
Are the Russians Actually Behind the Panama Papers? - randomname2
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2016/04/07-panama-papers-putin-gaddy
======
okasaki
Is Clifford Gaddy sponsored by the CIA to discredit Russia?

from [http://www.brookings.edu/research/books/2014/mr-putin-2nd-
ed...](http://www.brookings.edu/research/books/2014/mr-putin-2nd-edition)

> For anyone wishing to understand Russia’s evolution since the breakup of the
> Soviet Union and its trajectory since then, the book you hold in your hand
> is an essential guide. —John McLaughlin, former deputy director of U.S.
> Central Intelligence

Certainly more proof and more intuitively plausible than any theory presented
in his article.

~~~
blowski
Yep. Another article supporting Betteridge's rule.

------
lolc
Pretty entertaining conspiracy theories in there. No single shred of evidence
is provided beyond "I think it would make sense for the Russians to do this".
This guy seems to be much preoccupied with Russia. Oh wait he's written books
about the country.

Even if he had proof he wouldn't have a point. There seems to be no end to the
parade of people saying how "our" interests are harmed by these publications.
If your org is corrupt, I want it to be destabilized. I want you to fear
personal exposure.

------
havetocharge
The author is focused on making a case that the Russians are behind the Panama
Papers and have an ulterior motive. Not once he mentions that the behaviours
the papers expose are criminal or otherwise negative. Even while discussing
wrongdoing by Western parties, the Russians are implied to be more villainous.

~~~
ci5er
> Not once he mentions that the behaviors the papers expose are criminal

Are they criminal _? Having an offshore company generally isn’t illegal. There
may be questions about how some political figures ' (for example) funds were
obtained in the first place, but the mere existence of funds in some tax-
advantaged vehicles is no evidence of a crime.

_gosh, one would think that some of the funds might be ill-gotten proceeds
from criminal enterprises, but if the use of off-shore entities are prima
facie evidence of criminal intent, then I'm in trouble.

~~~
havetocharge
There is an 'or' in there. Anyway, I'm not a lawyer or a judge, and the
assertion that there is a crime is not related to the point was trying to
make.

~~~
ci5er
> There is an 'or' in there.

Fair enough. There was.

> Anyway, I'm not a lawyer

Are you sure? Your very first sentence sounded very lawyer-like! :-)

------
contemporary2u
who released this info and for what reasons exactly will always be the
question that i think will never be answered, but lets not forget that
information itself seems to be legit. Iceland's PM resignation confirms that,
at least partially.

Everyone knows that Russia is corrupt up to the top. How? Pretty much every
top politician (and their families) in russia own far more than can be
purchased on a state salary. Spokes person for Kremlin is spotted wearing
700,000 Euro watch when his official salary is less than 1/10 of that.

A lot of Russian government officials and their inner circles own multi-
million dollar properties in: London, Spain, New York, Boston etc. Their
families live in the west, their kids go to schools in usa and europe...

Panama papers disclose how these multi million bribes and shady dealings are
accepted and how money is transferred and used to buy up assets overseas. Good
old days of a bribe in a suitcase are gone... Its hard to fit $300mil of cash
in a suitcase (well Italians would argue lol).

IT IS very suspicious that no high profile Americans were caught in this
release... It is possible that USA players simply use different entities to
set up shell corps and transfer money using different channels.

~~~
cm2187
Agree, I'd be inclined to think it is either a hacker, or an insider, or a US
agency.

Putin was at the top of the revelations, even if the news was unsurprising
(but like the Snowden documents, it's not because we all suspected it that the
proof is any less valuable).

If the guy who did it is not US authorities, I would not not sleep well if I
was him. The police in London regularly picks up the hung or poisoned bodies
of those who dared to attack or expose Putin...

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Top 10 countries that offer financial secrecy, according to the BBC.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35998801](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35998801)

Switzerland

Hong Kong

USA

Singapore

The Cayman Islands

Luxembourg

Lebanon

Germany

Bahrain

United Arab Emirates

Panama seems to be down at the low-rent end of the financial secrecy market.

So no - the OP is not only not plausible, but raises more questions than it
answers.

Practically, I'd expect a Russian hack to specifically target the tax affairs
of Putin's enemies.

This may yet happen now, with Russian and/or Chinese hackers targeting the tax
secrets of prominent Western politicians - which would be an interesting
development for everyone.

