[HN Gopher] Tips for linking shell companies to their secret owners
___________________________________________________________________
Tips for linking shell companies to their secret owners
Author : chippy
Score : 624 points
Date : 2024-04-03 16:22 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (gijn.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (gijn.org)
| ryandrake wrote:
| I don't even know why shell companies and companies with secret
| ownership are even allowed. Well, I mean we all know the real
| reason: because it benefits rich people and they make the rules.
| But, what would a politician disingenuously cite as the public
| interest aligned justification for having these entities? Are
| there legitimate non-nefarious uses?
| mkmk wrote:
| I'm not very familiar with shell companies, so I'm curious -
| why isn't this just a matter of privacy for those involved? I'm
| generally pretty understanding of pro-privacy-oriented
| behavior.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| Oligarchs using transnational legal arbitrage to avoid paying
| taxes isn't a matter of privacy.
| tensor wrote:
| Nor is it due to the existence of shell companies. Rather
| it's due to poor enforcement and loopholes in tax law. You
| also don't need to make any of the information public to
| enforce it anymore than it's required to make your personal
| earning information public to enforce you paying taxes.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| It's hard to take that position seriously. The people
| using the loopholes are the ones that pushed to put them
| in the law and degraded enforcement budgets. One hand
| washes the other and it takes place in the dark. Let's
| put a little sunshine on it and see what happens. We
| might find some very interesting networks exist...
| itopaloglu83 wrote:
| I don't know any other case where someone can own an entity
| like a house, car, estate, etc. where they get to hide who
| benefits from it.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| You can hide ownership in real estate using land trusts in
| states that support them. You can fund an LLC with a
| vehicle to hide ownership of the vehicle by VIN or plate
| search. In both cases, startup costs are a few hundred
| dollars, and ~$100-200/year upkeep per asset.
|
| Trusts in general are simply good estate planning compared
| to probate costs, at least on the topic of real estate
| holdings and titling.
| mcguire wrote:
| Those are essentially shell companies.
| ensignavenger wrote:
| New Mexico has fairly decent LLC privacy and you don't
| have to pay an annual fee to upkeep your LLC at all. Just
| need to have a registered agent, which can be had for
| under 100/year.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Appreciate the info!
| itopaloglu83 wrote:
| Could you elaborate on reasons to do so? Using LLC to
| limit liability makes sense, but I'm not familiar with
| hiding identity behind a corporation.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Privacy. My use case is obfuscating my life from data
| brokers. Law enforcement and the tax folks still know
| where to find me.
| itopaloglu83 wrote:
| Privacy makes sense. Thank you.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| because it's a lot easier to have privacy when you're rich
|
| the default for normal people is for all of this data to be
| public unless you can either navigate bureaucracy (costs time
| and money) or pay someone to do it for you (costs money)
| digging wrote:
| I'm quite big on privacy rights for indibviduals but I also
| feel that when corporate wealth (thus, influence on culture
| and politics) reaches a certain scale, radical levels of
| transparency become very important for the health of our
| society. For an extreme example, the public deserved (and
| still does) to know who were the individuals at Shell
| devising a decades-long misinformation campaign about climate
| change -- _and_ that the bullshit they were hearing about
| climate change being fake was driven by nothing but greed.
|
| To address inevitable replies: No, I don't know exactly where
| the line is (or _lines are_ - it should probably be a tiered
| system), and I recognize defining those lines is itself a
| position of immense power. Those are solvable problems though
| and don 't make the idea bad. (It could still be a bad idea,
| but for other reasons.)
| truckerbill wrote:
| It's about the usage. No single dogma ever makes sense
| without context. These are abused by many to hide taxable
| wealth.
|
| It's in the public interest to understand what very powerful
| people are doing , because the public are usually getting the
| short end of the stick- this should override any ideology
| regarding 'privacy', 'freedom' and other fuzzy words (not
| that some interpretation of these things isn't also
| important)
| ensignavenger wrote:
| It is very much a matter of privacy for most folks doing it.
| And you don't have to particularly be rich to benefit from
| it.
| Veserv wrote:
| Not all are bad, but they are frequently abused to not only
| protect privacy, but to protect against legitimate legal
| need. It is like hiring a contractor on your house who gives
| you a false name so they can skip out of town when you figure
| out they cheated you. There is no legitimate purpose for that
| degree of privacy. They wanted privacy for the express
| purpose of providing you no legal recourse.
|
| Pseudonymity is perfectly valid, but there needs to be
| efficient, effective, and crystal clear means to pierce it
| and find the actual humans making the decisions with intent
| when there is a legitimate and well-supported legal need.
| ensignavenger wrote:
| Can you cite any research on just how frequent you mean by
| "frequently". It certainly happens sometimes, but I have
| found no evidence that is is the norm.
| Veserv wrote:
| Why does that matter? I said that pseudonymity is
| perfectly fine, there just needs to be a straightforward
| and effective means of piercing it when there are
| legitimate legal purposes. Are you arguing that because
| it is not a majority of cases that they should be
| impervious even if there are legitimate legal purposes?
|
| There are enough high profile cases of shell corporations
| being used for unsavory and explicitly illegal behavior,
| to the extent that it is literally a meme, such as the
| crimes unveiled in the Panama Papers [1] that simple and
| robust mechanisms to prevent abuse are warranted even if
| abuse is uncommon. It is not like being able to pierce
| the privacy with a court order is even some new
| mechanism, you can _already_ do that, it is just
| expensive, time-consuming, and difficult if they fight.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers
| ensignavenger wrote:
| The cost of providing such mechanisms and properly
| securing them against abuse have to be weighed against
| the benefit. In order to know the benefit, we need to
| know the size of the problem we are seeking to solve, and
| whether or not the proposed system would actually solve
| the problem. So yes, knowing the size of the problem
| matters a lot, and is a good first step to running a cost
| benefit analysis.
| Veserv wrote:
| Excellent, since you wish to run a cost-benefit analysis
| you can first start by citing the research you used to
| conclude that the abuses of the current system are small.
| That would give us a baseline for analysis.
|
| It is then easy for you to take the first step in the
| cost-benefit analysis you wish to do by estimating the
| costs. The proposal is that a court order demanding
| disclosure, which are already routinely issued, can not
| be stalled indefinitely through the application of
| lawyers. So, all you need to do is identify the balance
| of cases where disclosure is fought and then see how
| often the disclosure results in illegitimate harm to the
| disclosed party versus how often it results in the
| discovery of legitimate harms caused by the disclosed
| party.
|
| The disclosures in the Panama Papers alone resulted in
| 1.2 _billion_ dollars of recovered taxes [1]. So you can
| compare the estimated costs against the benefits of
| preventing a _singular_ incident for now. If you can
| present credible evidence that the harms of requiring
| disclosure on legitimate court orders is in excess of
| that, then a broader analysis of the problem size if
| warranted.
|
| [1] https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-
| papers/panama-pap...
| speff wrote:
| They didn't volunteer to do your homework. You were
| originally asked for a citation on
|
| > frequently abused to not only protect privacy, but to
| protect against legitimate legal need
|
| Shell corporations are used for unsavory purposes being a
| meme is not proof of this as was implied by your other
| comment. Also 1.2B in taxes is pocket change so it
| doesn't really help your point.
| ebiester wrote:
| Game theory: Any country can do it, and the company in which
| the corporation is registered is not going to suffer. So what
| is their incentive not to allow it?
| dartos wrote:
| Ideally it should be votes, but that doesn't really work out
| like you'd want :(
| tensor wrote:
| Yes, privacy. Corporations are often used for trusts and
| investments. I wouldn't call those nefarious at all, though yes
| they are mostly only useful for more wealthy individuals. These
| structures all still pay taxes and are 100% legal. Arguments
| about tax law being good or bad are really a separate issue,
| and those should be addressed directly by updating the law, not
| erasing privacy for wealthy.
|
| As much as the wealthy rightly get shit on for various things,
| they are still entitled to the same rights as everyone else.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > they are still entitled to the same rights as everyone
| else.
|
| Has there ever been a time when the wealthy had less rights
| than the poor?
