a roguish humour, but moral at the core. He was an ideal appointment for any bank eager to operate a diligent and effective risk management policy against the lucrative scourge of high finance: laundering, knowing or otherwise, the vast proceeds of criminality, tax-evasion, and dealing in arms and drugs.

Woods had a police officer’s eye and a police officer’s instincts not those of a banker. And this influenced not only his methods, but his mentality. “I think that a lot of things matter more than money and that marks you out in a culture which appears to prevail in many of the banks in the world,” he says.

Woods was set apart by his modus operandi. His speciality, he explains, was his application of a “know your client”, or KYC, policing strategy to identifying dirty money. “KYC is a fundamental approach to anti-money laundering, going after tax evasion or counter-terrorist financing. Who are your clients? Is the documentation right? Good, responsible banking involved always knowing your customer and it still does.”

When he looked at Wachovia, the first thing Woods noticed was a deficiency in KYC information. And among his first reports to his superiors at the bank’s headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina, were observations on a shortfall in KYC at Wachovia’s operation in London, which he set about correcting, while at the same time implementing what was known as an enhanced transaction monitoring programme, gathering more information on clients whose money came through the bank’s offices in the City, in sterling or euros. By August 2006, Woods had identified a number of suspicious transactions relating to casas de cambio customers in Mexico.

Primarily, these involved deposits of traveller’s cheques in euros. They had sequential numbers and deposited larger amounts of money than any innocent travelling person would need, with inadequate or no KYC information on them and what seemed to a trained eye to be dubious signatures. “It was basic work,” he says. “They didn’t answer the obvious questions: ‘Is the transaction real, or does it look synthetic? Does the traveller’s cheque meet the protocols? Is it all there, and if not, why not?'”

Woods discussed the matter with Wachovia’s global head of anti-money laundering for correspondent banking, who believed the cheques could signify tax evasion. He then undertook what banks call a “look back” at previous transactions and saw fit to submit a series of SARs, or suspicious activity reports, to the authorities in the UK and his superiors in Charlotte, urging the blocking of named parties and large series of sequentially numbered traveller’s cheques from Mexico. He issued a number of SARs in 2006, of which 50 related to the casas de cambio in Mexico. To his amazement, the response from Wachovia’s Miami office, the centre for Latin American business, was anything but supportive he felt it was quite the reverse.

As it turned out, however, Woods was on the right track. Wachovia’s business in Mexico was coming under closer and closer scrutiny by US federal law enforcement. Wachovia was issued with a number of subpoenas for information on its Mexican operation. Woods has subsequently been informed that Wachovia had six or seven thousand subpoenas. He says this was “An absurd number. So at what point does someone at the highest level not get the feeling that something is very, very wrong?”

In April and May 2007, Wachovia as a result of increasing interest and pressure from the US attorney’s office began to close its relationship with some of the casas de cambio. But rather than launch an internal investigation into Woods’s alerts over Mexico, Woods claims Wachovia hung its own money-laundering expert out to dry. The records show that during 2007 Woods “continued to submit more SARs related to the casas de cambio“.

In July 2007, all of Wachovia’s remaining 10 Mexican casa de cambio clients operating through London suddenly stopped doing so. Later in 2007, after the investigation of Wachovia was reported in the US financial media, the bank decided to end its remaining relationships with the Mexican casas de cambio globally. By this time, Woods says, he found his personal situation within the bank untenable; while the bank acted on one level to protect itself from the federal investigation into its shortcomings, on another, it rounded on the man who had been among the first to spot them.

On 16 June Woods was told by Wachovia’s head of compliance that his latest SAR need not have been filed, that he had no legal requirement to investigate an overseas case and no right of access to documents held overseas from Britain, even if they were held by Wachovia.

Woods’s life went into freefall. He went to hospital with a prolapsed disc, reported sick and was told by the bank that he not done so in the appropriate manner, as directed by the employees’ handbook. He was off work for three weeks, returning in August 2007 to find a letter from the bank’s compliance managing director, which was unrelenting in its tone and words of warning.

