Jump to content

2.6 TB of documents showing "how the rich and powerful use tax havens to hide their wealth" leaked

Blade of Grass
18 minutes ago, Exty said:

is gabe newel in thouse documents ?

I hope not, then I'd have wasted $1000 on a shrine to his magnificence.

We have a NEW and GLORIOUSER-ER-ER PSU Tier List Now. (dammit @LukeSavenije stop coming up with new ones)

You can check out the old one that gave joy to so many across the land here

 

Computer having a hard time powering on? Troubleshoot it with this guide. (Currently looking for suggestions to update it into the context of <current year> and make it its own thread)

Computer Specs:

Spoiler

Mathresolvermajig: Intel Xeon E3 1240 (Sandy Bridge i7 equivalent)

Chillinmachine: Noctua NH-C14S
Framepainting-inator: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti SC2 Hybrid

Attachcorethingy: Gigabyte H61M-S2V-B3

Infoholdstick: Corsair 2x4GB DDR3 1333

Computerarmor: Silverstone RL06 "Lookalike"

Rememberdoogle: 1TB HDD + 120GB TR150 + 240 SSD Plus + 1TB MX500

AdditionalPylons: Phanteks AMP! 550W (based on Seasonic GX-550)

Letterpad: Rosewill Apollo 9100 (Cherry MX Red)

Buttonrodent: Razer Viper Mini + Huion H430P drawing Tablet

Auralnterface: Sennheiser HD 6xx

Liquidrectangles: LG 27UK850-W 4K HDR

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe this topic only had 4pages. People should be outraged by this bs but instead we argue about which gpu is ballers than the other.

ROG X570-F Strix AMD R9 5900X | EK Elite 360 | EVGA 3080 FTW3 Ultra | G.Skill Trident Z Neo 64gb | Samsung 980 PRO 
ROG Strix XG349C Corsair 4000 | Bose C5 | ROG Swift PG279Q

Logitech G810 Orion Sennheiser HD 518 |  Logitech 502 Hero

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Lethal Seraph said:

I can't believe this topic only had 4pages. People should be outraged by this bs but instead we argue about which gpu is ballers than the other.

Few people care because either they already knew this was happening and came to grips with it long ago or they realize that just because you store your money off-shore doesn't make it wrong. Research off-shore holdings and you'll find there's three types of people doing it: those who are looking for a safer place for their money; those who want to save on taxes, legally; and those who want to save on taxes, illegally. The first one probably everyone agrees is fine. The second one is polarized, some people will hate, others will love. The third one is obviously wrong to most people, a few will still applaud. 

 

Plus, from what I hear the people most of us care about aren't implicated. Besides, what sort of conversation is supposed to be occurring? Are we supposed to just spam our discontent over and over? And for how long?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yog said:

Few people care because either they already knew this was happening and came to grips with it long ago or they realize that just because you store your money off-shore doesn't make it wrong. Research off-shore holdings and you'll find there's three types of people doing it: those who are looking for a safer place for their money; those who want to save on taxes, legally; and those who want to save on taxes, illegally. The first one probably everyone agrees is fine. The second one is polarized, some people will hate, others will love. The third one is obviously wrong to most people, a few will still applaud. 

 

Plus, from what I hear the people most of us care about aren't implicated. Besides, what sort of conversation is supposed to be occurring? Are we supposed to just spam our discontent over and over? And for how long?

 

I agree... We can rant over and over about this, but in reality, most of us already knew that this is happening somewhere in the background. There is nothing we (small people) can do about this is there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, bigneo said:

I agree... We can rant over and over about this, but in reality, most of us already knew that this is happening somewhere in the background. There is nothing we (small people) can do about this is there?

Vote to oust politicians that enable, partake and financially gain from these activities.  And vote to empower those who combat them in conjunction with your other voting goals/priorities.  That's really all there has ever been, and its more then most get to do.  It's all in the hands of the legal branches of government(s) now.  Here's hoping the job lands on the desks of some real crusaders.

As for the lions share of the people on the list one can only boycott the businesses that they're involved with and or own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MoonSpot said:

Vote to oust politicians that enable, partake and financially gain from these activities.  And vote to empower those who combat them in conjunction with your other voting goals/priorities.  That's really all there has ever been, and its more then most get to do.  It's all in the hands of the legal branches of government(s) now.  Here's hoping the job lands on the desks of some real crusaders.

As for the lions share of the people on the list one can only boycott the businesses that they're involved with and or own.

 

I believe that people are already voting for the "best", nobody is voting for corruption. If you knew the person is corrupt you are not going to vote for him/her. If the vote is the answer well... good luck us. If the hope is the answer, good luck us again.