|
| The speeding ticket fine which is charged as a percentage of
| ones wage comes to mind.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/finnish-
| busine...
| vlovich123 wrote:
| That's not really less rights though. That's like saying
| the rich have fewer rights under progressive taxation.
|
| And no, generally the more rich and/or powerful you are the
| more rights society provides you. Even countries which
| strive for more equality simply try to shore up the most
| egregious instances but there's always a difference. That's
| because not all rights matter equally to everyone.
|
| For example, rich and poor both don't have the right to
| sleep on a park bench but in practice that right is only
| particularly relevant to one party.
| sdeframond wrote:
| Do you mean that fining more for richer people is unfair?
|
| That's an interesting view. One could argue that a flat
| fine allows rich people to break the law more, because they
| can afford it. Which IMHO seems pretty unfair.
| lostlogin wrote:
| I agree with it and think there should be more penalties
| like it.
| hobs wrote:
| It is illegal for both the rich and the poor man to steal a
| loaf of bread. The idea that the wealthy could ever have
| "less rights" than the hoi polloi is an absolutely hilarious
| thought.
|
| If any billionaire wants all the "extra" rights of being a
| normal citizen I'd be glad to swap anytime.
| wredue wrote:
| Corporations are not people. People deserve privacy.
| Corporations do not necessarily also deserve privacy.
|
| Who runs a corporation 100% should not be a secret, ever.
| Aloisius wrote:
| If people deserve privacy and corporations are run by
| people, then logically the people who run corporations
| deserve privacy.
|
| I'd argue instead that the public's need to know sometimes
| outweighs an individual's right to privacy.
| adra wrote:
| The paying tax and 100% legal is only tested when brought to
| court, which seems that be chronically underfunded
| conveniently and I laugh loudly at the belief that 100% of
| all corporations are in legal compliance.
|
| You said that the rich are entitled to the freedoms as anyone
| else but shrugs off that only the rich have the effective
| means to make use of these instruments. They are quite
| capable of being completely invisible to public scrutiny by
| holding all their assets as an individual.
|
| They choose to take steps to leverage opaque often
| intentionally complicated corporate layering schemes to
| minimize risk, skirt (legally or not) tax, or to layer the
| sources of bad money.
|
| Whatever the reason for engaging in these games, I believe
| they are no longer "living life like every citizen deserves
| privacy" (note your comment spoke of total privacy from
| oversight which no citizen pretty much anywhere actually
| has).
|
| I'm at least happy that my home of Canada is starting to chip
| away the corporate veil.
| jen20 wrote:
| > 100% legal is only tested when brought to court
|
| A tangent, but this is in and of itself completely nuts.
| One should be able to read the text of the law, as written,
| and understand what you are and are not permitted to do -
| end of story. There should be no need to look at
| precedents. Courts only recourse if a law is unclear should
| be to send it back to an elected legislature for
| refinement.
| tensor wrote:
| Your home in Canada just recently demanded blind trusts all
| report their members personal information to the
| government. Far from engaging only the rich, that demand
| hit millions of every day citizens with shared bank
| accounts with their parents or kids. Those are setup for a
| variety of reasons, one of which is to circumvent probate
| tax! Yep, by everyday non-rich people!
|
| However, note that the CRAs information collection did not
| make your personal bank account information public. Would
| you prefer that it had? I used the example of a blind trust
| here because "non-blind" trusts are one of the common uses
| of non-commercial corporate entities.
|
| Also, I never once said "total privacy from oversight", all
| these corporate entities _already_ supply financial and
| ownership information to the government, whose job it is to
| hold them to account. This is not the same and making
| information public so a rabid mob of people can enact
| vigilante justice, or whatever people like you hope comes
| out of it.
| diordiderot wrote:
| People should pay their probate tax
| Sleepful wrote:
| Sounds like something said by a tax collector :)
| no_wizard wrote:
| >Your home in Canada just recently demanded blind trusts
| all report their members personal information to the
| government. Far from engaging only the rich, that demand
| hit millions of every day citizens with shared bank
| accounts with their parents or kids. Those are setup for
| a variety of reasons, one of which is to circumvent
| probate tax! Yep, by everyday non-rich people!
|
| How does this _hurt_ anyone though? That is not clear at
| all. The thing you 're upset about here is that blind
| trust members information is reported to the government,
| but with no clear statement how this hurts anyone,
| wealthy or not.
|
| Chances are, the information turned over the government
| has anyway.
|
| If this is a legal mechanism to circumvent probate taxes,
| then its not a problem. If not, well, even regular people
| should pay their taxes, no?
| Sleepful wrote:
| > even regular people should pay their taxes, no?
|
| Taxes aren't an ethical or moral topic, they are a legal
| topic. If you can avoid a tax through some legal
| structure, you are within your rights to do so and you
| can't judge this as some sort of shady business. Taxes
| are mostly used to create incentives and collect money,
| if people are allowed a legal structure to avoid a
| probate tax, then that might be an incentive on purpose.
| Just because you did something to pay less taxes does not
| mean that you are some bad actor exploiting a loophole.
|
| For example, taxes are only paid on profit, so companies
| are incentivized to spend their money and pay less in
| taxes. No one sees this as a legal loophole that needs to
| be fixed, it is very much intentional.
|
| Also you are making the false dichotomy here of "regular
| people" as something different from "somewhat versed in
| financial entities people". That's weird.
| criddell wrote:
| I'm still not seeing it. What are some specific benefits for
| hiding the benefitting owner of a company? How would society
| be worse off if the person or people behind a company could
| always be known?
| arcastroe wrote:
| If you recently won the lottery. You might fear for your
| safety should your name and address become public
| knowledge.
|
| Some states allow you to claim anonymously, while others
| don't. For those that don't, you may be able to claim under
| an LLC, with your name and address "hidden".
|
| Edge case, but I think it's legitimate.
| h1fra wrote:
| If privacy was the only reason they would allow any company
| in any country to be anonymous and identifiable when
| requested with legitimate reasons (like Domain Names) and
| accessible to journalists.
| BadHumans wrote:
| Why would it be accessible to journalist? Being a
| journalist doesn't suddenly make you ethical and
| responsible.
| sealeck wrote:
| > As much as the wealthy rightly get shit on for various
| things, they are still entitled to the same rights as
| everyone else.
|
| We're not talking about individual assets though here - we're
| talking about the distribution of resources in our society
| and the people who own these resources have power over lots
| of other people.
|
| Essentially - have US$1bn is structurally different to owning
| US$1 million.
| maxerickson wrote:
| I think they are proposing that rights would change for
| everyone, not just for the wealthy?
|
| Also, "It's 100 legal" is a pretty hilarious rejoinder to
| someone discussing changing what is legal.
| CPLX wrote:
| Not every corporation is some wealthy shadow network.
|
| The owners of an abortion clinic, or a store that sells fur
| coats, or a therapy practice for the criminally mentally ill,
| all might have good reasons why they'd like additional privacy.
| atomicfiredoll wrote:
| It could also be a programmer who is within their legal right
| to start their own company, but who doesn't want their
| current employer harassing or singling them out for it.
|
| Further common situations involve trying to keep details out
| of the public record because they can be abused by bad
| actors; ones who may be looking to spam you, engage in a
| frivolous lawsuit, or personally harass you/your family. At
| least these are some of the scenarios mentioned by companies
| that do asset protection.
|
| Edit: In regards to harassment, think about the abuse retail,
| fast food, or other customer-facing employees endure for
| perceived slights. It feels easy to understand why average
| small business owners would want privacy and to keep things
| in legal channels. Personally, I think the government knowing
| who's in charge (Corporate Transparency Act) is a good
| halfway point, but it's not unrealistic to be concerned about
| leaks or abuse with that system.
| tetromino_ wrote:
| As a working class individual, you can get excellent financial
| privacy. You can stick your $10k in savings in cash in a glass
| jar behind your bed, and neither the government nor big banks
| nor investigative journalists get to know how much is in thar
| jar, and they have no say what you spend that money on and
| when.