The letter addressed itself to what the manager called “specific examples of your failure to perform at an acceptable standard”. Woods, on the edge of a breakdown, was put on sick leave by his GP; he was later given psychiatric treatment, enrolled on a stress management course and put on medication.

Late in 2007, Woods attended a function at Scotland Yard where colleagues from the US were being entertained. There, he sought out a representative of the Drug Enforcement Administration and told him about the casas de cambio, the SARs and his employer’s reaction. The Federal Reserve and officials of the office of comptroller of currency in Washington DC then “spent a lot of time examining the SARs” that had been sent by Woods to Charlotte from London.

“They got back in touch with me a while afterwards and we began to put the pieces of the jigsaw together,” says Woods. What they found was as Costa says the tip of the iceberg of what was happening to drug money in the banking industry, but at least it was visible and it had a name: Wachovia.

In June 2005, the DEA, the criminal division of the Internal Revenue Service and the US attorney’s office in southern Florida began investigating wire transfers from Mexico to the US. They were traced back to correspondent bank accounts held by casas de cambio at Wachovia. The CDC accounts were supervised and managed by a business unit of Wachovia in the bank’s Miami offices.

“Through CDCs,” said the court document, “persons in Mexico can use hard currency and wire transfer the value of that currency to US bank accounts to purchase items in the United States or other countries. The nature of the CDC business allows money launderers the opportunity to move drug dollars that are in Mexico into CDCs and ultimately into the US banking system.

“On numerous occasions,” say the court papers, “monies were deposited into a CDC by a drug-trafficking organisation. Using false identities, the CDC then wired that money through its Wachovia correspondent bank accounts for the purchase of airplanes for drug-trafficking organisations.” The court settlement of 2010 would detail that “nearly $13m went through correspondent bank accounts at Wachovia for the purchase of aircraft to be used in the illegal narcotics trade. From these aircraft, more than 20,000kg of cocaine were seized.”

All this occurred despite the fact that Wachovia’s office was in Miami, designated by the US government as a “high-intensity money laundering and related financial crime area”, and a “high-intensity drug trafficking area”. Since the drug cartel war began in 2005, Mexico had been designated a high-risk source of money laundering.

“As early as 2004,” the court settlement would read, “Wachovia understood the risk that was associated with doing business with the Mexican CDCs. Wachovia was aware of the general industry warnings. As early as July 2005, Wachovia was aware that other large US banks were exiting the CDC business based on [anti-money laundering] concerns despite these warnings, Wachovia remained in business.”

On 16 March 2010, Douglas Edwards, senior vice-president of Wachovia Bank, put his signature to page 10 of a 25-page settlement, in which the bank admitted its role as outlined by the prosecutors. On page 11, he signed again, as senior vice-president of Wells Fargo. The documents show Wachovia providing three services to 22 CDCs in Mexico: wire transfers, a “bulk cash service” and a “pouch deposit service”, to accept “deposit items drawn on US banks, eg cheques and traveller’s cheques”, as spotted by Woods.

“For the time period of 1 May 2004 through 31 May 2007, Wachovia processed at least $$373.6bn in CDCs, $4.7bn in bulk cash” a total of more than $378.3bn, a sum that dwarfs the budgets debated by US state and UK local authorities to provide services to citizens.

The document gives a fascinating insight into how the laundering of drug money works. It details how investigators “found readily identifiable evidence of red flags of large-scale money laundering”. There were “structured wire transfers” whereby “it was commonplace in the CDC accounts for round-number wire transfers to be made on the same day or in close succession, by the same wire senders, for the same account”.

Over two days, 10 wire transfers by four individuals “went though Wachovia for deposit into an aircraft broker’s account. All of the transfers were in round numbers. None of the individuals of business that wired money had any connection to the aircraft or the entity that allegedly owned the aircraft. The investigation has further revealed that the identities of the individuals who sent the money were false and that the business was a shell entity. That plane was subsequently seized with approximately 2,000kg of cocaine on board.”

