My Interview with French Newpaper, Le Parisien:
Montfort Tadier est l’un des 29 députés de Jersey. Elu en 2008, réélu en 2011, il se situe à gauche. Alors que les autorités rejettent farouchement l’appellation de « paradis fiscal », il dénonce les dérives de la finance sur l’île et l’opacité des trusts.
L’île de Jersey est-elle, oui ou non, un paradis fiscal?
MONTFORT TADIER. Bien sûr que oui! Affirmer que Jersey n’est pas un paradis fiscal mais un « centre international à fiscalité basse » relève seulement de la sémantique. La vérité, c’est que la plupart des autres pays nous considèrent comme un paradis fiscal. Et qu’un grand nombre de leurs ressortissants dissimulent leurs avoirs chez nous.
Est-ce parce qu’elle s’est spécialisée dans les trusts que Jersey attire les candidats à l’évasion fiscale?
Oui. Il convient de préciser qu’en soi un trust est un instrument tout à fait légal. Mais il existe à côté tout un système de trusts fictifs, les « sham trusts ». Ces derniers n’ont qu’une seule raison d’être : permettre aux résidents étrangers qui les mettent en place de disparaître aux yeux de leur fisc d’origine. Au sein de l’aéroport St Peter, un salon privé permet même aux voyageurs les plus pressés de constituer un trust sans mettre un pied à Saint-Hélier… Résultat : Jersey existe aujourd’hui avant tout pour permettre à des gens qui n’habitent pas ici d’échapper aux impôts qu’ils devraient acquitter dans leur propre pays.
Qui sont les victimes de ce système?
Les Etats dont les caisses sont vides et tous les citoyens qui paient honnêtement leurs impôts. Certes, nous avons renforcé nos procédures de contrôle. En dépit de cela, les dispositifs et montages fiscaux que nous proposons ici pèsent sur vos budgets. Nos pratiques privent le fisc français de millions d’euros.
Les évadés fiscaux français sont-ils nombreux?
Des dizaines de Français se sont établis dans l’île et y habitent à l’année(NDLR : exilés fiscaux). Je n’ai pas de chiffres précis sur les évadés fiscaux. Mais puisque des citoyens du monde entier viennent à Jersey utiliser les trusts pour échapper au fisc, pourquoi n’y aurait-il pas de Français? D’ailleurs, si deux grandes banques françaises, la Société générale et BNP Paribas, sont présentes sur place, il y a sûrement une raison…
Quelles sont les conséquences pour les habitants?
Jersey a été capturée par la finance, au risque de creuser les inégalités. En 2008, le gouvernement a ainsi mis en place la Goods and Services Tax (GST), une taxe sur la consommation qui s’applique depuis à tous les produits de première nécessité, afin de compenser les pertes occasionnées par la suppression de l’impôt sur les bénéfices pour les entreprises étrangères domiciliées à Jersey.
Mais Jersey pourrait-elle survivre au départ de la finance?
Bien sûr, et de toute façon, la finance partira tôt ou tard. Il faut préparer l’avenir dès maintenant. Pour cela, nous avons besoin d’investissements. Nous devons diversifier nos activités et développer encore davantage le tourisme.
Reproduced courtesy of Le Parisien
Am I reading this right?
ReplyDeleteYou are claiming we help French Tax Exiles with Trusts?
Er....and a translation please?
ReplyDeleteTranslation? There are plenty of good courses in the French language at Highlands College. At least that was the answer of Sir Philip Baihache when a certain impudent Deputy from St Helier admitted he did not understand the language and requested the old laws be translated from French into English. Well said Sir Philip. Those Englishmen don't like it up em!
ReplyDeleteWhy do you hate Jersey so much?
ReplyDeleteYou are factually wrong on so many points:
Why should people not have the right to invest there money overseas? If I live in France and want to invest in stocks based in the US I want to ensure I don't end up paying tax in the US and in France so I can have a company/trust in Jersey that owns the stocks I invest in. I don't pay any tax on those investments but when I bring that money back to France I will pay tax at that point but have avoided paying tax twice. This is sensible investing.
Clearly something you know nothing about as you have no experience.
Your statement that Tourism can replace the jobs and government revenue from finance is laughably. Again you show how little knowledge of finacne you have.
I am sorry that your left wing jealousy clouds any sensible judgement.