|
| A more wealthy individual has no such privacy. Their wealth is
| not truly wealth and not truly theirs, it is fundamentally a
| trust-us IOU from a bank or a stockbroker which is shared with
| all kinds of parties, a publicly visible number on the screen
| which at any second could turn zero or negative on the orders
| of a corrupt official or due to a buggy algorithm or mistyped
| name on a sanctions list.
|
| The more wealthy individual yearns for a glass jar - but no jar
| is big enough to hold the sums the more wealthy individual
| operates with.
|
| Hence, shell companies.
| jhp123 wrote:
| The largest glass bottle seems to be 1700L. $1 million is
| only about 11 liters of $100s. So you could store about $100
| million in a glass jar.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Are there legitimate non-nefarious uses?_
|
| Have you formed an entity? In Delaware it's file and go. You
| don't need a lawyer nor to fill out a bunch of paperwork.
| That's efficient. Where we demand disclosure is when that
| entity touches money through the banking system.
| nick7376182 wrote:
| I've heard that you can create two LLCs which own each other, and
| be completely anonymous. This should be possible for regular
| people to do at a small nominal cost. Not sure if it works in
| practice!
| LoganDark wrote:
| How exactly would you pull that off without having to create an
| LLC owned by yourself first? This sounds like just something
| you heard once, I would love to know more if it's actually a
| thing.
| hackable_sand wrote:
| Awhile ago I did some lay research to see if I could form a
| Corp that owns itself. Iirc the legislation actually accounts
| for recursion.
|
| I do not remember if they require the owners to be human
| though.
|
| Either way I was doubly disappointed...
| nocoiner wrote:
| These are great techniques and helpful advice, but note that they
| are basically of zero use whatsoever in the case of (for
| instance) a Delaware LLC.
|
| The amount of information regarding beneficial ownership that's
| out there varies by jurisdiction and entity type - and again,
| these tips are great ways to dig into those and quite likely come
| up with some interesting findings in a lot of cases - but in most
| cases a Delaware LLC is basically a black box.
| jgalt212 wrote:
| very true, but you can glean some clues regarding any entities
| that came before the Delaware LLC, or another state LLC that
| has a similar name, or does transactions with the Delaware LLC.
| Or you can search on those you think may be involved with the
| Delaware target. Their names often show up in other less opaque
| filings. So, you man not find the smoking gun, but you can sure
| gin up a lot of smoke.
| nocoiner wrote:
| For sure. By way of further example, if you're looking into
| land owned by an LLC (or other entity), the LLC had to be
| conveyed that land at some point - searching the county
| grantor/grantee index of deeds will turn up who owned the
| land before and may be suggestive as to who owns the LLC (or
| maybe not - maybe ownership of the LLC was conveyed instead
| of the real property interests specifically to avoid showing
| up in the county records - it's a fun puzzle).
| lsllc wrote:
| In fact many states require LLCs created in other states to
| register as a foreign entity if they do any business in that
| state (incl. having a presence there). For example in
| Massachusetts [0]: Pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter
| 156C, SS48, a foreign limited liability company doing
| business in the Commonwealth must submit to the Corporations
| Division within ten days after it commences doing business in
| the Commonwealth, an application for registration as a
| foreign limited liability company ...
|
| So even if you form your LLC in Delaware, if you
| live/work/conduct business in Mass, then you must also
| register there -- it costs $500/yr and the statute requires
| that a non-trivial amount of information about the company be
| supplied including the names/addresses of "managers" for the
| entity as well as the registered agent.
|
| I don't know what the privacy laws for foreign entities in
| registered in MA are (if any), but I suspect not the same as
| say Delaware. If you have a footprint in more than one state,
| you may be required to file as a foreign entity in multiple
| states.
|
| [0]
| https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/corporations/filing-
| by...
| binarymax wrote:
| I didn't know this until I searched for myself in the linked
| OpenCorporates site - was surprised to see my Delaware LLC not
| listed.
|
| How/why is this true? IMO it should be straightforward to find
| the owner/director of a US based corporate entity.
| sealeck wrote:
| A lot of jurisdictions do maintain a beneficial owners
| database (e.g. Companies House in the UK maintains a list of
| all companies) but often these are not public. For example
| the ECJ recently made these illegal in the EU (see e.g. https
| ://www.ft.com/content/e4b31a4e-a79d-40f7-8a19-c1e451a95...).
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| Why should it be true?
| tomrod wrote:
| Banks require additional paperwork for Delaware-registered
| LLCs because they can't search the company structure directly
| at the Secretary of State website (this was explained to me
| last week).
| yieldcrv wrote:
| from the article:
|
| > While often partly obscured by secrecy jurisdictions -- such
| as the British Virgin Islands, Panama, Cyprus, or Cayman
| Islands .....
|
| I wish people were in a place to see where the ICIJ is
| misguided, like they play into a sentiment that is widely
| shared but heavily misunderstood
|
| For example, the Cayman Islands was assumed to be super secret
| and shady and then the results of their information sharing
| agreement came out and it turns out the Delaware was waaay more
| heavily used and way more secretive. Jumping the US to the
| least transparent jurisdiction.... Up from spot number 2.
|
| All this offshore money hiding stigma is capturing the minds of
| people that are being intentionally mislead. Not by the ICIJ
| theyre just as misled. just the collective apparatus of a more
| powerful state that does protectionist things for its own
| industries against smaller nations states. The US has
| difficulty bullying its constituent member states, and directs
| all of that angst outwards to anyone competitive, while the US
| is a bigger market participant in the same behaviors the whole
| time!
|
| for both foreigners looking to hide ownership and money, and
| citizens, the US onshore offers a catalogue thats at parity or
| superior to financial services microstates, and flies under all
| scrutiny
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > the Cayman Islands was assumed to be super secret and shady
| ... it turns out the Delaware was waaay more heavily used and
| way more secretive
|
| Ugland House in the Caymans. 10,000sq ft, 5 stories.
| Registered offices of forty-two thousand companies.
|
| Corporation Trust Center at 1209 North Orange Street,
| Wilmington, Delaware, United States, "home" to over 285,000
| Delaware corporations.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| that's a decent example, there are other many addresses and
| other ways of counting
|
| straight from ICIJ itself "US lands top spot as world's
| biggest enabler of financial secrecy in new index"
|
| https://www.icij.org/investigations/pandora-papers/us-
| lands-...
|
| > Meanwhile, the Cayman Islands, which ranked first in
| 2020, dramatically dropped to No. 14 in this year's index,
| after disclosing new data on the financial services it
| provides to foreigners.
|
| in reality, it should have always been No. 14 or assumed to
| be operating the way it was, and it was just assumed to be
| far bigger and shadier than reality. where no information
| is assumed to mean bad information. that's just not the
| case. there are robust domestic ways to avoid claims on
| assets and money even from tax authorities, stigmatizing
| the entire offshore industry is just protectionist
| mentality.
| asdfman123 wrote:
| Politics would be so much better if we focused on _these_
| kinds of arguments instead of people defending their
| identities as business owners or employees.
| dimal wrote:
| How on earth is this legal?
| doublerabbit wrote:
| First state of America.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _How on earth is this legal?_
|
| It massively simplifies reporting requirements. If you're
| forming a Delaware entity, you file and go.
| codexb wrote:
| There's no way to solve this problem short of public,
| government registration of all cash and assets, which has
| been done before, but which most people are wary of, and for
| good reason.
|
| There are so many ways that a person can be the beneficiary
| of a corporation that is not technically "owned" by them,
| depending on how you define "own". Does the corporation
| issues stock? Do they have investor agreements? Is it just a
| loan agreement? You'd have to register all those different
| documents. Follow that all the way down and you eventually
| have to register all assets and cash.
|
| In the end, there's very little legitimate legal reason to
| have to know precisely who _controls_ an asset or cash, so
| long as someone is responsible for the public obligations of
| taxes, unless there has been some crime.
| mathgradthrow wrote:
| >good reason.
|
| skeptical of the "good" qualifier.
| codexb wrote:
| Historically, registration of assets has been used by
| government to seize and tax the property of those they
| opposed.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Get the filings for the shell company from secretaries of state.
| Search for other entities that have the same mailing addresses.
| Search local records for construction permits, zoning
| applications, business licenses and suchlike concerning the same
| addresses. These cross-checks have worked well for me in the
| past.
| nocoiner wrote:
| These are extremely good tips. The value of the address of the
| entity may be marginal (a lot of times, the address listed on
| the formation paperwork is the address of a registered agent
| services company, which may handle thousands and thousands of
| unrelated companies) but searching other databases for the name
| of the entity (paying close attention to spelling and
| abbreviation - though often, this gets flubbed in other
| filings) or the person who formed it can turn up some
| interesting connections.
| spxneo wrote:
| this area is super murky with legitimate use cases for shell
| companies. im wondering why this is an area that hasn't been
| solved by eager engineers. seem like there is a large gap to fill
| for people needing turnkey IBCs but one problem might be using
| offshore data centres.
|
| I often see advertisements for incorporating offshore but there
| is no legitimate way to know which are authentic and which are
| just skimming on top of what you can do by yourself.
|
| It's quite fascinating enough that I need to hire a CFO or
| someone specifically familiar with IBCs
| snarf21 wrote:
| Genuinely curious: What are the legitimate use cases for shell
| companies that hide who owns them?
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Public figure who doesn't want randos knowing where their
| house is.
|
| Non-public or public figure who doesn't want their name
| associated with certain business activities that they partake
| in.
| dheera wrote:
| Or even non-public figure not wanting randos knowing where
| their house is.
|
| I'm not a public figure and I don't want where I sleep
| posted all over the internet. I don't have the budget for
| security if some Twitter fool decides to give me a death
| threat because of a comment.
| deadbabe wrote:
| If someone really wants to know where you live, they will
| find you. If the information in your bio is actually
| yours, there's already plenty to work with. :)
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| A lock is not to keep out bad guys who want to get in,
| but to keep good guys honest. Same with privacy.
|
| Why not install a camera on your toilet while we're at
| it?
|
| Or do you have something to hide?
| deadbabe wrote:
| I'll do everything I can to keep sickos the hell away
| from me. Too many stalkers or people DMing inappropriate
| shit. But I never forget that in the end I'm never truly
| safe from someone trying to do serious harm.
| csa wrote:
| > A lock is not to keep out bad guys who want to get in
|
| This is definitely not true. Locks are to keep randos
| from invading your space -- drunk, drugged, and/or
| mentally unhealthy people end up in the oddest places
| sometimes. My buddy had a guy high on meth open and climb
| through a laundry room window and start wandering through
| his house. I've twice had drunk people knock on my door
| loudly and try to let themselves in (different cities)
| and swear that they were at the right address. These were
| all in decent/nice areas (some not so nice areas a mile
| or so away, but still...).
|
| Same with privacy corps...
|
| You don't want some rando who is irrationally angry at
| your business or at you to be able to find you easily.
|
| You don't have to be as famous as Barbra Streisand in
| order to be a person of interest to mentally unhealthy
| randos.
|
| Just my 2 cents...
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| Totally agree, and I don't feel this invalidated my point
| excitom wrote:
| I remember when you could find someone's home address in
| the white pages of the phone book.
| avmich wrote:
| I guess sending threats then required more of sending a
| physical mail, which could be used with better effect in
| dealing with threats?
| klyrs wrote:
| Back in the day, I looked up a minor celebrity in my
| hometown and just... knocked on his door one afternoon
| and had a nice chat. Can't wait to explain this to my
| grandchildren.
| williamcotton wrote:
| Both seem counter to the notion of a re _public_ and the
| accountability needed for private property.
|
| From what I can gather most houses of public figures are
| already known.
| Terr_ wrote:
| > Both seem counter to the notion of a republic and the
| accountability needed for private property.
|
| Imagine that you own and run Acme Critical Publishing,
| which publishes exposes of crimes and ethical lapses of
| the sitting President. In speeches, he starts rambling
| about your company as an example of Horrible Very Bad
| People, and the next thing you know some supported of his
| casually looked up your home address online and now there
| are burning lower-case-t's on your lawn... I'd say the
| republic and accountability are both suffering in that
| scenario.
|
| It's one of those "tools that can be used for for good or
| evil" things, and simply prohibiting the tool isn't
| necessarily the best way to maximize the good while
| minimizing the evil.
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| In your story, there are two failures; firstly, the
| President's failure to exhibit due care in the content of
| his speeches (an increased responsibility due to his
| lofty station), secondly, the lack of a police response
| to disperse ominous gatherings before they become
| violent.
|
| Neither of these failures have anything to do with the
| anonymity of company directors. The President could know
| you personally, and still leak your address. Similarly,
| there could be a mob vandalising your property even if
| you didn't run Acme Critical Publishing, because that
| kind of thing happens in riots sometimes.
|
| In some countries there is almost no anonymity on the
| public record, but this doesn't seem to negatively affect
| the level of violence in their societies compared to
| otherwise comparable locations. Therefore I would opine
| that 'enjoying safety' and 'enjoying privacy' are two
| very different and mostly orthogonal issues.
| xtracto wrote:
| Something like this just happened in Mexico: the
| president exposed the personal contact info (phone iirc)
| of some journalist that wrote a piece critical of his
| government:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/22/world/americas/mexico-
| pre...
|
| So, imagine if Trump exposed the contact info of people
| behind one of those groups showing anti-trump ads. His
| minions could use it as a signal to attack them.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Why is public knowledge of who owns what home required
| for accountability in a republic? A functioning
| government should have no problem enforcing whatever laws
| and codes exist regardless of whether the owner is
| directly known or shielded through some LLC.
| williamcotton wrote:
| So we should rely on the government being the only party
| with access to what you would make privileged
| information? A key aspect of public accountability is
| tautologically dependent on public information. We are
| supposed to keep our own elected officials as well as
| those granted the right to private property in check or
| else fraud and corruption would reign supreme.
|
| We have been operating under these conditions since the
| advent of the democratic republic and to our good
| fortune.
| codexb wrote:
| What about a "republic" (ie. a nation governed by laws)
| requires public registration of assets?
| matt_s wrote:
| Outside of privacy, I could imagine it might be beneficial to
| structure a set of companies as a primary company and a bunch
| of shell companies to separate accounting and legal matters.
| This way if a sub-company is in a dangerous industry or has
| large liabilities in its normal business that you would want
| the primary company to be insulated from that. IANAL so I
| don't know if this is a use case, there are probably ways to
| do this w/o privacy.
| toofy wrote:
| This is exactly why we've been unable to hold anyone
| responsible for misuse of their powers in so many
| instances.
| amluto wrote:
| As an example, it's extremely common for financial
| companies of all sorts to create a company to hold an asset
| or group of assets. This can be done for all manner of
| reasons, including difference in beneficial ownership.
|
| A VC fund, PE fund, etc will often have a "manager" (the
| possibly big-name company that operates it) and a bunch of
| limited partners _for that specific fund_. If you own a
| piece of a BlackRock fund, for example, you don't own
| BlackRock itself. And the corporate structure reflects
| this.
| amluto wrote:
| Hiding one's address is nice so one can avoid listing one's
| address in the public record. And the services used to
| conceal one's address are largely the same services that hide
| one's name.
|
| Also, Delaware corporations are very popular for many
| legitimate reasons even for businesses with no personnel in
| Delaware. But you still need an agent for service of process
| in Delaware.
|
| I wish the states would allow designating the Secretary of
| State as the agent for service of process and paying a
| nominal fee for them to forward documents electronically.
| This would keep relevant information available to law
| enforcement and the courts, but it would avoid the need for
| paying mildly sketchy registered agents for their mildly
| sketchy services.
|
| It's not clear to me that there's any sort of bright line
| between shell companies and any other sort of corporation,
| anyway.
| sealeck wrote:
| You can also rent a mailbox at a serviced office who will
| scan all the mail and email it to you instead of setting up
| an offshore shell company?
| amluto wrote:
| I think you have the dichotomy wrong.
|
| A registered agent is, among other things, a services
| mailbox. And a "shell" company, whatever that is, isn't
| necessarily offshore.
