No privacy protections in Paradise
Millions of records containing personal financial information was stolen. Is the preceding statement about Equifax or the “Paradise Papers”? The answer is both.
The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, formed by journalists from around the world, is not saying how the information of the financial records of a number of legal firms and corporate registries has come into their possession, other than stating it was leaked. It is inconceivable that the information was given voluntarily. More likely, illicit means would have been used to obtain it.
Reporters often operate in a grey area. For instance, it is a common practice for media to use illegally leaked information when it is believed the public has a right to know. In the case of the Paradise Papers, the consortium bulldozed past every conceivable shade of grey. While information on personal financial affairs may not be available to the public in the jurisdictions cited by the consortium, authorities in other countries usually have access to this information when it is needed for legitimate investigations. But even more importantly, personal information was published on individuals that have done nothing illegal and thus do not deserve to have their privacy invaded.
Gone are the days when it was possible to show up at a bank with a briefcase full of cash and anonymously open a numbered account. The practices of so called “tax havens” commonly include establishing beneficial owner- ship and co- operating with investigations by foreign authorities. The OECD Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes undertakes peer review assessments of these practices. There are jurisdictions named in the Paradise Papers that even have agreements with the U. S. for automatic exchange of information under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act and/or country- bycountry automatic exchange relationships as part of the OECD Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters. Tax authorities do not need the media purloining information in order for the authorities to investigate any suspected illegal activity.
As in many jurisdictions, Canadians have a right to privacy. There is no exemp- tion in privacy legislation for the CBC and the Toronto Star, which are the consortium’s media partners. Yet these organizations published personal information including names and the details of specific transactions that are perfectly legal. One media partner in the consortium is the CBC, a crown corporation that is largely financed by taxpayers. The consortium’s website states the names of donors that fund the organization. However, it is not inconceivable that media partners may have helped finance the purloining of the information in the Paradise Papers. Did the CBC contribute any taxpayer dollars that helped finance illegally obtaining personal financial records of law abiding Canadians? This might be a good quest i on f or opposition parties to ask about in question period or committee. Alternatively, it might be something for the auditor general to look into.
Jurisdictions that receive a request for co- operation from an outside authority can decline to co- operate if there are any concerns about the requesting authority’s capacity to maintain the confidentiality of records shared. If there is one possible permanent outcome of the Paradise Papers, it may be greater reluctance for jurisdictions to share information and co- operate with legitimate requests from other authorities for fear of the information being purloined and published by the consortium.
PERSONAL INFORMATION WAS PUBLISHED ON INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE DONE NOTHING ILLEGAL AND THUS DO NOT DESERVE TO HAVE THEIR PRIVACY INVADED.