Perhaps if France didn't try to tax wealth creators away, many of whom have moved to London (by your definition must also be a tax haven?), using the same backward leftwing jealousy you follow they wouldn't be being called the sick man of Europe and might not be so in debt?
"If I live in France and want to invest in stocks based in the US I want to ensure I don't end up paying tax in the US and in France"
DeleteThis encapsulates selfishness. Those investments generate wealth inside the US and you take them away using sham trusts and with accounting chicanery deny the American economy the benefits of that wealth circulating around their economic area thus impoverishing them.
Obviously that is not quite as serious as using the same tricks to impoverish a third world developing nation, but the principle is the same.
As far as double taxation goes, you should lobby the French government to not do that, after all you are bringing capital into their economy
So you are taking your evidence of Sham Trusts and Tax Evasion straight to the Anti-Money Laundering department of the JFSC?
ReplyDeleteJust in order to silence the people who are already saying you are making this all up and know nothing about the Finance Industry.
Sham Trusts do operate in Jersey on a perfectly legal basis and I will be giving an example of how such a mechanism works in due course. NB - This is not an example of tax evasion - so no grounds to refer to JFSC - rather is aggressive tax avoidance pure and simple
ReplyDeletehttp://www.taxprophet.com/archives/pubs/sham_Trust_Analysis.htm
ReplyDeleteDeputy,
ReplyDeleteYou have been savaged in the Pravda for going outside the island. Thank goodness you did not go outside in the street, which would indeed be a criminal offence.
I did not realise that a command of the French language was one of Senator Ozouf’s many accomplishments. Perhaps a journalist provided a translation. Thank god for Google translate!
A friend from Paris wrote to me having read the article in Le Parisien:
“I was surprise to see a 2 pages! article in the paper, Le Parisien last Monday about the Islands, with a nice interview of Montfort.
It is the first time that I saw a such financial subject in a so popular paper, explaining the all things from yours points of view.
"ENQUETE Jersey la tirelire des fraudeurs du fisc"
pages 12 et 13.”
He is right. Le Parisien would not normally cover such a subject. However, there has been the Cahuzac scandal. The former Budget Minister Jerome Cahuzac is charged with tax fraud over a secret Swiss bank account where he admitted he had hidden about 600,000 euros.
Le Parisien is a mid market newspaper equivalent to the Daily Mail, with the largest circulation in France. It is highly significant that the French popular press has woken up to tax havens.
Expect to see more French journalists coming to Jersey. The rail connection from Paris is so convenient. Deputy you are single handedly boosting tourism. You deserve a medal.
On the subject of medals, the Independent Bankers Republic of Jersey will have to have its own set of orders and medals, the highest being the Grand Order of St Philip. Put that on the agenda for the next meeting of the secessionists.
Apart from messages of support, for being 'brave' enough to speak up, I have had a couple of calls and messages saying that 'sham trusts' do not exist in Jersey, and if they do, then I should go to the JFSC. There are two points here. Sham trusts DO operate here - They are in the majority (most Trusts have a legitimate function) - and there is nothing illegal about them. They are simply a form of aggressive tax avoidance.
ReplyDeleteSo what is a sham trust? It is essentially a trust whereby a settlor of a trust is able to retain control over the trust and its property/assets if desired. A settlor is supposed to give the assets away into a trust. That's the whole point. If they can still retain control over it, then that's a sham trust.
Does that not rather depend upon whether the settlor is a beneficiary?
DeleteAn income beneficiary of a life interest settlement is caught under the scope of EUSD anyway
My boy you are foutu. They will hang you high and find a way to send you to la Moye where that uncontrollable boy Syvret went! Yes I agree with you, Jersey is a paradis fiscal. Why would the banks have branches in Dubai, Hong Kong... if not for placing their clients funds. Well done you have gone up in my esteem.
ReplyDeleteYou would be far more effective if you were to research and properly target your attack against the few remaining Jersey Trust Companies that are actively encouraging such activity. For example a simple review of the Jersey court listings at www.jerseylaw.je/judgements/unreportedjudgements you will see that there is only one Company, albeit they appear to keep changing their name, still engaged in such activity and each time caught out they are being made to close down that trust. We are sure there must be others but a bit of research and whistleblowing should soon expose these.