Many of the sequentially numbered traveller’s cheques, of the kind dealt with by Woods, contained “unusual markings” or “lacked any legible signature”. Also, “many of the CDCs that used Wachovia’s bulk cash service sent significantly more cash to Wachovia than what Wachovia had expected. More specifically, many of the CDCs exceeded their monthly activity by at least 50%.”

Recognising these “red flags”, the US attorney’s office in Miami, the IRS and the DEA began investigating Wachovia, later joined by FinCEN, one of the US Treasury’s agencies to fight money laundering, while the office of the comptroller of the currency carried out a parallel investigation. The violations they found were, says the document, “serious and systemic and allowed certain Wachovia customers to launder millions of dollars of proceeds from the sale of illegal narcotics through Wachovia accounts over an extended time period. The investigation has identified that at least $110m in drug proceeds were funnelled through the CDC accounts held at Wachovia.”

The settlement concludes by discussing Wachovia’s “considerable co-operation and remedial actions” since the prosecution was initiated, after the bank was bought by Wells Fargo. “In consideration of Wachovia’s remedial actions,” concludes the prosecutor, “the United States shall recommend to the court that prosecution of Wachovia on the information filed be deferred for a period of 12 months.”

But while the federal prosecution proceeded, Woods had remained out in the cold. On Christmas Eve 2008, his lawyers filed tribunal proceedings against Wachovia for bullying and detrimental treatment of a whistleblower. The case was settled in May 2009, by which time Woods felt as though he was “the most toxic person in the bank”. Wachovia agreed to pay an undisclosed amount, in return for which Woods left the bank and said he would not make public the terms of the settlement.

After years of tribulation, Woods was finally formally vindicated, though not by Wachovia: a letter arrived from John Dugan, the comptroller of the currency in Washington DC, dated 19 March 2010 three days after the settlement in Miami. Dugan said he was “writing to personally recognise and express my appreciation for the role you played in the actions brought against Wachovia Bank for violations of the bank secrecy act Not only did the information that you provided facilitate our investigation, but you demonstrated great personal courage and integrity by speaking up. Without the efforts of individuals like you, actions such as the one taken against Wachovia would not be possible.”

The so-called “deferred prosecution” detailed in the Miami document is a form of probation whereby if the bank abides by the law for a year, charges are dropped. So this March the bank was in the clear. The week that the deferred prosecution expired, a spokeswoman for Wells Fargo said the parent bank had no comment to make on the documentation pertaining to Woods’s case, or his allegations. She added that there was no comment on Sloman’s remarks to the court; a provision in the settlement stipulated Wachovia was not allowed to issue public statements that contradicted it.

But the settlement leaves a sour taste in many mouths and certainly in Woods’s. The deferred prosecution is part of this “cop-out all round”, he says. “The regulatory authorities do not have to spend any more time on it, and they don’t have to push it as far as a criminal trial. They just issue criminal proceedings, and settle. The law enforcement people do what they are supposed to do, but what’s the point? All those people dealing with all that money from drug-trafficking and murder, and no one goes to jail?”

One of the foremost figures in the training of anti-money laundering officers is Robert Mazur, lead infiltrator for US law enforcement of the Colombian Medelln cartel during the epic prosecution and collapse of the BCCI banking business in 1991 (his story was made famous by his memoir, The Infiltrator, which became a movie).

Mazur, whose firm Chase and Associates works closely with law enforcement agencies and trains officers for bank anti-money laundering, cast a keen eye over the case against Wachovia, and he says now that “the only thing that will make the banks properly vigilant to what is happening is when they hear the rattle of handcuffs in the boardroom”.

Mazur said that “a lot of the law enforcement people were disappointed to see a settlement” between the administration and Wachovia. “But I know there were external circumstances that worked to Wachovia’s benefit, not least that the US banking system was on the edge of collapse.”