 

It's endless story - let's vote for this party now they are truly going to make changes! But in the end, the result is still the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MoonSpot said:

Vote to oust politicians that enable, partake and financially gain from these activities.  And vote to empower those who combat them in conjunction with your other voting goals/priorities.  That's really all there has ever been, and its more then most get to do.  It's all in the hands of the legal branches of government(s) now.  Here's hoping the job lands on the desks of some real crusaders.

As for the lions share of the people on the list one can only boycott the businesses that they're involved with and or own.

Well, that's just the thing. As far as I can tell there aren't many Americans involved in this, which is probably at least half of the people here (just guessing, might not be that strong but I think it's safe to say that it's the largest nationality) so...now what? I'll tell you what's IS happening right now, though. A lot of people already have it in their heads who they think were involved in this...and without doubt it's people they disagree with political. Some Republican I'm sure is saying "I'm positive Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton are on that list and it's just being kept hush-hush." Meanwhile some Democrat is saying "Without doubt Donald Trump is on there. Bush too." And you go on living your life believing that without doubt...despite never even bothering to check. I dunno, ultimately I don't think many people are any better than the politicians they condemn. Or maybe I'm just in a sour mood right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bigneo said:

I believe that people are already voting for the "best", nobody is voting for corruption. If you knew the person is corrupt you are not going to vote for him/her. If the vote is the answer well... good luck us. If the hope is the answer, good luck us again.

 

It's endless story - let's vote for this party now they are truly going to make changes! But in the end, the result is still the same.

You didn't say anything about boycotting on the individual level.  I'm sure most try and vote for the "best", problem is I know WAAAAY too many people that vote on "feels" like a better one, or looks to have and honest face, or some other inconsequential thing.  Hell how many people here in my hometown vote based purely on the cultural origin of the last name of a person running for municipal and local ridings is disturbing.

2 minutes ago, Yog said:

Well, that's just the thing. As far as I can tell there aren't many Americans involved in this, which is probably at least half of the people here (just guessing, might not be that strong but I think it's safe to say that it's the largest nationality) so...now what? I'll tell you what's IS happening right now, though. A lot of people already have it in their heads who they think were involved in this...and without doubt it's people they disagree with political. Some Republican I'm sure is saying "I'm positive Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton are on that list and it's just being kept hush-hush." Meanwhile some Democrat is saying "Without doubt Donald Trump is on there. Bush too." And you go on living your life believing that without doubt...despite never even bothering to check. I dunno, ultimately I don't think many people are any better than the politicians they condemn. Or maybe I'm just in a sour mood right now.

Actual Journalism would seem be what you're asking for here.  All one has to do is ask for proof when the gossipers are running their mouths, you'll either get the proof, they stfu, or they start pulling ever crazier and crazier horseshit out of the air until they completely discredit themselves.  win-win either way in that regard imo.

As for people believing what someone else has spoon feed them for the rest of their lives....If that's what you think happens, seems to me that that usually only sticks when someone wants to believe those things and reinforces them with their own biases.

 

Anyways this is still ongoing and will be for a long time, I certainly don't know everything about it nor will I ever.  2.6TB of documents in a frack ton of information and even then it needs to be cross verified by another source (other end of transactions records) in every instance of suspected foul play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 03/04/2016 at 9:30 PM, Ryan_Vickers said:

man, with that volume, it could take years for anything meaningful to filter through the courts of different countries around the world

Because of the nature of the documents release there will be no means of holding anybody to any laws based on information gained from the documents.

 

They were leaked and there is no way of confirming they are genuine and have not been tampered with but besides that they were stolen which makes them inadmissible as evidence.

Main Rig:-

Ryzen 7 3800X | Asus ROG Strix X570-F Gaming | 16GB Team Group Dark Pro 3600Mhz | Corsair MP600 1TB PCIe Gen 4 | Sapphire 5700 XT Pulse | Corsair H115i Platinum | WD Black 1TB | WD Green 4TB | EVGA SuperNOVA G3 650W | Asus TUF GT501 | Samsung C27HG70 1440p 144hz HDR FreeSync 2 | Ubuntu 20.04.2 LTS |

 

Server:-

Intel NUC running Server 2019 + Synology DSM218+ with 2 x 4TB Toshiba NAS Ready HDDs (RAID0)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Because of the nature of the documents release there will be no means of holding anybody to any laws based on information gained from the documents.

 

They were leaked and there is no way of confirming they are genuine and have not been tampered with but besides that they were stolen which makes them inadmissible as evidence.

Exactly.