ReplyDeleteYou would be far more effective if you were to research and properly target your attack against the few remaining Jersey Trust Companies that are actively encouraging such activity. For example a simple review of the Jersey court listings at www.jerseylaw.je/judgements/unreportedjudgements you will see that there is only one Company, albeit they appear to keep changing their name, still engaged in such activity and each time caught out they are being made to close down that trust. We are sure there must be others but a bit of publicity and whistleblowing should soon expose these.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, you have missed the point. Tadier was not referring to Trust Companies engaging in illegal activities. Sham trusts are effectively legal in Jersey (S. 9(a) of the Trusts [Jersey] Law 2007) so why would a company that deals with sham trusts be in court?
DeleteWatched your interview with Ozouf. He talked for about 70% of the time to your thirty and then kept interrupting you. But you are absolutely right about tax evasion and trusts. I know somebody who owns a trust company and I have it first hand that Russians and others are using trusts for tax evasion.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Jersey might be cleaning up its act now but that is the result of external pressure - left to its own devices it would have carried on business as usual, no questions asked.
A relative of mine worked for one of the large UK banks and when FATCA was signed they closed down a whole department. They also had to go through all their business and get rid of people who were now seen a dodgy.
Tadier wins with a TKO of Ozouf, he just kept repeating the same guff, no substance at all to what he said. All credit to the guy though he does sound very much like a professional politician.
ReplyDeletePersonally I prefer politicians with better morals and honesty, such as yourself Monty. Bravo!!
A Parisian Journalist wrote:
ReplyDelete"...j'ai lu l'article que vous m'avez envoyé et je suis allé voir sur le site de Montfort. Effectivement, le dossier Jersey semble provoquer des remous sur l'île… Une autre preuve, s'il en fallait, de l'omerta terrible et du climat si particlulier qui règne à Jersey. Heureusement, je vois que Montfort reste ferme et qu'il se défend bien."
Translation? The fuss proves the point that they are over sensitive about the issue of Finance.
As I believed, you do not know what a Sham Trust is - you should find out before going public with such nonsense. Interesting that you did not publish my comments of yesterday - perhaps you didn't want the truth to appear ... oh well, you probably won't publish this one either
ReplyDeletePhilip Ozouf claimed that these sham trusts don't exist in Jersey. Yet, here is an article written by a lawyer, on the official website of the Jersey Legal Information Board, which describes these trusts: http://www.jerseylaw.je/Publications/jerseylawreview/feb10/JLR1002_Noseda.aspx
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jerseylaw.je/Judgments/UnreportedJudgments/Documents/Display.aspx?url=2013/13-04-17_Seggins-v-Apex_Trust_Company_Limited_077.htm&JudgementNo=[2013]JRC077
DeleteMontfort,
ReplyDeleteI just had a look at Ozouf's 'reply' to your interview in Le Parisien. I recommend your readers, particularly those from outside Jersey, to read it: this is the reaction of the Jersey Finance Minister to an interview with Montford in a mainstream French newspaper. It opens:
"Deputy Montfort Tadier this week gave an interview to a leading French Newspaper, Le Parisen effectively denouncing Jersey and its Finance Industry."
He goes on:
"It is a matter of great regret that Deputy Tadier has chosen to express these views.
Political debate is healthy and in a democracy we are all entitled to have and respect different views. However, Deputy Tadier’s remarks if accurately quoted cross the line of what is appropriate behaviour for a politician elected to serve the people of Jersey."
For Ozouf the room for legitimate debate and difference of opinion seems to be rather small. Members of the Opposition must 'behave appropriately' by refraining from 'denouncing Jersey and its Finance Industry.' Later in the same article Ozouf attacks the local TV Station, CTV, never noted previously for being critical of the Government, for the way a televised debate was handled. Ozouf writes:
"Yesterday, I was asked to do an interview with ITV Channel Islands, which I agreed to do a head to head with Deputy Tadier. I was placed in an extremely difficult position of having to attempt to counter Montfort Tadier’s comments without any intervention with from the journalist. I will be taking this up with CTV as I would expect a professional interviewer to have intervened and actually challenged both sides." Yes, Dear Reader, Minister Ozouf had to defend his opinions in a TV interview with a Member of the Opposition 'without any intervention with from [sic] the journalist.'
Like other Banana Republics, the behaviour of members of the Jersey Government, such as Ozouf, appears buffoon-like when viewed from the outside world, but when a Govenment Minister feels confident (or deluded) enough to try to publicly intimidate an opposition politician and when even the local TV station is attacked for not 'intervening' when the Minister is losing an argument, there is one description which fits: Political Gangsterism.
Montfort, keep you chin up. And let's give Ozouf's latest intervention the wide publicity that it needs.
I see Ozouf is all over you like a rash. Surprisingly he's even decided everybody who reads his blog should have the translation, which is odd, as he appears to want to reach a wider audience whilst criticising yourself for doing exactly the same.
ReplyDeleteHe even states:-
"Yesterday, I was asked to do an interview with ITV Channel Islands, which I agreed to do a head to head with Deputy Tadier. I was placed in an extremely difficult position of having to attempt to counter Montfort Tadier’s comments without any intervention with from the journalist. I will be taking this up with CTV as I would expect a professional interviewer to have intervened and actually challenged both sides."
I bet he was livid, when you were able to tell him and everyone listening you had been informed by some whistle blowers who would be willing to confirm, no doubt that is why he is also annoyed with CTV for allowing him to make a fool of himself.
I do hope you let him dig a big hole and then bury him with evidence.
Well done.
Richard Murphy at http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/05/05/jerseys-sham-trusts-what-philip-ozouf-denies-and-montfort-tadier-rightly-said/ points out that under the revision to Jersey Trust law in 2006 any trust can be set up with the settlor taking reserved powers, which are so total in extent, that the trust can END UP as a sham.
ReplyDeleteThis does not mean, as I understand it, that all or most trusts in Jersey are shams. But it does mean that ANY trust in Jersey CAN be set up with these reserved powers in operstion and therefore as a sham.
So Monty is absolutely right, and it is undeniable, that sham trusts DO exist in Jersey - the law explicitly allows them.
But he is probably not right to say that sham trusts are in the majority. Well, maybe they are, maybe they aren't. There is no register of trusts in Jersey, so no way of even beginning to find out!
After the Jimmy Carr 'scandal' broke last year, Senator Ozouf was on record with the remarkable statement that 'morality and politics do not mix.' I say remarkable, because for me morality is one of the underlying guiding forces in my politics - even if certain things are unpopular, it is important that the truth be spoken, and freedom of speech maintained.
ReplyDeleteI refuse to be castigated by a man whose politics and economics are harming local people and the tax-bases of our closest neighbours. A man whose politics are hallmarked by supporting fundamental unfairness in our own tax system, where the most wealthy in our society pay the least proportion of their wealth in taxes and ordinary folk the most.
Likewise, in his preferred option of States Reform, the Senator actively campaigned for the least fair option on the table which would deliberately make the vote of the poorer, urban voters worth much less than that of their rural counterparts.
Senator Ozouf's politics, I'm afraid, are morally bankrupt and harmful to most of us. It is he who is damaging Jersey - and has been for years
FYI -
ReplyDeleteThere has been some naughtiness in accusing me of telling Le Parisen that Jersey was into tax evasion. If we look at the word used in the paper, it was ''évasion fiscale'.
This translates as 'tax avoidance' (literally 'escape'). The term for tax evasion (ie illegal avoidance) is (unsurprisingly) 'évasion fiscale illégale'
http://www.wordreference.com/enfr/tax%20avoidance
If Jersey is keeping its face clean then there are not exactly a lot of prosecutions although the only one I can find so far this year I think proves your point quite nicely although I don’t think this counts as a “Sham” Trust? It’s a UK tax scam for getting out of inheritance tax and other taxes by the English solicitors called Baxendale Walker who I remember from when they appeared on the BBC – Google BBC Baxendale Walker and if this is not the perfect example of Jersey Trust Companies raking it in from running such schemes then I give up. Despite the blatant aggressive tax evasion nothing happened. And if Philip Ozouf and the rest whop think we have a shining halo are reading this was only last week.
ReplyDeleteMonty, now be honest, how many other States Members are in support of this interview you have made?
ReplyDelete"There has been some naughtiness in accusing me of telling Le Parisen that Jersey was into tax evasion. If we look at the word used in the paper, it was ''évasion fiscale' "
ReplyDeleteThere'll be people accusing you of this for years despite the truth being nailed down right at the start. You can correct them all you like but I predict they'll carry on confidently telling others what you never actually did. didn't do
It is not fair that you are attacking our whole industry because I know from people who work there that 95% is above board. So you say you support the workers – which workers? It may have escaped your notice now that you have a nice cushy number in the States that most “workers” directly or indirectly rely on the finance industry. Sorry to sound so critical but if you had done a bit of research and targeted the real cowboys engaged in these activities then you might just start to get a bit more support. You don’t even need to leave your key board.
ReplyDelete95% of what is above board, and what does "above board" mean?
DeleteCan you please tell us how you arrived at this figure of 95%? What were your calculations based on?
In any case, if 5% of financial activities in Jersey were illegal that would still be one heck of a lot of crime!
Montfort.
ReplyDeleteIt is extremely rare that the State Media can be praised for anything over here. That said, credit where credit is due, to whoever the journalist was with ITV/CTV.
He/she allowed yourself and Senator Ozouf to slug it out and that's what we need more of (in my opinion). The debate was flowing nicely and there was no need for the journalist to but in. The electorate want to know what you and Senator Ozouf have to say as you are the guys representing us.
Credit also to ITV/CTV for publishing the full 15 minutes on the net, shame they couldn't have published it all on TV but such are their time constraints, which is understandable.
One wonders if ITV is attempting to distance itself from the disgraceful days of CTV and are looking for credibility? If so it is going the right way about it with that 15 minute video.
For what it's worth I think you pulled Senator Ozouf's (metaphorical) pants down.
Perhaps his French interpreter is the same chap who interprets Jersey's French law into English which leads to cases being won by default!
ReplyDeleteYou have opened up the discussion about the Trust business in Jersey.
ReplyDeleteWhy should Ozouf, John Harris JFSC, G. Cook,Jf and all those highly paid Quango establishment people be worried ? if Jersey is so cosy with the French, USA, UK, and all countries and associations Jersey being transparent, open and signed up.
Jersey is not a tax or trust haven nicking other countries tax money. No problem then ?
The figures will prove this, won't they Senator Ozouf ? or will you again put up GST to cover the short fall ?
@CliveTomes, " Interesting that you did not publish my comments of yesterday"
ReplyDeleteSenator Ozouf is suppressing unwanted comments on his blog. He removed one of mine from yesterday. A couple of days before on Twitter, Senator Ozouf retweeted this:
"Eliminate Prejudice ?@elimin8prejudic 4 May "No society can flourish unless members of that society are endowed with the opportunities and privileges of freedom."
As soon as one Jersey States member exercises his right to freedom of speech, Ozouf and others traduce him for disloyalty.
And yet, what Deputy Tadier said is not at all controversial. In fact, it is already the predominant view of most French citizens who know anything about Jersey.
Jersey would like to present a squeaky clean image to the world but everybody knows that for exactly what it is: just an image.
In fact, Jersey's finance industry was built on the back of tax avoidance and tax evasion. It has been awash in dodgy money for years, a lot of it robbed from developing countries by dictators and other political elites. The evidence is ample, including court cases conducted in Jersey itself (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=jersey+court+nigerian+dictator+money)
The fact that it has recently had to change as the result of external pressures does not alter one dot its fundamental nature. It would be a good thing if it managed to morph into a totally ethical finance industry and still provide the number of jobs to locals, but that is unlikely since the reason most of that money is in Jersey is precisely because it is a secrecy jurisdiction. Remove that secrecy and the money will have to move too.
Lives for ordinary people in Jersey have become more expensive and difficult as a result of the finance industry. Deputy Tadier is correct - and is saying nothing revolutionary - when he says that the finance industry has to reduce its size. See this article from the Economist 2012:
"One boss of a global trust company that has an office in Jersey thinks this has driven some money to places like Luxembourg. “They want to prove they are whiter than white, which is killing a lot of the business,” he says."
http://www.economist.com/node/21554531
That is from the horse's mouth. Why should Deputy Tadier be castigated for merely repeating what everyone else already knows: everyone who is not in denial or suffering cognitive dissonance that is.
Many of you are missing the point, I think.
ReplyDeleteJersey's finance industry is very varied and will need to remain so to survive. The private trust business of the kind Montfort described is in its death throes if it is tax, rather than asset protection, driven - the JFSC is making life harder for the smaller trust companies that perpetuate it; the international direction of travel is towards the sharing of information to wipe out egregious tax evasion (FATCA/TIEAs etc;) and aggressive avoidance is under the microscope like never before. Those initiatives are all fine in my opinion and, frankly, do not require any assistance from local politicians.
