Talk:Bank secrecy

message: Howdy. I added a RefImprove for the article and a SectNOR for the "Reasons..." section. The Reasons section, without references, seems to be an arbitrary list. --NightMonkey (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References; NOR  

message: Hello everyone,  I have added some information on the trend to use Singapore and Hong Kong companies for banking secrecy to replace the use of Swiss banks MTOVS (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I differ with Twilsonb.  It is mainly about Swiss and offshore banking practices, but it offends many other nations taxing authorities, including the US IRS. I have added examples of Swiss and Lichtenstein banks, with references, but I lack references to the how this behavior has defrauded nations other than the US of taxes. --Zeamays (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: France, Germany, and Italy have, during the past few months, made many statements alleging that banking secrecy has facilitated very significant tax evasion by their citizens.  These, and other, countries have taken various actions to limit the effects of banking secrecy.  One significant result of those actions is the agreement by Switzerland and other countries to implement the OECD model provision in bilateral tax treaties.  I can easily find the references to the public French, German, and Italian statements, but I'm not sure where to add them in the article.  If you suggest a specific place, I can take care of it.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Gautier, I suggest you add the text and references to the Criticisms section or create a new section parallel to United States Legislation in Response to Bank Secrecy.  If it is mainly about the agreements, you might place the information in the Swiss Banking Act of 1934 section, since agreements with the US are already there.  Best wishes, --Zeamays (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I have created a new section.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalise: Examples from other Countries 

message: right now this section starts out talking about the Act of 1934 and then segues immediately into describing what seems like much more modern state of affairs. I think the article needs both an explanation of the original policy regime after 1934 (which probably did not include release of account info of "terrorists" and which may or may not have allowed Swiss judges to issue subpoenas to banks) as well as of the early 21st century situation. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bank Act of 1934 section needs clarification with both historical and modern info 

message: In the "Tax evasion" section, the following is stated "Governments have accused Swiss banks of detaining most of the money owned by criminally charged politicians, which Oxfam International estimate to about $50 billion a year deposited in offshore tax havens, nearly the size of the $57 billion annual global aid budget."  There is no citation for this statement.  Unless a citation is added, it should be deleted.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Existed on the page for a couple years without source (although the CN tag was recent) OSborn arfcontribs. 16:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No reference 

message: has loosely sourced opinions. The stuff like "this can never be allowed to happen again". We could find a politician or bureaucrat quoted as saying the benefits of PATRIOT act in the financial system to replace the clear opinions. Does it make sense for an article on Bank secrecy to contain passionate comments on terrorist acts? It seems to me rather off-topic and inappropriate for the article, jeopardizing its objectivity. The section I have in mind is "The act of using airplanes to blow up the Twin Towers and the attempt that was made to blow up the Pentagon is something that cannot be allowed to happen again. Many lives were senselessly lost that day for nothing." In my opinion this section should be dropped as it does not enrich the article.
: Again spin with this framing. We discuss quite decent and polite. Probably make this "Prism".Aucassin 2 (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  2.2 USA PATRIOT Act Section 

message: How can this article be complete without information on his whistleblowing and its effects on UBS and Swiss banking secrecy. Duchesstimesxtwo (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Bradley Birkenfeld is not as important as you think. His actions and "its effects on UBS and Swiss banking secrecy" have been covered extensively at UBS#Tax evasion, UBS tax evasion controversies#Birkenfeld Disclosure: 2005–2011, and Bradley Birkenfeld#Birkenfeld disclosure: 2005–2011. Any more mention of him here would be WP:UNDUE. LivinRealGüd (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is Bradley Birkenfeld

message: Bank secrecy laws did not originate in Switzerland. This section needs to be revised, and we have to possibly go back a bit further than the usual reference to a Swiss bank account in a James Bond movie. Switzerland played a considerable role but a number of historical developments in Great Britain and other countries were left out. I therefore suggest to expand the history of bank secrecy based on a more pertinent publication "Financial Havens, Banking Secrecy and Money Laundering" Issued as:  Double issue 34 and 35 of the Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Newsletter, Issue 8 of the UNDCP Technical Series. Thanks.Osterluzei (talk) 07:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular belief

message: This section does not accurately reflect the Swiss media opinion related to the Bradley Birkenfeld case. In particular, the neutrality of the content is questioned. The point of view is biased. Also, it quotes the newspaper Blick, a controversial source of information. Please discuss and improve. Aerophile5390 (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, removing entire section as it goes against WP:NOT and is not WP:NEUTRAL nor is it truly relevant to banking secrecy as a whole. LivinRealGüd (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV header on Bradley Birkenfeld 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bank secrecy. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120723090853/http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=505 to http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=505
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bank secrecy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130522131743/http://www.efd.admin.ch/00468/index.html?lang=en&msg-id=25863 to http://www.efd.admin.ch/00468/index.html?lang=en&msg-id=25863
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Check out the following source:
* https://www.financialsecrecyindex.com 
* or if the link stops working: search "Financial Secrecy Index"
It has a PDF file for each country that practices banking secrecy in full historical detail. LivinRealGüd (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Fantastic source for this article 

message: While secrecy jurisdiction redirects to this page; could this phrase (secrecy jurisdiction) somehow find mention here inline? Thanks. DTM (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment