Day of Reckoning? Super Rich Tax Cheats Outed by Bank Clerk

[David Floyd]

Imran, you don't file the lawsuit in US court, you file it in Liectenstein's jurisdiction. Also, why would he be shielded by US law in a civil action?

Either way, though, with a civil action against the bank, it seems ironic that the people who are affected by this guy will probably recoup a lot of their losses anyway

[Zkribbler]

Juries are human. They want to do what's "right."

I remember a case in my courtroom years ago. Some bozo was shooting at passing busses. The police pursued him, shooting him three times. Once he was down and disarmed, they shot him three more time, paralyzing him. He sued over the last three shots.

Jury verdict for the cops.

[David Floyd]

Hopefully, they'll see that what the bank clerk did was wrong, and rule against him in any civil action.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Juries are human. They want to do what's "right."

I remember a case in my courtroom years ago. Some bozo was shooting at passing busses. The police pursued him, shooting him three times. Once he was down and disarmed, they shot him three more time, paralyzing him. He sued over the last three shots.

Jury verdict for the cops.

Ehrm, that wasn't just "right", that was actually according to the law.

[Zkribbler]

No. Once a bad guy is down and disarmed, the cops are supposed to stop shooting.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Imran, you don't file the lawsuit in US court, you file it in Liectenstein's jurisdiction. Also, why would he be shielded by US law in a civil action?

Well, I don't know exactly what US law says, but they may have protections for whistleblowers against civil suits related to their whistleblowing. If these exist (even if they don't), what'd happen is a suit in Liechtenstein, the guy wouldn't show, it'd be a declaratory judgment, Liechtenstein would present it to a US court for enforcement, and the US court would refuse to enforce it because it goes against US public policy.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
No. Once a bad guy is down and disarmed, the cops are supposed to stop shooting.

Sorryyyyy - got the verdict wrong. I quite agree in this.

Dammit - too much red wine.

Edit: btw - my previous posting about juries fairness should be read with a bit of irony

[David Floyd]

I think the "whistleblower" title is not quite correct, becuase we are dealing with two different jurisdictions with two different legal systems.

In our system hiding money overseas is a crime, and if the informant came from a corporation in the US, fine. But what the people who were outed did was legal - in Liechtenstein. What the "whistleblower" did was illegal in BOTH countries - ie, releasing confidential bank records. Now, if the whistleblower was an American, and he released bank records of a drug lord, he might not be criminally liable but I bet he would (and, IMO, SHOULD) be liable in civil court.

My point is that you shouldn't get whistleblower protection for violating the law, even if what you are blowing the whistle on is another violation of the law.

Actually I don't know how much sense that made, there's just something about basically calling this guy who sold private bank records a hero that rubs me the wrong way.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I think the "whistleblower" title is not quite correct, becuase we are dealing with two different jurisdictions with two different legal systems.

In our system hiding money overseas is a crime, and if the informant came from a corporation in the US, fine. But what the people who were outed did was legal - in Liechtenstein. What the "whistleblower" did was illegal in BOTH countries - ie, releasing confidential bank records. Now, if the whistleblower was an American, and he released bank records of a drug lord, he might not be criminally liable but I bet he would (and, IMO, SHOULD) be liable in civil court.

My point is that you shouldn't get whistleblower protection for violating the law, even if what you are blowing the whistle on is another violation of the law.

Actually I don't know how much sense that made, there's just something about basically calling this guy who sold private bank records a hero that rubs me the wrong way.

But you may indeed get whistleblower protection for outing tax fraud. I'd imagine in the US you would, considering how much power the IRS has. If he's ok under the US law, regardless of Liechtenstein law, he'd protected under the US, because US courts would refuse to enforce the judgment against him (which is, btw, perfectly alright if its against that jurisdiction's public policy and happens all the time).

[DinoDoc]

What I'm more concerned about is how this guy intends on ever working in the financial services industry ever again?

[David Floyd]

Imran, I see what you're saying, it just doesn't strike me as a particularly good precedent to encourage people to report criminal activity by committing crimes.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What I'm more concerned about is how this guy intends on ever working in the financial services industry ever again?

I didn't know you cared so much about him. Is he family?

[DinoDoc]

No. I just don't want him having access to my account data.

[David Floyd]

And that's sorta my point. This guy strikes me as a "moral crusader"/"true believer" - just because he sold the data to the US government this time doesn't mean he wouldn't sell data to someone worse if it seemed like "the right thing to do".

[GePap]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Imran, I see what you're saying, it just doesn't strike me as a particularly good precedent to encourage people to report criminal activity by committing crimes.

his crime is minimal compared to theirs.