But there are lots of areas, particularly investment funds, where we can flourish in the longer term. Unfortunately even in such a legitimate and morally sustainable area we are under threat from competitors who will just LOVE to throw back at us the sort of "one tenth of the story" TJN spin you (Montfort) appear to be peddling. It can so easily be used by mischievous/unjust detractors to paint the wider industry in all its forms in a bad light.
Anyday now EU regulators will be voting on whether or not to allow (entirely legitimate, well regulated)Jersey investment funds to be sold into the EU. How do you think your French article has helpfully moved forward that debate and helped our Island's main industry transition to a different, more sustainable future? To be fair to you, you probably didn't even know (unlike the likes of Ozouf and Cook) that such a vote was imminent - but that's precisely why you should think about the broader consequences of your actions and get a better, broader grounding before you you speak/write to the media.
In other words, your public castigation of the historic, dying work types, really could damage our ability to compete for the entirely legitimate future business which can allow the finance industry to thrive in future. This is why Ozouf, Cook, JFL and others jealously guard the Island's global reputation and spend hours and hours and, yes, thousands of pounds of tax payers money educating people as to our future direction of travel. The more you cause damage from within, the more they will need to spend, so please don't second-guess spending on the JFL budget - that would be deeply ironic. Call it spin if you must, but surely their activity is entirely justified if you care about the thousands of people who work in the Island's finance industry, those who rely on them (the majority of Jersey folk) and our local tax-take (and our ability to support those most in need) generally.
Failure to understand these nuances and repeat narrow TJN spin is pretty unforgiveable for a paid local politician unless you have a fully-costed vision for a Jersey economy sans finance which avoids a very hard landing for us all. If you do, please share it.
Please listen to and try to understand this multi-faceted industry before you destroy it (with noisy but ill-informed and ill-timed publicity) before it has time to transition fully.
@Anonymous, "Failure to understand these nuances and repeat narrow TJN spin is pretty unforgiveable for a paid local politician unless you have a fully-costed vision for a Jersey economy sans finance which avoids a very hard landing for us all. If you do, please share it."
ReplyDeleteThat is the very point - nobody can possibly know what the finance industry in Jersey really does because it is a secrecy jurisdiction.
While accepting that the industry may be varied, it is impossible to deny that historically its reason for existing was tax avoidance or evasion.
Jersey is not alone in that and in one sense, it is up to the countries whose taxes are being deprived to write laws in their countries to stop it happening. That process has been taking place over the last 10-15 years, accelerated by the financial crisis.
You talk about the 'narrow spin' of the TJN but I don't see any cogent replies to their evidence-based arguments. All we get is a lot of bluster from the likes of Senator Ozouf.
The argument he makes that 'reserved power trusts' are not illegal is spurious: they are only not illegal in Jersey, because Jersey passed a law allowing them. Jersey could legalise heroin but that wouldn't make it legal in the rest of the UK.
If the finance industry wasn't secretive it could provide a detailed breakdown of its activities like any other industry does. Truth is, the politicians in Jersey don't even know who half the clients are or where their money came from.
So I think that the ball is in your court to prove that the finance industry is not doing the things it is accused of. It is very hard for your critics to prove something that is hidden behind a veil of secrecy.
1. Someone wanting a tax shelter wouldn't use a reserve power trust - the result could be control of the trust moving from the offshore trustees to the (presumably) onshore settlor. Bad move for tax planning. Reserve power trusts would be better used for (legitimate and non-tax related) asset protection and family succession planning, ensuring the elder family benefactor can maintain an appropriate level of control over trust assets devolving on family members. No?
ReplyDelete2. Quite apart from legitimate asset protection structures, tax neutral structures (investment funds, joint venture vehicles, investment holding vehicles) are what Jersey now does, and can continue to, specialise in. Entities which avoid punative double or triple taxation of international/cross border transactions which might otherwise never happen - all in a well-regulated environment. All of which stimulates the global economy and creates investment opportunities for pension funds. Geoff Cook's blogs contain ample evidence of the virtues of thse local finance industry products. Do you ever see the likes of TJN/Tadier and co giving equal publicity and weight to Jersey's postivie track record in those structures? No - an entirely one-sided, negative picture is painted.