|
| _Many_ US companies, even very ordinary ones,
| incorporate in Delaware for various, mostly good,
| reasons. IIRC even YC strongly recommends this. Unless
| the company actually has an office in Delaware, it will
| use the services of a registered agent _in Delaware_ to
| satisfy the requirements of Delaware. Then the company
| will register to do business in whatever state it's in.
| Or it could break the law and not register.
|
| The only funny business here is that, at least
| traditionally, there is no requirement to inform Delaware
| of the beneficial ownership structure of the company.
| This seems to be changing -- the US is pushing back
| against companies with anonymous ownership.
|
| The big question, to me at least, is why anyone expects
| bad actors to fill out fancy new forms correctly.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| Common case is privacy and safety for public figures. Some
| places have laws that specifically allow some public
| officials to have their otherwise public records sealed for
| privacy and safety reasons. Aggressive harrassment by
| activists, conspiracy theorists, and other malcontents is
| definitely a thing when you become high profile.
|
| A related case is investors in or owners of a category of
| otherwise legal business whose _relatives_ are targeted by
| nasty people for that fact alone. This includes businesses
| like coal and defense. Shell companies help shield themselves
| and their extended family from association with a business
| that attracts undue drama.
| abound wrote:
| I've seen shell companies used during acquisitions to make it
| less obvious that FAANG is buying a company.
| inetknght wrote:
| I'd argue that's not a legitimate use for a shell company.
| Hiding the entities behind the company should not be legal.
| abound wrote:
| For clarity, in the instance I witnessed, the company
| being acquired was 100% aware that it was FAANG acquiring
| them, it's just that all the legal paperwork had the
| acquiree being consumed by a random shell company that
| was a wholly owned subsidiary of the FAANG company.
|
| I think the goal is just not to leak information ahead of
| time, and perhaps to insulate the FAANG company in case
| anything goes sideways mid-deal.
| codexb wrote:
| It's not always nefarious. If I'm an investor, I might make
| an agreement with an LLC that I'll invest $1000 in their
| business, but I get 99% of their income and ownership
| control, or even 100%. There's no requirement that we
| register or publicly disclose our private agreement.
|
| The real question is, what legitimate reason do _you_ have to
| know who owns a particular thing or asset. If you see a car
| parked somewhere, do you have a legal right to know who owns
| it? What about a lemonade stand? What legitimate legal reason
| do you have to compel people to register their assets?
| CPLX wrote:
| A common case that doesn't seem illegal or immoral to me at
| least is people assembling groups of related properties in
| order to combine them.
|
| So like if you want to buy all the buildings on a block, or
| something like that, and want to pay fair market value for all
| instead of being gouged for the last few.
|
| I suppose that's arguable either way on policy grounds but it
| seems reasonable to me.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| One man's gouging is just another's operation of a genuinely
| free and transparent market.
|
| What is a fair market price? How does it differ from the
| market price, and who gets to make the distinction?
| CPLX wrote:
| I mean we are used to having at least some privacy when
| engaged in business negotiations. Do you forward your pay
| stubs from the prior job to a new employer when engaged in
| salary negotiations?
| yieldcrv wrote:
| you dont need to use an intermediary to incorporate offshore
|
| its the same process as incorporating in any US state, where
| you need an agent of service or registered agent if you dont
| live there
|
| pick the country just like you would pick a state
|
| and some countries have states too, the US is actually one of
| the weirder countries as you cant incorporate at the national
| level
|
| whereas in st kitts & nevis - another federation - you can do
| both, a st kitts & nevis entity has one set of transparency and
| regulations, and nevis has a different set of regulations and
| generally seen as more favorable
|
| its not really a taboo topic like ICIJ and some socioeconomic
| classes of people make it out to be. its a catalogue with
| offerings domestically and worldwide
| spxneo wrote:
| if the article was about Tor, comments would be overwhelming
| supportive of privacy. I have a hunch about why they would be
| against corporate privacy and it is probably tied to
| socioeconomic reasons and the media they are exposed to (aka
| reddit)
| yieldcrv wrote:
| the bias probably does stem from that, tor is egalitarian
| everyone can use it, while people perceive business
| vehicles as expensive and advantageous only for the wealthy
| LastTrain wrote:
| The real question is - do the legitimate reasons outweigh the
| negatives? The stated reasons are pretty flimsy - are they
| worth not knowing who owns 1/4 of Manhattan?
| spxneo wrote:
| There's all sorts of legitimate ways for instance there are
| traders who are watching companies doing mergers and
| acquisitions and you want to make it not so obvious. There's
| family offices that do not want to advertise but still need
| to manage their wealth. Holding companies with investment
| portfolios in non-liquid assets, isolate and manage risks
| etc.
|
| People in the comments are conflating layering with simply
| legit use cases like using foreign jurisdiction and shell
| companies for corporate/investment strategies.
| clamprecht wrote:
| I see no comments so far about the Corporate Transparency Act[1]
| and how it affects privacy with LLCs, etc. The US government will
| soon have a database of all (complying) beneficial owners. This
| database will eventually be hacked, leaked, shared with local law
| enforcement (further allowing it to be leaked).
|
| How will the "rich people" maintain privacy/secrecy after the
| Corporate Transparency Act?
|
| [1] https://www.uschamber.com/co/start/strategy/small-
| business-c...
| yieldcrv wrote:
| It was immediately challenged as soon as citizens could get
| standing this year
|
| A judge ruled it unconstitutional - narrowly only for the
| organizations and their members that filed the case - and its
| currently being appealed by the US gov
|
| its going to the 5th circuit though so rich people don't have
| to do anything, this regulation is DOA
|
| its interesting what cases make headline news and whats
| relegated to law journals
| cj wrote:
| > its interesting what cases make headline news and whats
| relegated to law journals
|
| It certainly made headlines to people its impacts. 2 of my
| law firms sent out alerts. (They send out alerts maybe 1-2
| per year whenever a significant legal change is happening - I
| think the last alert was the Wayfair sales tax Supreme Court
| decision)
| yieldcrv wrote:
| yeah I filed a flurry of anonymous LLCs via intermediaries
| via my lawyer at the end of last year since the new law
| initially only affects business entities created on or
| after Jan 1 2024, and older ones starting to need reporting
| just in Jan 2025
|
| I took one look at the law and figured that I won't have to
| do it by 2025 because it'll get declared unconstitutional
|
| so far my bingo board is working out
| arminiusreturns wrote:
| Rich people get out of it because all their main hidey-holes
| (Banking, Insurance, etc) are exempted.
| DyslexicAtheist wrote:
| isn't the CTA US only? or would it have jurisdiction for a
| structure in UAE, Channel Islands, Dublin, or Luxembourg etc.
|
| When it comes to actual personal wealth management (not
| corporate tax optimization) there is also Austria,
| Lichtenstein, Geneve, Monaco, etc which are all very livable
| for HNWI and their families.
| mamonster wrote:
| Lichtenstein isn't super livable, there is absolutely nothing
| to do in Vaduz.
|
| Geneva and Monaco sure but one thing you have to realize
| about Geneva/Monaco is that for simply HNWI(UHNWI is 25 mil
| and up) Monaco is too expensive and Geneva has a horrible
| ratio of living costs to living quality(the expensive hotel
| quarter is right next to the "open drug/prostitution market
| at midnight on a Saturday" quarter). Geneva basically lost
| its lustre for 10-20 million networth foreigners after
| Cologny became saturated and overpriced over the last 10-15
| years.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Did you mean Andorra, not Austria?
| V__ wrote:
| It seems really weird that you could do business with a company
| and not know who your actually doing business with. Also, it's
| kinda weird that there is no expectation of privacy except when
| you want to hide your assets.
| smallmancontrov wrote:
| The opaqueness is transparently self-serving for those who
| own the stinkiest parts of our economy. We should demand
| better.
| bdowling wrote:
| Often no member of the public does business with these
| corporations. E.g., a corporation set up by a celebrity to
| own a private home and keep her address out of public
| databases.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| I don't think that's any kind of justification. It doesn't
| matter whether it's a member of the public or another
| business or a government agency, there should be a known
| person or people responsible for the actions of any company
| to be held responsible for breach of contracts or bad
| actions. All business is based on contracts of agreements,
| and the whole thing would entirely fall apart if no one
| could be held accountable for breach of contract.