 

Also you can almost be sure that the documents are manipulated. Just by the fact that nobody has been given access who might have an interest in disproving their credibility, the German newspaper the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" kept the documents secret for almost a year and by how Mossack Fontessa handled the whole situation, by agreeing to everything and trying their hardest to make these documents credible.

Found an insanely good deal for a VPS by Time4VPS (Lithuania). Warning: I don't have a lot of experience with them yet, if you had any bad experience, please PM me. /// Warning2 (Sorry, should have added this earlier): Very Low Disk IO
 
1 x 2.4GHz (E5 2630 v3), 512MB RAM, 20GB SSD cached Raid 6, 500GB Traffic => ~$17.5 (15.84€) + Tax for 2 years (Prebuild Servers)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

Because of the nature of the documents release there will be no means of holding anybody to any laws based on information gained from the documents.

 

They were leaked and there is no way of confirming they are genuine and have not been tampered with but besides that they were stolen which makes them inadmissible as evidence.

That's what I thought (just look through, I have a comment about that somewhere) but no one else seems to think that's an issue...

Solve your own audio issues  |  First Steps with RPi 3  |  Humidity & Condensation  |  Sleep & Hibernation  |  Overclocking RAM  |  Making Backups  |  Displays  |  4K / 8K / 16K / etc.  |  Do I need 80+ Platinum?

If you can read this you're using the wrong theme.  You can change it at the bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Mihle Gaming said:

there may and probably is more than one of this kind of company. even those 2,6 TB may just be the surface on what happens on world basis.

Mossack Fonseca is the 4th largest company of it's kind, which means there's atleast 3 other companies in the industry, all larger o.0 

1 hour ago, steini1904 said:

Exactly.

 

Also you can almost be sure that the documents are manipulated.

 

Just by the fact that nobody has been given access who might have an interest in disproving their credibility, the German newspaper the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" kept the documents secret for almost a year and by how Mossack Fontessa handled the whole situation, by agreeing to everything and trying their hardest to make these documents credible.

Can we be sure that they're manipulated? That sounds like conjecture.

Who would you like them to have shared them with? I mean, currently, their reporting news organizations include the BBC, The Guardian, Le Monde, CBC, The Toronto Star, and Columbia University, and it's likely that it's been shared with many other news organizations (just look at who else makes up the ICIJ, perhaps they haven't been given direct access though). 

2 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Because of the nature of the documents release there will be no means of holding anybody to any laws based on information gained from the documents.

They were leaked and there is no way of confirming they are genuine and have not been tampered with but besides that they were stolen which makes them inadmissible as evidence.

49 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

That's what I thought (just look through, I have a comment about that somewhere) but no one else seems to think that's an issue...

Does it actually make the evidence inadmissible? Most Common Law countries actually say that the evidence is admissible.

Quote

In general, the common law, as applied in various commonwealth countries, admitted anything into evidence that was relevant, probative, and reliable, and it disregarded the way in which the evidence came into the possession of the party submitting it.55 The judge, however, did have a general discretion to exclude evidence where the probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial potential, but this was largely a question of reliability of the evidence.56 It would appear that the American approach is essentially focused on the rights of the accused, whereas other common law jurisdictions concentrate on the fairness and legitimacy of the trial proceedings generally. 

...

The difficulty with all of the above is that, first, it is apparent that a mandatory exclusionary rule is not the norm globally or the norm under common law and, second, where exclusion is considered, it is only in the face of a violation of the rights of a human being by the state in criminal proceedings. 

...

 The evidentiary rule at the ICC goes so far as to make this limitation clear: a violation of state law will not be determinative of whether evidence is admitted before the ICC unless that violation is also a violation of international law.

https://www.ilsa.org/jessup/jessup16/Batch%202/WorsterLeakedInformation.pdf

 

Also, we likely wouldn't have had the same type of response from politicians if the documents were not genuine. 

Cameron said

Quote

“I obviously can’t point to the source of every bit of money and dad’s not around for me to ask the questions now” 

Putin said

Quote

However strange it may seem, the information is correct

Gunnlaugsson  office said

Quote

“detailed answers to questions” about the Wintris assets, which they had “never sought to hide”

 

None of them have said "these papers are fake", they have all admitted they are real. 

15" MBP TB

AMD 5800X | Gigabyte Aorus Master | EVGA 2060 KO Ultra | Define 7 || Blade Server: Intel 3570k | GD65 | Corsair C70 | 13TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

Can we be sure that they're manipulated? That sounds like conjecture.