~~~
cm2187
If that happens, I'd expect that in France or Italy the heads would roll by
dozens.

Personally I am a libertarian. I am concerned by the death of privacy and the
increasing overreach of governments. I don't really see this drive toward
transparency and bullying of countries offering financial secrecy as a good
thing.

I have seen or heard of many people who have gone through WW2 and have hidden
money in Switzerland. Not to hide money from the taxman. But because they have
seen how the governments can easily turn against their citizens and decided
they needed a plan B. This concept of "nowhere to hide" is a bit concerning.

------
madaxe_again
A big part of the author's logic is based on the assumption that this was a
technically complex, state sponsored hack.

This was script-kiddie stuff - it could've been anyone from a teenager in
Wisconsin to a couple of channers in Bangkok and Banjul in it for the lulz.

Anyway, any speculation on the source is just a distraction from the content.

------
grokys
Or to use the same logic, maybe the lack of Americans implicated in the Panama
papers indicates the the US is behind them?

------
irixusr
More speculation that confirms our theory without any evidence. *

The theory is "we're good. Anyone we don't like is bad"

The evidence collection goes "confirms our theory, it's true." Or "
Contradicts it, we either ignore it our dismiss it"

Case in point, the unaoil scandal is much more serious than _anything_ in
these Panama papers, it involves "the good guys" and it's largely forgotten a
week after it release.

* ironically enough RT is (was?) pushing the theory that the CIA is behind it because there are no notable American on the list. So it's a KGB/CIA plot because Putin/Americans come out relatively unscathed

~~~
throwaway5752
RT is propaganda/psyops on a level that doesn't quite have a Western
equivalent. This is not a statement in support of Western journalistic
independence and objectivity, so much as it is how carefully
packaged/constructed RT is.

edit: Hah! Downvotes. I read RT. I read WSJ (even OpEds sometimes, but I don't
enjoy it). I read AJ. I read NYT. I read from many sources and high degree of
skepticism of all of them. But if you read RT regularly, I doubt you're the
one downvoting.

~~~
irixusr
I up voted you. I read RT, but their juicier bits I always look up to cross
check.[1]

But I don't live in Russia so Putin can't harm me. Therefore, I'm not scared
of them.

However, it is an invaluable source to know what _we 're_ doing. RT wants to
discredit the West, and there is too much truthful material for them to work
with for to have to fudge too much.

[1] although is disagree with you there is no western equivalent. I used to be
a big fan of the WSJ, NYT and The Economist, after Syria and the Snowden
leaks, they have become unreadable. Only The Intercept is left (npr gets a
pass because I have a 40 minute drive to work)

~~~
throwaway5752
I upvoted you, too! That's usually why I read it.

I think as bad as the mainstream US media source you mentioned can be, they're
still not equivalent on the whole. Wish they weren't so actively trying to
close the gap, though...

edit: there are sources as bad, and there are source as prominent, but I don't
think any are in the intersection. Honestly, it's more of hand-waving/gut feel
on my part, though.

------
thedevil
This reads like propaganda and misses what I consider a big question: why did
Putin claim himself as "the main target" when the media wasn't focused on him
and there was no evidence really damning him?

It just raises questions rather than deflecting them. Putin does not seem so
stupid. Why would he do this?

It's like getting pulled over for a speeding ticket and saying "I didn't kill
him, there's no evidence, this is a plot against me".