What concerns Mazur is that what law enforcement agencies and politicians hope to achieve against the cartels is limited, and falls short of the obvious attack the US could make in its war on drugs: go after the money. “We’re thinking way too small,” Mazur says. “I train law enforcement officers, thousands of them every year, and they say to me that if they tried to do half of what I did, they’d be arrested. But I tell them: ‘You got to think big. The headlines you will be reading in seven years’ time will be the result of the work you begin now.’ With BCCI, we had to spend two years setting it up, two years doing undercover work, and another two years getting it to trial. If they want to do something big, like go after the money, that’s how long it takes.”

But Mazur warns: “If you look at the career ladders of law enforcement, there’s no incentive to go after the big money. People move every two to three years. The DEA is focused on drug trafficking rather than money laundering. You get a quicker result that way they want to get the traffickers and seize their assets. But this is like treating a sick plant by cutting off a few branches it just grows new ones. Going after the big money is cutting down the plant it’s a harder door to knock on, it’s a longer haul, and it won’t get you the short-term riches.”


The office of the comptroller of the currency is still examining whether individuals in Wachovia are criminally liable. Sources at FinCEN say that a so-called “look-back” is in process, as directed by the settlement and agreed to by Wachovia, into the $378.4bn that was not directly associated with the aircraft purchases and cocaine hauls, but neither was it subject to the proper anti-laundering checks. A FinCEN source says that $20bn already examined appears to have “suspicious origins”. But this is just the beginning.

Antonio Maria Costa, who was executive director of the UN’s office on drugs and crime from May 2002 to August 2010, charts the history of the contamination of the global banking industry by drug and criminal money since his first initiatives to try to curb it from the European commission during the 1990s. “The connection between organised crime and financial institutions started in the late 1970s, early 1980s,” he says, “when the mafia became globalised.”

Until then, criminal money had circulated largely in cash, with the authorities making the occasional, spectacular “sting” or haul. During Costa’s time as director for economics and finance at the EC in Brussels, from 1987, inroads were made against penetration of banks by criminal laundering, and “criminal money started moving back to cash, out of the financial institutions and banks. Then two things happened: the financial crisis in Russia, after the emergence of the Russian mafia, and the crises of 2003 and 2007-08.

“With these crises,” says Costa, “the banking sector was short of liquidity, the banks exposed themselves to the criminal syndicates, who had cash in hand.”

Costa questions the readiness of governments and their regulatory structures to challenge this large-scale corruption of the global economy: “Government regulators showed what they were capable of when the issue suddenly changed to laundering money for terrorism on that, they suddenly became serious and changed their attitude.”

Hardly surprising, then, that Wachovia does not appear to be the end of the line. In August 2010, it emerged in quarterly disclosures by HSBC that the US justice department was seeking to fine it for anti-money laundering compliance problems reported to include dealings with Mexico.


“Wachovia had my rsum, they knew who I was,” says Woods. “But they did not want to know their attitude was, ‘Why are you doing this?’ They should have been on my side, because they were compliance people, not commercial people. But really they were commercial people all along. We’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. This is the biggest money-laundering scandal of our time.

“These are the proceeds of murder and misery in Mexico, and of drugs sold around the world,” he says. “All the law enforcement people wanted to see this come to trial. But no one goes to jail. “What does the settlement do to fight the cartels? Nothing it doesn’t make the job of law enforcement easier and it encourages the cartels and anyone who wants to make money by laundering their blood dollars. Where’s the risk? There is none.

“Is it in the interest of the American people to encourage both the drug cartels and the banks in this way? Is it in the interest of the Mexican people? It’s simple: if you don’t see the correlation between the money laundering by banks and the 30,000 people killed in Mexico, you’re missing the point.”

Woods feels unable to rest on his laurels. He tours the world for a consultancy he now runs, Hermes Forensic Solutions, counselling and speaking to banks on the dangers of laundering criminal money, and how to spot and stop it. “New York and London,” says Woods, “have become the world’s two biggest laundries of criminal and drug money, and offshore tax havens. Not the Cayman Islands, not the Isle of Man or Jersey. The big laundering is right through the City of London and Wall Street.