|
| There's a lot of talk about the increase in KYC for
| individuals setting up accounts with banks and other
| financial institutions for reasons of anti money
| laundering. And yet anonymity is still allowed (and
| effectively encouraged) in business ownership which could
| facilitate far greater amounts of money laundering more
| easily.
|
| Ever since reading about Mossack Fonseca it has bothered me
| (not confused me though, since the rules are made by the
| people who most benefit from it).
| nradov wrote:
| That rather misses the point. The entire reason we have
| corporations is to abstract those issues away. For most
| routine business it's better to deal with a faceless
| corporation instead of trying to personalize everything.
| The _corporation_ itself can be held accountable for
| contract compliance and in extreme cases you can get a
| court order to seize corporate assets; that 's much
| easier than trying to seize and auction off the CEO's
| personal art collection or whatever.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| My understanding is that Board members are intended to be
| personally responsible for actions of the company.
|
| Which is why homeless people and ne'er-do-wells get paid
| $10 to sign a piece of paper (which remains unread) but
| states this responsibility for shell companies X, Y, and
| Z.
|
| Also, by design, shell companies don't tend to have
| assets worth seizing.
| nradov wrote:
| Your understanding is mostly wrong under US federal and
| state law. Generally Board members are not personally
| liable for corporate debts. It is only possible to pierce
| the corporate veil in unusual situations, like if they
| engaged in criminal activity or illegally tried to put
| corporate assets into their own names in an attempt to
| hide those from creditors or violate a court order.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| I'll take that under advisement.
|
| I know I'm mixing up limited understandings of Australian
| and US legislation, and sprinkling on top of that my
| frustrations with those two fairly strict legislative
| countries allowing business to be conducted with
| organisations that have opaque, international ownership
| structures. It's a glaring hypocrisy (that I'm likely
| missing a fair bit of nuance due to only a surface
| understanding) given the ratcheting up of the
| surveillance state on individuals.
|
| The whole area is something that I would like to gonzo-
| research as a retirement project.
| nradov wrote:
| As a customer or vendor why would I care who the beneficial
| owners are? Either the product works or it doesn't. Either
| they pay their bills or they don't. I don't want to waste
| time digging into their internal details.
| OtherShrezzing wrote:
| If you're a vendor, particularly of financial products,
| you'll likely be compelled by law to know who the
| beneficial owners are so that you don't inadvertently
| supply financial services to a hostile state or sanctioned
| entity.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| Companies should not be allowed to have secret ownership; I
| don't give a shit if this data is leaked. Corporations are a
| legal fiction, and so they have no right to or expectation of
| privacy, like there should be for persons with e.g. individual
| tax records.
|
| The basic operation of markets depends on having as little
| information asymmetry as possible between opposite sides of a
| transaction, and part of that means _knowing who you 're doing
| business with_ to make informed decisions about the reputation
| of your counterparty.
| kylecordes wrote:
| Large publicly traded companies sometimes already have
| pseudo-secret/anonymous ownership, with most of the shares
| held by a giant mutual funds etc.
| Gormo wrote:
| Large publicly traded companies are entirely exempted from
| this legislation.
| Gormo wrote:
| You are of course free to decide whether or not to do
| business with an organization based on how well you
| know/trust the ownership, and decline do do business that are
| evasive about their ownership at your own prerogative.
|
| I'm not sure why ownership needs to be openly published in
| advance -- you can always query them confidentially through
| private correspondence -- or how having ownership compiled
| into a federal database that you don't have access to (unless
| you have corrupt influence over the relevant agency) will
| help you.
| erellsworth wrote:
| > How will the "rich people" maintain privacy/secrecy after the
| Corporate Transparency Act?
|
| I mean, I think the whole point of the act is to stop "rich
| people" from maintaining privacy/secrecy in regards to the
| businesses they own. And that's a good thing.
| klyrs wrote:
| You seem to be under the impression that the Act will have
| its intended effect and that OC was bemoaning that. I read
| this as, "with the Act in place, how will its intent be
| subverted by those in power"
| Gormo wrote:
| > I mean, I think the whole point of the act is to stop "rich
| people" from maintaining privacy/secrecy in regards to the
| businesses they own.
|
| No, the act has little effect on "rich people". It applies
| only to non-public firms with 20 or _fewer_ employees, and
| exempts most firms in the banking and finance industries.
|
| It encumbers your local barbershop and the mom-and-pop
| restaurant on the corner, but the "rich people" get a pass.
|
| > And that's a good thing.
|
| It turns out that "rich people" have as much right to
| maintain the privacy of sensitive personal information as
| anyone else.
| altruios wrote:
| Name a company that is legal to run that SHOULD have it's
| owner's identity hidden...
|
| Only those that dwell in darkness fear the light. Exposing who
| own these LLC's seems like a solid 'pro-truth' move for
| America.
| toolz wrote:
| A company that specializes in helping people escape from
| horrible rulers would be an example. Not everything deserves
| to be public. There are always as many good reasons to hide
| as there are entities that need to be hidden from.
| newsclues wrote:
| If a company that specializes in upsetting "rulers" their
| security shouldn't be security through obscurity and it
| would be harder to trust than Former Spec Op Dudes Name
| Incorporated
|
| Because if you insist on privacy for the "helping people
| escape rulers" business the money laundering and criminals
| will suddenly be in that building!
| ericd wrote:
| As always, obscurity is one (often very helpful) layer of
| a multilayered defensive strategy. The meme that it's
| useless needs to go away. If you have a safe at home, you
| should probably hide its existence, because even if power
| tools couldn't reliably crack a safe (they can), there's
| always the $5 wrench strategy.
| toolz wrote:
| Criminals and launderers have never and will likely never
| need to incorporate. Sure, it's a tool they might use,
| but at best you'd take some of their margins away from
| them. Doesn't seem like a great trade to me, stealing
| some of the criminals profits in exchange for exposing
| the people who need privacy.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| Launderers are always incorporated. If they weren't, they
| wouldn't be able to launder.
| toolz wrote:
| that's not true, you can launder money many ways without
| incorporating or even using a company...just one example
| would be paying cash for used vehicles and reselling
| them...or buying crypto mining hardware - that's just off
| the top of my head as someone with zero experience
| laundering. I have to imagine the pros are better at
| coming up with ways than I am...
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| Not disagreeing with your point, but I would think
| (personal opinion, so feel free to entirely discard) that
| there are scales of laundering, and the top end of the
| scale, where governments should be focusing most
| energy/worry, couldn't be achieved on a 'personal' basis
| - although potentially on the mutli-personal basis, but
| I'd also think that would introduce risk if each person
| is able to be linked.
|
| Happy to be proven wrong though, and to hear counter-
| anecdotes (I find it incredibly interesting). Systems and
| loopholes and patches and 'bugs'.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Sex toy product design. I happen to speak from personal
| experience; a family member was working at a conservative job
| that wouldn't view his side business favorably.
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| Never before had it crossed my mind that some professional
| had a load of CAD sex toy blueprints on their workstation.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| They actually sculpted the molds by hand, since this was
| back when 3D printers were crude:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31667798
|
| 3D printers only just barely became viable as prototyping
| tools for molds in the last few years. Specifically the
| Form 3.
| eddd-ddde wrote:
| Well that's a different issue, that's like hiding my
| identity because some company won't hire people of my
| colour.
|
| You don't fight discrimination by making yourself
| anonymous.
| eppp wrote:
| Not everyone wants to be an avatar for a social ill. Some
| people just want to live their lives and be left alone.
| altruios wrote:
| Just for the sake of completeness: do you think the
| customers of your family member's business have any
| informational rights to know to whom they are giving their
| money to? If not, Does that lack of a right translate to
| every other company? How do you reconcile 'vote with your
| dollar' without knowing who you are voting for?
|
| I agree that is a sensitive issue - but only in so far as
| 'gotta cover their ass' from a conservative job... which
| is... a weird place for a sex-toy designer to be... (which
| raises far more questions about the quality of toy-design
| if it isn't supporting a livelihood). Appeasement to
| conservatives is rarely a good strategy... appeasement
| through omission of data about who they are hiring seems
| like your family member put themselves in this precarious
| situation on their own volition. Everyone's got to eat,
| though, so can't be too bothered :)
|
| But hiding who you are: feels morally dubious and self
| serving in that case you present.
| nickpp wrote:
| > But hiding who you are: feels morally dubious and self
| serving in that case you present.
|
| I wonder: do you hold the same views when it comes to
| regular people's online privacy?
| axus wrote:
| It would be fair if the customers were given the same
| ability to pay anonymously.
|
| Maybe escrow services that did not hide their identity
| would solve the problem (for a price)?
