Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[loglorry1] 01/2/2022 17:21

Fair enough, doesn't apply to all that property already held by offshore opaque corps either.

[kaos3] 01/2/2022 17:19

my friends have exact experiences - as I describe them.

I just say ...... and do not claim to be 100 % right. it works as I described.

Banks are the police and are the trigger (or not - they choose who is left alone).

They do not always stop transactions.Transactions are ongoing.

My point is - in each case their obligation is to know who the beneficial owner is.

[williamcooper104] 01/2/2022 17:17

It's both true and false True; in that there are those rules, and most banks are indeed strict about them (often incredibly painfully strict) False; in that with a little bit of creativity and particularly with a bank that's a little more liberal in interoperation you can dance your way round any set of rules

[loglorry1] 01/2/2022 17:13

@kaos3 - I think your statement is false.

Of course if you are a UK resident and a normal guy buying a house the solicitor doing the paperwork will ask for proof of funds. However if you are an offshore corp you just say company cash is the source of funds. It goes on all the time.

[kaos3] 01/2/2022 17:09

yes - bank would want to know who the beneficial owner is, bank will want to see the papers and the source of wealth... you do not provide the data - money will not transfer

if the deal is done "among" the same bank clients - it is possible ....

but to step out into the market... is difficult to hide

[williamcooper104] 01/2/2022 17:08

Yep - but you can buy a property in London in an offshore SPV and you absolutely do not need to disclose UBO Amusingly you now are exposed to higher taxes; which generated much higher tax revenues than the government expected - so effectively we (as in UK tax payer) are now just taking a bigger cut for laundering money

[loglorry1] 01/2/2022 17:06

@kao3 are you saying that a company incorporated in Cyprus with a Cyrpiot bank account can't buy a residential property in Chelski withouth disclosing who all the shareholders of that corp are? Even if they do how could it be checked who the ultimate benificial owner is?

[kaos3] 01/2/2022 17:04

not one bank account today (in the west) is opened without the info of the final beneficial owner. accounts without names (persons) were closed.

[loglorry1] 01/2/2022 16:58

"They go to Y and the register shows Y is administered by Z."

All the offshore duristrictions we are talking about will stop at this step. The whole point of having a corporation in Cyprus (for example) is that the countries law protect the identiy of owners of the corp.

[donald pond] 01/2/2022 16:46

Its not really my area any more loglorry but thats not quite right. If you know that someone is using a posh flat in chelsea you can find out who owns it.
Almost all countries now require the companies incorporated within the jurisdiction to be administered by a regulated entity. That entity does not want trouble, so the chain of events is Burford finds out Company X owns the flat which they believe the oligarch is using. They see X is incorporated in Y. They go to Y and the register shows Y is administered by Z. They bring an ex party application against Z to disclose the ownership of X. Z wants a quiet life and will do whatever the court says. People do not want fraudsters as clients, it is too much hassle.

Even if they don't get that info, they can apply to UK court and say that they have a judgment against Mr B, who is using a house in Mayfair as if it is his own, and the court will order disclosure.

There is much less secrecy around than there was 10 or 20 years ago.

[loglorry1] 01/2/2022 11:49

If I'm an oligarch and I stick some cash in a Cypriot registered corp that corp can buy my posh flat in Chelski and give me the keys. Any attempt to trace the true ownership stops at the Cypriot corp (or similar offshore corp).

I don't see how BUR or anyone else could sieze that sort of asset.

Obviously it is different in the case of Argintina as a soverign state.

[loglorry1] 01/2/2022 08:37

Nice steady rise in the US yeaterday. Although the US market looks fragile generally.

[williamcooper104] 31/1/2022 11:12

Delaware so is But Russians love London/Chelski

[donald pond] 31/1/2022 08:59

Extraordinary given that Delaware is the dodgiest jurisdiction in the whole world. But if anyone knows how to find stuff out it's Burford

[williamcooper104] 30/1/2022 23:19

Interestingly the Americans are apparently kicking our gov quite heavily behind closed doors about our failure to do much on company SPV ownership transparency

[loglorry1] 30/1/2022 20:11

Not a chance. This is all well hidden and wrapped in offshore shell corps. If it was that easy to get at these african kleptocrats would have lost their assets already.

[loglorry1] 30/1/2022 20:00

Argie deal with IMF struck. Can kicked further down the road

[extrader] 27/1/2022 11:03

I believe that Private Eye has tried, but there's a lot of resistance (quelle surprise, not !) from the Great and the not-so Good - including our own.

And the relatively limited /publicised tangible fallout from release of the Panama, Paradise, Pandora etc papers suggests a very selective approach to righting wrongs....

AIUI

[williamcooper104] 27/1/2022 09:50

If we ever do get a public record of who owns the off-shore SPVs that own much of our real estate (both commercial and high end resi) then it will be a field day for BURs recovery's from dodgy countries/individuals

[williamcooper104] 27/1/2022 09:47

And even a country as totally screwed as the Congo would pay something - can't see billions - but maybe tens to perhaps hundreds of millions - or some form of restitution which could then be monitised

[time_traveller] 27/1/2022 09:06

This was announced almost a year ago. I remember thinking it was pie in the sky at the time, knowing Cameroon (I would think Congo-Brazza is not much different). Personally I wouldn't waste a dime on it.

[donald pond] 27/1/2022 08:27

But it's a very skewed bet. Get it to arbitration, perhaps pay Clifford Chance £10m to take it there, potentially take up to 30% of the whole claim if you win. But even if arbitration comes to nothing, as long as the plaintiffs win something it will go to pay the legal costs first.And I've never known an arbitration that anyone won 100%.

[williamcooper104] 27/1/2022 08:15

Lot of negative/one way beta recently

[loglorry1] 27/1/2022 08:10

Ouch claims in two of the most lawless countries on earth. Im sure they know what they are doing but collecting there even more difficult than Argentina.