“After the Wachovia case, no one in the regulatory community has sat down with me and asked, ‘What happened?’ or ‘What can we do to avoid this happening to other banks?’ They are not interested. They are the same people who attack the whistleblowers and this is a position the [British] Financial Services Authority at least has adopted on legal advice: it has been advised that the confidentiality of banking and bankers takes primacy over the public information disclosure act. That is how the priorities work: secrecy first, public interest second.

“Meanwhile, the drug industry has two products: money and suffering. On one hand, you have massive profits and enrichment. On the other, you have massive suffering, misery and death. You cannot separate one from the other.

“What happened at Wachovia was symptomatic of the failure of the entire regulatory system to apply the kind of proper governance and adequate risk management which would have prevented not just the laundering of blood money, but the global crisis.”

Continue reading

Osborne, Corbyn and Johnson all publish latest tax records – BBC News

Image copyright House of Commons

Chancellor George Osborne and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn have become the latest senior British politicians to publish details of their tax returns.

Mr Osborne paid 72,210 in tax in 2014-5 on 198,738 in earnings, comprising his official salary, rental income and share dividends from his family firm.

The Labour leader paid 18,912 in tax on his MP’s salary and declared 1,850 of other taxable income.

It came as David Cameron defended the right to “make money lawfully”.

Facing MPs for the first time since the row over his family’s tax affairs, the prime minister said “artificially reducing tax” should not be confused with legitimate enterprise and wealth creation schemes.

The series of personal disclosures – which also included an updated tax statement from Mayor of London Boris Johnson – came after Downing Street said “potential prime ministers” and chancellors should be expected to publish their tax returns in future.

Speaking in the Commons, Mr Corbyn suggested the government was “incapable of taking global action against tax dodging”, claiming there was “was one rule for the rich and one for the rest”.

Media captionLabour’s Jeremy Corbyn on tax: ‘People want justice’
Media captionChancellor George Osborne: ”This is an unprecedented degree of transparency”

But Mr Cameron questioned how long it had taken for the leader of the opposition to publish his own tax return.

The Labour leader had to ask Revenue and Customs for a copy amid reports he did not keep one of his own.

In his statement, Mr Cameron – who published a summary of his tax returns on Sunday – addressed what he said were “deeply hurtful and profoundly untrue” allegations about his late father’s offshore investment fund.

He said the fund, in which the PM owned shares which he sold for a 19,000 profit in 2010 after paying tax, was perfectly legitimate.

He said a number of public sector organisations, including trade unions and the BBC, had similar investment arrangements, describing them as a “standard practice and not designed to avoid tax”.

“It is right to tighten the law and change the culture around investment to further outlaw tax evasion and to discourage aggressive tax avoidance,” he said.

“But as we do so, we should differentiate between schemes designed to artificially reduce tax and those that are encouraging investment. This is a government – and this should be a country – that believes in aspiration and wealth creation.”

He told MPs that he had decided to sell the shares in 2010, before he became PM, to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest.

‘National scandal’

Mr Cameron told MPs that he had released an “unprecedented” amount of information about his own tax affairs and believed the leader of the opposition, chancellor and shadow chancellor should also follow suit as they either ran or aspired to the run the nation’s finances.

But he said that he did not believed MPs should be compelled to routinely publish similar information as the principle of confidentiality in tax information should be maintained.

Media captionLabour MP Dennis Skinner ordered out of Commons chamber after ‘dodgy Dave’ comment
Media captionSir Alan Duncan: Cameron’s critics ‘hate anyone with hint of wealth’

Confirming he would continue to publish his tax return on an annual basis. Mr Osborne said: “This is unprecedented degree of transparency from a government that has done more than any other to tackle tax evasion.”

Responding for Labour in the House of Commons, Mr Corbyn said the prime minister had failed to give a “full account of his involvement in tax havens until this week or take essential action to clean up the system”.

“The UK is at the heart of the global tax avoidance industry,” he said. “It is a national scandal and it has to stop”.

Mr Cameron defended the UK’s record on fighting tax evasion saying the government had agreed with all Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories – except Guernsey and Anguilla – on giving the UK authorities access to their national registers setting out the beneficial ownership of companies listed there.

