the bilateral level for selected banking centers. While the public dataset is not as comprehensive as the restricted one, it allows us to extend the sample period beyond 2010 and to show results for individual havens, which is prohibited under the confidentiality agreement governing the restricted data.

Among the 43 financial centers contributing to the Locational Banking Statistics, we classify 17 as havens and the remaining 26 as non-havens.<sup>3</sup> Havens generally have institutional characteristics that make them attractive places to hide funds: bank secrecy rules that ensure strict confidentiality and legal arrangements that facilitate asset protection by enabling investors to nominally transfer asset ownership to a third party while retaining full control (e.g. trusts or de facto anonymous shell corporations). Important havens in our dataset include Switzerland, Luxembourg, Cayman Islands, Bahamas, Hong Kong and Singapore.<sup>4</sup> We define _Havenit_ as deposits owned by country _i_ in the 17 havens in quarter _t_ , and similarly _Nonhavenit_ as deposits owned in one of the other financial centers. We exploit the sectoral breakdown in the BIS statistics to exclude interbank deposits from these measures.<sup>5</sup> The BIS statistics do not look through chains of ownership to the ultimate owners of deposits; our analysis does therefore not include accounts held through foreign shell corporations (Omartian, 2017), which is likely to reduce the estimated leakage. The dataset at our disposal spans the period 1977-2010, but we discard observations before 1990 because of a major data break in 1989.<sup>6</sup> Table 1 presents summary statistics on the deposit measures. Average haven deposits range from $4 million in Sao Tome and Principe to almost $200 million in Madagascar and generally constitute around one third of all foreign deposits. Quarterly growth rates in haven deposits, our main outcome variable, average 2.0%, which is significantly higher than the quarterly growth rate in non-haven deposits and GDP. The distribution of growth rates in haven deposits is displayed in Figure A1 in the Online Appendix.

> 3Our classification of financial centers as havens and non-havens follows Andersen et al. (2017): to the set of financial centers identified by the OECD in 2008 as not providing bank information to foreign governments on request, they add Macao, SAR, China, and Hong Kong, SAR, China. Table A1 in the Online Appendix provides a list of havens ranked by the total value of foreign-owned deposits in their banks.

> 4In response to strong international pressure, legal institutions in havens have changed considerably in the past decade. Starting around 2009, all havens committed to some measure of information exchange with other countries for tax enforcement purposes (Johannesen and Zucman, 2014).

> 5This also excludes foreign deposits held by central banks, which is important to avoid confounding effects through placement of foreign reserves.

> 6Until 1989, the Locational Banking Statistics did not include fiduciary deposits in Swiss banks, the lion’s share of foreign-owned deposits in Switzerland, as they were considered off-balance sheet items by the BIS.

6