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| > How do you reconcile 'vote with your dollar' without
| knowing who you are voting for?
|
| "Vote with your dollar" is for morons. I don't reconcile
| it because it is irrelevant.
| drewg123 wrote:
| A company owned by an instagram influencer, youtube
| celebrity, only fans star, etc to sell their merch could
| easily lead to doxing the influencer. People in those
| industries take advantage of loopholes to hide LLC ownership
| specifically to avoid getting SWATted, having creeps hide
| outside their house and SA them, etc.
| altruios wrote:
| Knowing who owns the LLC is ever so slightly different than
| also knowing their home address. Knowing THAT someone owns
| company X doesn't mean you know their location as well.
|
| That's all I care about or want: To know 'who', not where
| 'who' is.
| SJC_Hacker wrote:
| Yeah, once you have someone's name, as well as some other
| identifying info such as approximate location and age
| finding out where the live is rather trivial.
| cess11 wrote:
| Right, and then you can check out where they live and
| whether they're nice people.
|
| Seems good to me.
| drewg123 wrote:
| Heck, some states list the address of the owner.
|
| One of her friends registered an llc with herself as the
| owner, and one of her followers looked her llc up and
| found her real name and address via the state llc
| registration web site. He then hid in the bushes outside
| her house and "surprised" her. Leading her to close the
| llc and move.
| matsemann wrote:
| How could this lead to doxxing?
| Gormo wrote:
| Lead to? It _is_ doxxing.
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| Anyone touching anything in the vicinity of abortion
| services. Pornography LLC. Any number of anonymous chat
| platforms.
| axus wrote:
| If I ran a small service for an online game , I'd want to
| keep my identity secret. A small (but loud) number of gamers
| are toxic.
| lvass wrote:
| I hosted some online game server once and toxic isn't how
| I'd describe the issue. The people were all nice and
| gentle, except this one guy, after I banned him for
| targeted suicide encouragement, he spent months harassing
| everyone who ever joined the server until I shut it down.
| Thankfully we didn't know each other's identities.
| Eji1700 wrote:
| > Only those that dwell in darkness fear the light.
|
| Yeah this has worked out so well historically.
|
| The whole point of privacy laws is to allow for the idea of
| bad actors on the other side of the equation. I'm all for
| tightening up loopholes but off hand sayings like this are
| thrown around all the time and they're terrible logic that
| isn't at all backed up by evidence.
| cbsmith wrote:
| Classic, "if you've done nothing wrong, you should have
| nothing to hide".
|
| The unscrupulous aspect might not be the company, but the
| audience. It shouldn't be that hard to imagine that owners of
| companies might be targeted for harassment, violence, etc.,
| and might even be reluctant to invest in a company at all
| because of the problems that would come from being publicly
| listed in association with that company. One might argue that
| ownership comes with these consequences, but of course the
| impact might be broader, extending to friends and family
| members, who wouldn't necessarily have any ownership stake in
| the business. The Internet being the Internet, this tends to
| be a particular problem for women and minorities.
|
| Then there's cases where the information could be harmful to
| the company, not the owner.
|
| There's cases where they're just trying to avoid PR/political
| problems that can be perfectly defensible, but if you're
| having to defend them, you've already lost the PR/political
| battle. The Internet being the Internet, even if they purge
| all public political positions from their personal discourse,
| even historical political activity going back well before
| they ever founded a business could be a problem. I know
| business owners who make sure their business avoids engaging
| in anything that would put them on any side of a political or
| hot button issue, and they extend that to themselves because
| their name is attached to the business.
|
| Simple example: I know one person who is involved with
| shelters for battered women. They're fine that everyone knows
| they're involved in it, but there are some businesses they've
| invested in where they're a silent partner specifically
| because their partners don't want the harassment/violence/ill
| will that can come with that.
| Gormo wrote:
| > Name a company that is legal to run that SHOULD have it's
| owner's identity hidden...
|
| Every single one of them. If you don't want to do business
| with a firm that's evasive about its ownership, that's your
| prerogative, but forcing _anyone_ engaged in business to have
| sensitive personal information about them recorded in a
| centralized database that will be a beacon for corruption and
| abuse is invasive, anti-social, and dangerous.
|
| > Only those that dwell in darkness fear the light.
|
| You are of course welcome to post your full name, home
| address, phone number, social security number, annual income
| itemized by source, credit score, and any other personal
| information you feel should be exposed to "light" right here
| in this thread.
| MC68328 wrote:
| My credit score is 850. What now?
|
| It's funny that every bit of that information is demanded
| by employers, and they usually don't reciprocate. It's only
| considered "sensitive" information because our society is
| incompetent and corrupt. The secrecy that protects the rich
| and powerful is an artifact of that corruption. In a just
| and competent society, none of that information could be
| used against us, because we wouldn't be using identifiers
| as secret keys, and harassers could be identified and
| punished.
|
| If you have to hide to feel free, you're not actually free.
| Gormo wrote:
| > My credit score is 850. What now?
|
| Name, address, phone, SSN, credit card numbers, tax
| returns, itemized income statement, health records, SMS
| logs, phone logs, email account exports, relationship
| history.
|
| > It's only considered "sensitive" information because
| our society is incompetent and corrupt.
|
| "Society" is an abstract concept, and the concrete
| reality that it represents is a large collection of
| people who are mostly strangers to you, and whose
| interests and values are by no means guaranteed to align
| with yours even when they are totally honest.
|
| > The secrecy that protects the rich and powerful is an
| artifact of that corruption.
|
| The same secrecy protects you and me. And at the end of
| the day, I don't care one bit about "the rich", and "the
| powerful" are exactly who I want safeguards against.
|
| > In a just and competent society
|
| ...the streets would be paved with gold, champagne would
| flow from the taps, we'd all live to be a thousand, and
| our pets would speak to us in perfect English.
|
| > none of that information could be used against us
|
| You are of course free to use HTTP instead of HTTPS for
| all of your web-based data transmission.
|
| > If you have to hide to feel free, you're not actually
| free.
|
| I think I'll stick with imperfect freedom in this reality
| over perfect freedom in a nonexistent one.
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| > How will the "rich people" maintain privacy/secrecy after the
| Corporate Transparency Act?
|
| By hiring ex-CIA Agents having experience with setting up shell
| corporations after said act.
| clamprecht wrote:
| Then I ask the same question you just sidestepped: how will
| the ex-CIA agents maintain privacy/secrecy after the Act?