He also announced plans for a new law making firms criminally liable if their employees fail to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion.

Media captionConservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg says all MPs will have to publish their tax returns

This would lower the threshold of responsibility for companies whose employees may have advised clients to take actions which would evade – as opposed to avoid – paying tax.

Mr Cameron was backed by Conservative MPs but amid heated exchanges in the Commons, veteran Labour MP Dennis Skinner was suspended from the Chamber for the day after referring to the prime minister as “dodgy Dave” and refusing to withdraw the remark.

Public mood

The prime minister released a summary of earnings and tax going back six years after being accused by Labour of misleading the public over money he had invested in his father Ian Cameron’s company, Blairmore Holdings.

Labour is continuing to press him to publish his full tax returns dating back to before he became prime minister and are questioning why the original investment was not disclosed in the register of MPs’ interests.

Labour has announced a 10 point plan to “clean out” tax havens – including forcing MPs to disclose any offshore holdings.

Image copyright PA
Image caption Nigel Farage has broken ranks by rejecting calls for greater openness over personal tax matters

Boris Johnson released figures showing he has paid more than 1m in tax in the past four years on his earnings from publishing and journalism, as well as his mayoral salary.

Mr Johnson paid 276,505 alone in 2014-15 on a taxable income of 612,583.

Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg has said he expects all MPs to be publishing their tax returns within two years, reflecting changes in the “public mood” over tax transparency and the need, as he put it, for “Caesar’s wife to be above suspicion”.

But Conservative MP Charles Walker told the BBC’s Daily Politics there was “a new culture of bullying” in the UK and warned of a situation where public figures could end up having to release a stream of personal information, such as medical records.

And UKIP leader Nigel Farage said he wouldn’t be divulging any details since most people regarded tax as a private matter.

“Neighbours would hate the thought that the people at Number 32 knew what their income was,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Westminster Hour.

“I’m worried where we are going with this. If we want to have party leaders publish their tax returns then presumably all MPs must do so, presumably then all councillors must do so, bishops of course must do so, generals must do so, newspapers BBC presenters must do so.”

How transparent do you think tax affairs should be, and how much should remain private? You can share your comments by emailing

Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a BBC journalist. You can also contact us in the following ways:

Or use the form below

Related Topics

Continue reading

Must-know blogger Rach Parcell reveals the inspiration behind her Pink Peonies blog – AOL (blog)

AOL (blog)

Must-know blogger Rach Parcell reveals the inspiration behind her Pink Peonies blog
AOL (blog)
Then I started getting invited to things like New York Fashion Week and working with a talent agency that brings me brand collaborations. I didn't set out to start a fashion blog, and I didn't even know then that you could make money from it. Now, it's

Continue reading

Blogger struggles to gain readers – The Times and Democrat (blog)

Blogger struggles to gain readers
The Times and Democrat (blog)
DEAR HARRIETTE: After being told to start a blog by multiple friends and family members, I took the plunge. Although I felt like I had a lot of support, nobody is reading or commenting on my posts. I thought I could've turned myself into a brand, and

Continue reading

Teen Locks Herself in Bathroom With 4-Yr-Old. When Mom Gets a Text, Her Heart Stops.

As a teenager, theres literally no better way to make money in your spare time than babysitting around the neighborhood. Not only do you collect some major cash, but you experience a whole new level of adult-like independence.

Fourteen-year-old Savannah Jones was recently babysitting her 4-year-old niece, Zoyee.

It was about three in the afternoon when Savannah heard a knock at the door of her home in Montclair, California. The teen quietly looked through the peep-hole and did not recognize the stranger standing on her porch, so she didnt answer.

It turned out that the man wasnt just a stranger in pursuit of selling something to a homeowner. He was an intruder.

After Savannah didnt open the door, the knocking turned into aggressive pounding. She could see the door knob shaking and starting to come lose. Savannah was alarmed, and jumped into action.

The babysitter scooped up her niece and quietly locked themselves in the master-bathroom, then panickily texted her mother what was happening. It wasnt long before the pounding stopped, and Savannah knew the intruder was in the house.