Who would you like them to have shared them with? I mean, currently, their reporting news organizations include the BBC, The Guardian, Le Monde, CBC, The Toronto Star, and Columbia University, and it's likely that it's been shared with many other news organizations (just look at who else makes up the ICIJ, perhaps they haven't been given direct access though). 

yes they have, it has, one example is the Norwegian news paper called Aftenposten have also worked on the files. One thing that is fun is that when it came out in the media, they were the ones in Norway that posted most about it, with a big margin, like the two for three first screens when scrolling down was filled with Panema Papers articles on different stuff. while other News sites just posted a few about it.

“Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious. And however difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. 
It matters that you don't just give up.”

-Stephen Hawking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

Can we be sure that they're manipulated? That sounds like conjecture.

Ok, admitted, no, definitively not. I were heavily exaggerating. The SZ is actually one of the most trustworthy German newspapers (something that doesn't mean a lot nowadays...).

 

The problem is, that absolutely everything is shady. That the information they're releasing is true or at least as close to the truth as they can get, there shouldn't be any doubts. If someone could disprove just one release, it would make all the work they did worthless.

 

As a reason why they don't want to release all the information to the public they stated, that there is a lot of personal information in there, which belongs to persons who didn't cross any legal boundaries or were involved in other morally reprehensible actions. The problem is, that now nobody can guarantee that the information weren't manipulated and nobody can guarantee that ICIJ got all the information that the SZ got.

 

Whoever this guy who hacked MF's mail server was, he should have known about this problem and for anyone with a basic understanding of IT the solution is no big deal or secret:

 

Encrypt the original data, hash it and put everything online. Now all you have to do is giving access to the key and everybody could be sure, that the data isn't tampered with.

 

1 hour ago, Blade of Grass said:

Who would you like them to have shared them with?

I would have definitively included (at least German) law enforcement. They're precise and document and archive absolutely everything they get. Second, there should have been people who have an interest in disproving the information. Judging by the content of the data e.g. "Russia Today". Knowing a bit about their methodology, they would have definitively handled the whole situation completely on their own and provided a completely ... "different perspective".

 

.

 

In my opinion the largest problem is, that everyone is agreeing on the credibility of the documents and that everyone is cooperating. Something like that just shouldn't happen. MF is just really cool about having leaked all these documents, politicians and officials are resigning as if it was no big deal, the police is raiding companies and organizations and these just go along, Putin first claims that all of that are false accusations, now he agrees to everything...

 

Come on... It's almost an international "agree and amplify" competition.

 

I can't help it but I'm probably going to make myself a few tinfoil hats...

Found an insanely good deal for a VPS by Time4VPS (Lithuania). Warning: I don't have a lot of experience with them yet, if you had any bad experience, please PM me. /// Warning2 (Sorry, should have added this earlier): Very Low Disk IO
 
1 x 2.4GHz (E5 2630 v3), 512MB RAM, 20GB SSD cached Raid 6, 500GB Traffic => ~$17.5 (15.84€) + Tax for 2 years (Prebuild Servers)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Blade of Grass said:

 

Does it actually make the evidence inadmissible? Most Common Law countries actually say that the evidence is admissible.

 

Evidence which was obtained in an unlawful way is never admissible as evidence, even if (as in this case) it was stolen by a third party and then handed into the police or law enforcement agency.

 

Its gets a little grey when the legality of the documents is at question, if a lawyer suspects the evidence may be stolen or cannot be sure where the information came from he must inform the judge of this and the judge will review the evidence and decide if its admissible or not. If the lawyer can prove it was not stolen, or if he doesn't know then surprisingly he can use it (which is surprising considering anyone can claim they didnt know). On the flip side if a party claims evidence used against them was stolen then they must prove this to be true for the evidence to be dismissed.

 

Now that's not to say they can't use the evidence to begin an investigation which tries to corroborate the information, as long as they dismiss all the information handed to them and begin a fresh investigation into the matter with the permission of a judge in order to obtain the data again lawfully.

 

I'm not saying they can't do anything about it at all, just that the leaked data cannot be used to prosecute anyone.

Main Rig:-

Ryzen 7 3800X | Asus ROG Strix X570-F Gaming | 16GB Team Group Dark Pro 3600Mhz | Corsair MP600 1TB PCIe Gen 4 | Sapphire 5700 XT Pulse | Corsair H115i Platinum | WD Black 1TB | WD Green 4TB | EVGA SuperNOVA G3 650W | Asus TUF GT501 | Samsung C27HG70 1440p 144hz HDR FreeSync 2 | Ubuntu 20.04.2 LTS |

 

Server:-

Intel NUC running Server 2019 + Synology DSM218+ with 2 x 4TB Toshiba NAS Ready HDDs (RAID0)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×