~~~
sevensor
I'm not sure how any of this comes off as bad for Putin. What's the harm in
letting the world know that his friends get rich? Combined with what we
already know about the effects on life expectancy of being in the opposition,
this sends a pretty strong message. "Gold for my friends, lead for my
enemies." I see the whole thing as a declaration from Putin to Russia,
especially given his protestations. Authoritarian regimes are all about
_internal_ social control. Why do we think this has to be about the West?

~~~
thedevil
"I see the whole thing as a declaration from Putin to Russia"

After thinking about it, I think you're right on this. I'm evaluating it as
bad international PR when it's probably more internal propaganda.

------
goodcanadian
In short, I don't know. An article like this is (almost) pure speculation and
that's all it can be. However, it is one of the more interesting things I've
read about the "Panama papers." Nothing in them is much of a surprise. Don't
get me wrong; I'm generally happy about the release, and I hope any blatant
criminals are caught and prosecuted. That said, we all knew it was happening.

------
danbruc
Not worth reading. Full of prejudices, logically inconsistent, a bit like a
conspiracy theory.

~~~
meric
Government electronic surveillance was once a "conspiracy theory". I'm not
comfortable with it being posed as a dirty word.

~~~
danbruc
Maybe the actual extend and details, but US surveillance in Europe was already
something the European Parliament investigated in the late 90s. And even then
it was no surprise to the people in that area. Snowden added a lot of detail
and made the topic a mainstream topic but hardly did he show that a conspiracy
theory - which it never was - is in fact true.

 _Within Europe, all email, telephone and fax communications are routinely
intercepted by the United States National Security Agency, transferring all
target information from the European mainland via the strategic hub of London
then by Satellite to Fort Meade in Maryland via the crucial hub at Menwith
Hill in the North York Moors of the UK. The system was first uncovered in the
1970 's by a group of researchers in the UK (Campbell, 1981)._

 _Other work on what is now known as Signals intelligence was undertaken by
researchers such as James Bamford, which uncovered a billion dollar world wide
interceptions network, which he nicknamed 'Puzzle Palace'. A recent work by
Nicky Hager, Secret Power, (Hager,1996) provides the most comprehensive
details to date of a project known as ECHELON. Hager interviewed more than 50
people concerned with intelligence to document a global surveillance system
that stretches around the world to form a targeting system on all of the key
Intelsat satellites used to convey most of the world's satellite phone calls,
internet, email, faxes and telexes. These sites are based at Sugar Grove and
Yakima, in the USA, at Waihopai in New Zealand, at Geraldton in Australia,
Hong Kong, and Morwenstow in the UK._

 _The ECHELON system forms part of the UKUSA system but unlike many of the
electronic spy systems developed during the cold war, ECHELON is designed for
primarily non-military targets: governments, organisations and businesses in
virtually every country. The ECHELON system works by indiscriminately
intercepting very large quantities of communications and then siphoning out
what is valuable using artificial intelligence aids like Memex. to find key
words. Five nations share the results with the US as the senior partner under
the UKUSA agreement of 1948, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Australia are
very much acting as subordinate information servicers._

European Parliament, 1998, An appraisal of technologies for political control,
[https://cryptome.org/stoa-atpc.htm](https://cryptome.org/stoa-atpc.htm)

------
noir_lord
As long as the stuff in them is true I'm only slightly interested about the
source.

In fact the ideal arrangement for me as a non-government entity is all the
government entities constantly smearing each other.

It would be nice to get more of the full picture at least.

------
dogma1138
Nothing in these papers also show anything about me so I must be behind it,
you caught me!

------
jug
No way I am believing that. If I'd believe in consoiracies, I'd rather say it
is a US leak... The USA is less involved here than Putin's own government.
Makes no sense. No, it is no excuse that Putin was already suspected, because
these papers are further damaging as solid proof that he is surrounding
himself with corruption. Not just rumors.

------
forgetsusername
If the information is legitimate, who cares who was behind it?

If it was the Russians, why would we look at the leak as "evil" rather than
praising them for doing so? Maybe more Americans should be leaking this sort
of information.

------
lambdadmitry
As a Russian citizen who is following the scandal (and Russian politics), I am
a bit baffled by the article.

First, all of its reasoning will fall apart if we examine its premises.

>there is no evidence of Putin’s direct involvement—not in any company
involved in the leak, much less in criminal activity, theft, tax evasion, or
money laundering. There are documents showing that some of his “friends” have
moved “up to two billion dollars” through these Panama-based shell companies.

This isn't true and the author is either deliberately lying or is simply
misinformed. What we are talking here are $2b moving through the account in
the name of a _professional cellist_ Roldugin. Roldugin is a close friend of
Putin and he already denied on record that he owns any big business besides
his performances. Those $2b came from various shady deals such as:

\- an agreement to buy a bunch of Rosneft stocks which is almost immediately
terminated, with $750k in punitive damages being paid to a Roldugin's company;

\- an agreement to collect an outstanding debt of 4 billion roubles (around
$50m) from Rostelekom (state-owned telecom company), which cost $1 (yeah, one
dollar) to the offshore company;

\- a shell company providing a debt of $6m to Roldugin's offshore and
forgiving it after a few months for $1.

A single deal like this is possible but improbable. Two billion dollars of
such deals are impossible and they scream "corruption" and "bribe", and there
is no single official in Russia that will demand bribes of this order of
magnitude except Putin. Even if it's not him, either he is clueless (and the
article in question doesn't make sense) or he knows about it and is okay with
it (and therefore he is involved).

>But nothing in the Panama Papers reveals anything new about Putin. It is in
fact far less of a story than has been alleged for a long time. For over 10
years, there have been suspicions that Putin has a vast personal fortune,
claimed at first to be $20 billion, then $40, $70, even $100… And now all they
find is “maybe” a couple of billion belonging to a friend?

This passage implies equality of "allegations" and documents detailing
business transactions. I'm not sure if I even need to debunk this, but let's
recast it a bit: "It's widely alleged that 9/11 was organized by the
government because jet fuel can't melt steel beams. Therefore, documents
detailing CIA communication with 9/11 terrorists are nothing new and aren't a
big deal". Does it even make sense?

>A “friend of Putin” is linked to companies that channel a couple of billion
dollars through the offshore companies. Why? To evade Russian taxes? Really?
To conceal ownership? From whom? You don’t need an offshore registration to do
that. To evade sanctions? That’s a credible reason, but it makes sense only if
the companies were registered after mid-2014. Were they?

I like how the author waves away "to conceal ownership" part as if it's a non-
issue. It's a pretty big deal because every dictator wants to a) have a backup
plan and for this, they need a safe and anonymous place to hide their money
away from their country and b) pass the money to their children so they can
spend them somewhere. It's not like you can just load up trucks with $50 bills
in Kremlin. However, in general, Western countries don't exactly support this
and see such funds as a lever, so you need a concealment.

The rest of the article builds upon this premises, which are false. Therefore,
it's all false.

Second, what wonders me is the fact that some Westerners are fascinated by
Putin and his cronies. It shows up in the way the author speaks about "Russian
hacking capabilities" or Putin's implied geopolitical prowess. No, there is
nothing to be fascinated about. Those are people who are managed to waste a
golden rain of oil money down the drain (just look at the photos of a typical
1m+ Russian city Omsk [1]) while destroying and corrupting every civic
institute in the country. It's a typical reactive behavior of a plutocratic
rule that got lucky with oil prices and now tries to stay afloat while having
no regard for a wellbeing of their own citizens. I don't believe statesmen
like this are even remotely worthy of admiration, and yet some do admire them.
This is something beyond my understanding.

[1]: [http://varlamov.ru/1637956.html](http://varlamov.ru/1637956.html)

------
johnchristopher
Now that's funny, this morning radio headlines about the Panama papers were
relaying rumors about how it's America behind the divulgation to embarrass
Russia and others.

------
Grue3
Well, Putin himself claimed that Panama Papers are "western propaganda" so
there's no way for him to spin them as legitimate after that.

~~~
throwaway5752
Propaganda is not known for or particularly concerned with consistency ('we've
always been at war with Eastasia'). I don't know who did this and don't have
an opinion personally, but your conclusion (though logical) isn't particularly
meaningful for attribution.

From what I've observed, the Russian political class is not particularly
concerned with hiding financial corruption.

------
cm2187
This pure, raw speculation.

------
Cypher
meaningless because our reporters are the ones looking at it and will choose
what to publish.