She says she was more concerned about Zoyees safety than her own, but she couldnt call 911, in fear that the intruder would hear her.Savannah was completely terrified, but she managed to keep Zoyee quiet as the man began rummaging around in the master bedroom. He was just a door away from the young girls.

“I felt like time was standing still,” said Savannah.

Through the text messages to her mother, help was on the way, and the police showed up, but not before the intruder was able to flee the scene.

Savannahs sisterZoyees momis calling her younger sister a hero. The 14-year-olds experience is a lesson in stranger-danger-safety that teens and adults alike can learn from.

“When I do think about it, I do get kind of emotional, I guess, thinking about what could have happened and thinking that he was in the same room with us,”said the teen.

Kudos to this brave young babysitterfor her quick thinking and courage in the face of danger to protect the little one in her care.

Continue reading

More Men Should Become Storytellers—Here's Why – The Good Men Project (blog)

The Good Men Project (blog)

More Men Should Become Storytellers—Here's Why
The Good Men Project (blog)
Most of the world has been saturated with the idea that you should only start sharing stories if you want to make money, and while that's a possibility, there should also be a pull for some people to start blogging simply to share their lives and to

Continue reading

Will Dak Prescott Face Tougher Sledding In 2017? – Blogging The Boys (blog)

Blogging The Boys (blog)

Will Dak Prescott Face Tougher Sledding In 2017?
Blogging The Boys (blog)
With the new schedule out, let's return to a subject we touched on back in January when we knew Dallas's 2017 opponents, but not the schedule – real quarterback rating differential. by VAfan@vafanbtb Apr 22, 2017, 1:00pm CDT. tweet · share · pin · Rec.

Continue reading

Donald Glovers Atlanta Skewers Transracial Identity in Most Ambitious Episode Yet

Donald Glover’s brilliantly unconventional show takes on the Rachel Dolezals of the world in its seventh episode. Warning: spoilers ahead. “>

From the start, Donald Glovers Atlanta has been a highly unconventional TV show. Its 30 minutes long, but its definitely not a sitcom. Its ostensibly about the rise of an underground rapper named Paper Boi and his cousin/manager Earn Marks, but in its first six episodes, it has frequently veered away from that narrative, choosing mood over plot at nearly every turn.

Atlanta is the first show Glover has conceived and created on his own, after spending time writing for and acting in broader TV comedies like 30 Rock and Community. Instead of hiring TV veterans, he brought on writers like his brother Stephen Glover, who had never written for television before, along with director Hiro Murai, who had mostly helmed music videos. With no rules to guide them, the team has managed to deliver the freshest and most surprising show of the fall season.

The pilot opens with a tense confrontation one character describes in the moment as crazy dj vu, a joke that only comes into focus when the scene begins to repeat itself at the end of the episode. The next week, Glover isolated the character he plays, Earn, from the rest of the characters in a jail holding cell for the majority of the action. In another episode, Atlanta cast black actor Austin Crute as Justin Bieber with no explanation. And this past week, the show turned its focus onto its sole recurring female character, finally giving the excellent actress Zazie Beetz the screen time she deserves.

But none of that approaches the big swing Atlanta takes with its seventh episode, which airs tonight on FX. (Warning: spoilers ahead.) Titled B.A.N., this installment, written and directed by Donald Glover, is essentially a show within a show on the fictional Black American Network. The premise finds Alfred Paper Boi Miles (the increasingly intriguing Brian Tyree Henry) as one of two guests on Montague, which looks and sounds much like Tavis Smileys PBS talk show.

We quickly learn that Paper Boi is there for damage control after he sent some tweets about not wanting to fuck Caitlyn Jenner. Confronted about his transphobia by both the host and his other guest, Center for Trans-American Issues head Dr. Deborah Holt, Paper Boi replies, I just dont have to have sex with Caitlyn Jenner because you say so. He doesnt dislike transgender people, he says. In fact, he just found out they exist.

