Blacklisted offshore countries and alternative solutions

Today's international business leaders register IBCs primarily because this legal structure provides a way to run a business on a global scale while avoiding property taxes and excessive paperwork - in addition to owning offshore bank accounts or purchasing non-reportable assets such as offshore gold and foreign real estate or productive, yielding farmland in politically and economically less influential countries using cryptocurrencies. Some think low tax rates are the wave of the future.

At the same time, the jurisdictions that offer such opportunities for business owners are often referred to as tax havens or offshores. Offshore jurisdictions are often blacklisted as IBC beneficiaries are typically prohibited from doing local business - meaning they are legally unable to operate in the country where their company is based, to do business. IBC owners can use transfer pricing to allocate intellectual property and sales to achieve very low tax rates; However, this may have certain consequences as their home country will likely require them to report their involvement in offshore operations. Offshore jurisdictions may aim to generate profits by allowing business owners to hide their names while supporting illegal and harmful business activities, including warfare, drug trafficking and other harmful activities.

Depending on the jurisdiction in question, offshore company owners may take the opportunity to comply with laws that are more customer- or business-friendly than creditor-friendly. Some countries offer protection from all claims unless the transmission is deemed fraudulent. There are different types of offshore entities, so-called shell companies and shelf companies, which have been set up intentionally to carry out illegal activities. The former only exist on paper, produce nothing, and facilitate tax avoidance while disguising the identities of scammers. The latter are full-fledged entities with no activity, created to bypass the registration process while concluding quick commercial agreements with established companies.

Thirty countries are currently on the EU offshore blacklist drawn up by the European Commission. It includes countries such as Anguilla, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Belize, Barbados, Bermuda, Brunei, the British Virgin Islands, the Cook Islands, the Cayman Islands, Grenada, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, Liberia, the Maldives, the Marshall Islands, Mauritius , Montserrat, Monaco, Nauru, Niue, Panama, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, US Virgin Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands and Vanuatu.

The consequences of a company being blacklisted or making and receiving payments from blacklisted offshore jurisdictions can be quite harsh as those involved may unknowingly engage in hostile and questionable activities such as terrorism, warfare and the search for weapons of mass destruction (Atomic programs) trigger or support. , and enter into partnerships with socially and politically dangerous terrorist organizations, human traffickers and drug cartels. Engaging in such activities may result in increased corruption in addition to charges, sanctions and a criminal record after due diligence has been conducted.

There are also certain countries on the gray list that are considered to be insufficiently cooperative, as they only partially meet the European Union (EU) and Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) information transparency regulations and standards aimed at and comply with harmonizing corporate tax laws and aligning tax systems in EU member countries.

Such jurisdictions support greater transparency by increasing social security and committing to the internationally agreed tax standard, but have not implemented that standard to any significant extent. They are seen as an alternative to blacklisted offshores, which have neither committed to the internationally agreed tax standard nor taken steps to cooperate with the OECD.