A key component of the Mapping the Faultlines project has been building the database of the services and facilities (or lack of them) that secrecy jurisdictions provide. The output of this database can be found here.
This database is the result of over a year of desk-based research. Generally, it seeks to display information available on the secrecy jurisdictions surveyed as at 31.12.2008, although there are some exceptions. Firstly, the results of a survey we undertook in January/February 2009 have been included. Secondly, in the wake of the G20 push against secrecy jurisdictions many new Tax Information Exchange Agreements have been signed and we have included all treaties signed as at 30 June 2009.
The database covers information on the legal, administrative, regulatory, and tax structures of the secrecy jurisdictions. It is fed by data from multiple sources, such as the OECD Tax Co-Operation Reports, the US-State Department’s publication Narcotics Control (US-INCSR), Anti-money laundering assessments by the Financial Action task Force and others, and from the IMF’s financial sector assessment program and offshore financial centre-assessment program. Since each of these have differing objectives combining them has been a significant and new undertaking.
When these sources did not provide the information sought private sector websites were consulted, as well as local regulator‘s websites and the secrecy jurisdiction’s own legal texts.
This data was complemented by a survey carried out in January-February 2009. In under taking this survey, we sent a questionnaire to both the financial services regulator and the financial intelligence unit (anti-money laundering authority) in each jurisdiction.
A constant concern during this research process was to provide transparency in how we reached our results and conclusions. We have therefore meticulously documented our sources for each piece of information contained in the database. This comprises, where appropriate, web-links and page numbers in the case of larger publications.
The resulting database output is provided here in a number of ways. First of all we provide a report on each jurisdiction, all in a similar format. Such is the volume of data we have researched these tend to run to more than 20 pages if printed, combining into a massive text. We suggest this will now be one of the first ports of call for anyone seeking to research one of these jurisdictions.
Secondly, and in another section of this site, we have pulled out some of the data which we think should be highlighted to emphasise key issues of concern to us, and others, with regard to the role of these jurisdictions.
We are open to requests for data from genuine researchers. We are willing to correct mistakes in the data if referenced sources contradicting the information we have can be supplied. And we are open to requests for new summary reports. This dataset is an ongoing commitment and we are keen that it be as accurate as possible.