Watching the episode, we keep waiting for the talk show construct to break and the real show to resume, but it never does. The only reference to Donald Glovers lead character is when Paper Boi looks off-screen and calls his name to complain about not getting paid for the appearance. Keith Stanfields Darius, a consistent presence on the show up until now, is nowhere to be seen.

And any viewers who DVR Atlanta will want to be careful about fast-forwarding through the commercials. Thats because the episode includes a number of dead-on parody ads for real brands, including a series of spots for the Dodge Charger that play throughout the show and dont pay off until near the end. Other ads for Arizona Iced Tea (The price is on the can, though) and pre-dump Swisher Sweets play on some of the same racial stereotypes that the show has been tackling from the beginning. An extended animated commercial for Coconut Crunch-os takes direct aim at the issue of police brutality in a way the show has so far avoided.

But the episode truly enters uncharted territory during the second segment of the talk show, when the host presents a special report titled TRANS-RACIAL. The deadpan field piece follows Harrison, a black teenager who believes himself to be a 35-year-old white man. Using the language of the transgender movement, Harrison birth name Antoine Smalls has embraced a transracial identity and can be seen in B-roll footage playing golf and perusing a farmers market.

Asked by the correspondent when he first knew he was white, Harrison responds, Well, Ive always felt different. I go to the store or the movies and just be thinking to myself, why do I not get the respect I deserve? And then, it just hit me: Im white. And 35. As for the people who dont get it, Harrison says, they just dont understand that race is a made-up thing. He also talks about his plans to get an experimental surgery to complete his transition.

The piece is not just laugh-out-loud funny, but also brings up some of the same questions about race and gender that were raised most recently during the uproar over Rachel Dolezal.

Dolezal, a chapter president of the NAACP in Spokane, Washington, had been passing herself off as an African-American woman when her white parents essentially outed her for misrepresenting her race. Like the Harrison character on Atlanta, Dolezal told interviewers that she identifies as black. 

As The Daily Beasts Samantha Allen wrote at the time, By expressing her racial identity in this now-familiar I identify as format, Dolezal is drawing a direct parallel between her own fraudulent behavior and transgender identity in a post-Jenner moment when the public was beginning to accept the latters psychological legitimacy.

But just as some conservatives used the Dolezal story to discredit the legitimacy of transgender people, many on the left used the transgender example as a way to help understand and accept Dolezal at her word.

By simultaneously parodying and giving voice to this idea of trans-racial identity, Glover seems to be representing both sides of the argument. On the one hand, Harrison argues that his parents generation grew up with labels that he just doesnt see. On the other, when Harrison appears via satellite later in the episode wearing a blond wig, Paper Boi laughs in his face, saying, This is dumb and You look like a fake Ellen DeGeneres. The punchline comes when Harrison admits that despite the discrimination he has faced, hes against transgender rights and same-sex marriage.

Perhaps the truest expression of what Glover and the shows writers believe comes through when Paper Boi admits that hes afraid to speak about issues like these. You cant say real shit anymore without somebody making sure you never make money forever, he says, adding, Its hard for me to care about this when nobody cares about me as a black, human man.

I dont have a problem with gay people, trans people, because thats tolerance. But wheres tolerance for people like me? Paper Boi continues. Look, I should be able to say something thats weird without people hating on me. To those who find his lyrics offensive, he has three words: Freedom of speech.

Thankfully, no one can take away Glovers right to keep saying weird things with Atlanta.

Continue reading

Cowboys Open As 5.5-point Favorites Over Giants In 2017 Season Opener – Blogging The Boys (blog)

Blogging The Boys (blog)

Cowboys Open As 5.5-point Favorites Over Giants In 2017 Season Opener
Blogging The Boys (blog)
Sportsbooks usually set the line to make sure that the money being bet is spread 50/50 over both teams (the key to remaining a profitable bookmaker). So while these opening odds reflect the bookmakers' best guess as to where the action would remain

Continue reading
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy | Copyright Notice | Anti Spam Policy | Earnings Disclaimer | Health Disclaimers | Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy