{"id":7030,"date":"2018-08-09T16:08:26","date_gmt":"2018-08-09T16:08:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.jaeger.nl\/?p=7030"},"modified":"2021-02-04T14:18:53","modified_gmt":"2021-02-04T14:18:53","slug":"ubs-tax-evaders-still-subject-to-punishment-under-criminal-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.jaeger.nl\/en\/ubs-tax-evaders-still-subject-to-punishment-under-criminal-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Ubs tax evaders still subject to punishment under criminal law?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

After publicity about the \u2018group request\u2019 of the Netherlands to the Swiss tax authorities, several UBS-account holders opened up about their nondisclosed assets. The question is whether or not they qualify as a \u2018discloser\u2019 and are as such indemnified from punishment under criminal law and higher fines. I believe that the majority disclosed within the stipulated period. Below I will explain why I believe this to be the case, and why this example is even stronger as a specific sign that this UBS\u2019er \u2018would be caught\u2019, was lacking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Preview<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This UBS-saver, let\u2019s call him Youri*, reported to the tax authorities that he had kept some black money on a bank account in Swiss. When doing so he relied on the (lower) fines that apply to a promptly voluntary improvement. He reported after there was national press coverage about the Dutch group request to the Swiss tax authorities on 27 September 2015.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In my opinion, the court considers the disclosure wrongly as \u2018too late\u2019:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Youri doesn\u2019t have an \u2018objective expectation\u2019 of discovery by the Dutch tax authorities since an Swiss letter addressed to him is lacking;<\/li>
  2. until 12 September 2016, it was a realistic expectation that Switzerland did not exchange such information;<\/li>
  3. the court implicitly judges that every tax evader is too late for disclosure.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    * Youri is a fictive name based on the similarity of its sound with the letter U of UBS.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The context<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What is the interest? I wrote about this earlier this year in my blog \u2018What can the tax evader await by 2018?<\/a>\u2018 (in Dutch only)<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The importance of a disclosure in time is not so much the ever diminishing reduction of the fines (currently up to 120%), but the criminal \u2018escape\u2019 it offers. If the notice is filed on time, then no criminal prosecution is possible for intentional wrong tax declarations (i.e. tax fraud) nor for money laundering or forgery of documents, if directly related.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This year the voluntary disclosure regulation has been abolished. You can however still rely on the voluntary disclosure regulation. The abolishment of the voluntary disclosure regulation only applies for:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u2013 revenue from foreign assets, that has been<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u2013 nondisclosed in declarations that have been made from 1 January 2018 onwards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    A notice is on time if it is filed \u2018before (s)he knows or reasonably should presume<\/em>  that the inspector is aware or will be aware of the inaccuracy or incompleteness\u2019<\/em><\/a> (in Dutch).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The judgement<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The court determines that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n