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| Ask them, I'm not a subject matter expert on such things. I
| can however infer they will have that capability because
| shell corporations are a fundamental building block of all
| their ops.
| janalsncm wrote:
| > This database will eventually be hacked, leaked, shared with
| local law enforcement
|
| We could extend this argument to individual taxpayer info too.
| Have these things happened with taxpayer info, and does that
| mean the IRS shouldn't get to know where you live?
| hughesjj wrote:
| > Have these things happened with taxpayer info
|
| Actually, yes. Same with voter registration. Hell in WA state
| voter registration is _public_ knowledge, along with whether
| you voted in any given election.
|
| Try it if you want it, but read the terms of service. Lots of
| "if you use this for advertising it's a felony" for anyone
| looking to grift
|
| https://www.sos.wa.gov/washington-voter-registration-
| databas...
| jollyllama wrote:
| Doesn't it only apply to new filings? Aren't all the old
| entities grandfathered in?
| PopAlongKid wrote:
| No. New entities have a 90-day window to file. Entities
| existing before 2024 must file no later by Jan 1 2025.
| Gormo wrote:
| > The US government will soon have a database of all
| (complying) beneficial owners. This database will eventually be
| hacked, leaked, shared with local law enforcement (further
| allowing it to be leaked).
|
| The BOI requirements of the CTA were recently ruled
| unconstitutional (as exceeding federal commerce-clause power
| and encroaching on powers reserved to states) in the first
| major test case before a federal court. [1]
|
| Since it was ruled unconstitutional on reserved powers grounds,
| they didn't even reach the 4th amendment implications, but
| there may be further consideration as these cases make their
| way up the court heirarchy.
|
| It's definitely not certain that this database is going
| anywhere.
|
| > How will the "rich people" maintain privacy/secrecy after the
| Corporate Transparency Act?
|
| The same way they do now. The CTA as formulated was only
| binding on non-publicly-traded companies with 20 or _fewer_
| employees. It also explicitly exempted companies whose primary
| business activity is financial services or asset holdings. This
| is why many regard it as an attack on small business disguised
| as an accountability measure for big business.
|
| [1] https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/corporates/cta-
| un...
| nerdawson wrote:
| > This database will eventually be hacked, leaked, shared with
| local law enforcement (further allowing it to be leaked).
|
| In the UK, all of that information is freely available to
| anyone via Companies House.
| kmod wrote:
| I think it's fascinating that when the topic is "shell companies"
| that the HN discourse is essentially "if they have nothing to
| hide then they don't need secrecy". I think that if the article
| were about linking "tor users" with their secret owners then we
| would see the opposite stance being taken.
|
| I'm not taking a position here, and I'm not saying even that
| these stances are necessarily contradictory, but just that the
| blanket argument "X shouldn't get to be secret because I don't
| think they have a legitimate reason" doesn't differentiate
| between these two cases.
| tgv wrote:
| Companies aren't people.
| BadHumans wrote:
| I'm people. I had a secret LLC I was doing contracting out of
| because I didn't want my companies'address out there easily.
| My companies' address being my house.
| and0 wrote:
| I also have an LLC for software and didn't love having to
| put my address, since I don't have a storefront or anything
| either, but I don't think it reveals any more info than
| someone could find from having your name in the first
| place.
| czbond wrote:
| In the future, you can proxy the address via a registered
| agent.
| nickpp wrote:
| When I set up my LLC I used all available ways to protect
| my name and address.
|
| No reason really, but I guess growing up hearing my
| grandparents stories about the communist take-over of our
| country taught me what happens when you are a target
| because you are publicly linked to your wealth.
| pjdesno wrote:
| Privacy is a human right. An LLC is not a human - granting
| it privacy rights is a choice which a government may make
| for practical reasons, not a moral issue.
|
| One of those practical reasons would be the use you put it
| to; that reason might be outweighed by widespread use of
| the same mechanism to shield wrongdoing.
| ChadNauseam wrote:
| Here we're talking about the privacy of the owner of the
| LLC, not of the LLC itself. In particular, the owner
| wants "what LLCs they own" to be private.
| pjdesno wrote:
| To be flip about it, I'd like a pony, too.
|
| More seriously, merely because someone wants ownership of
| an LLC to be private doesn't mean it ought to be.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| But that's the op's point. "Just because someone wants
| their browsing habits/pay amount/address/sexual
| preferences/etc private doesn't mean it ought to be."
|
| Is just as meaningful a sentence and the contrast in tone
| on hn when it comes to one type of privacy technology
| (vpn/tor/etc) and another (shell companies) does seem
| more visceral than logical.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| You can rent a mailbox or hire a registered agent for
| exactly this purpose for trivial amounts of money.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| In California, Federal Post Office boxes were not renewed
| one year after a Federal election year.. "surprise" you
| need to re-apply for your box.. including details of your
| automobile registration ? home address of course.. It
| just so happens there are majority $RACE workers at this
| Post Office.. walking out of the office is an ordinary
| middle-class man who is also $RACE .. a quick
| conversation confirms that the Post Office worker had
| simply accepted the monthly payment from that man instead
| of a full review. Similarly-aged middle class man of
| not-$RACE gets the complete review? yes. true story in
| the US West Coast
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| So someone that isn't your race went in to a post office
| make a monthly payment and wasn't identified, and you
| went in to make a yearly contract renewal and they
| identified you using another piece of paper from the
| government?
|
| Maybe the other man had already had his identity verified
| when he renewed, or was not doing what you think he was.
|
| Maybe you are seeing a conspiracy where there isn't one.
|
| Maybe you could have used a bill or any piece of paper
| with your real address on it if you had asked what other
| pieces of paper would work.
|
| Maybe I don't for a minute believe that this is the full
| story.
|
| Also, you can rent a private mailbox from any of the
| thousands of places that offer one if you so desire, and
| not deal with the post office.
| alwa wrote:
| Is the implication here that the feds didn't already know
| who leased that post office box from them? And that they
| don't have access to state DMV records?
|
| What do you intend for me to infer from your assertion
| that one individual's inferred race is more important to
| a postal worker than that specific individual's identity
| or existing relationship with the post office in this
| case?
|
| And where in the US do post office box rentals last
| longer than a year? I wasn't aware that it was possible
| to lease one for more than 12 months at a go [0]
|
| Are you familiar with Mail Covers? [1]
|
| [0] https://www.usps.com/manage/po-boxes.htm
|
| [1] https://www.uspsoig.gov/reports/audit-reports/postal-
| inspect...
| crtasm wrote:
| Is it not an option to use one of those services that gives
| you a business address to use? e.g. you hear of hundreds of
| companies all registered to a single small office
| somewhere.
| EdwardDiego wrote:
| It differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in my one
| (NZ) you can use your lawyer or accountant as registered
| office address and address for service. So long as they
| hold a copy of the share register and other company
| documents should anyone wish to use their legal right to
| inspect your share register (it's an old clause, as share
| registers are also publicly available online now).
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > I'm people. I had a secret LLC.
|
| Your LLC is intangible. It can't do people-y things like
| shake my hand.
|
| Intangible IP would be something else that isn't people -
| we're just less confused about that.
| thuuuomas wrote:
| The identity of public entities is a matter of public interest
| where the identity of private individuals is not?
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| Some people say that about websites.
|
| Sounds good in theory, but we all know a true public record
| of the stuff would be mined by scammers, law enforcement,
| recruiters and lawyers.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| >> The identity of public entities is a matter of public
| interest where the identity of private individuals is not?
|
| > Some people say that about websites.
|
| The individuals visiting those sites would be reasonable
| candidates for privacy. What the websites do as a public
| entity would be subject to public scrutiny.
| dantheman wrote:
| For instance, who donated to NAACP during the civil rights
| era right?
| cogman10 wrote:
| I'm more interested in who donated to the George Wallace
| campaign.
|
| And frankly, if revealing that sort of information to the
| public means less donations, I'm pretty fine with that as
| an outcome. The fact is, corporations can buy
| politicians/judges and that's a way bigger issue than the
| privacy of millionaires.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| >> The identity of public entities is a matter of public
| interest where the identity of private individuals is not?
|
| > For instance, who donated to NAACP during the civil
| rights era right?
|
| Those individuals should not be a matter of public interest
| - yes. Was there a different point you are trying to make?
| jmoss20 wrote:
| To be fair, I don't think the rationale is really "if they have
| nothing to hide...". More something having to do with whether
| privacy is something that should come along with the legal
| arrangement of, say, an LLC.
|
| > just that the blanket argument "X shouldn't get to be secret
| because I don't think they have a legitimate reason" doesn't
| differentiate between these two cases.
|
| Not only these cases -- that argument won't differentiate
| between any cases ;-).
|
| Better I think to make sure we really understand the arguments
| being made. Good chance the real argument isn't quite _that_
| bad.
| tcmart14 wrote:
| I don't necessarily think its the "nothing to hide" argument,
| even though it gets presented as that. Its more of frustration
| that privacy in the corporate world seems to have a lot more
| protections than the every day normal person world. The
| argument given for the average person is, "nothing to hide."
| Now it is just the normal person saying, well if that argument
| is sufficient for us, its sufficient for them. If it isn't,
| then the rules for us need to change.
| derekam wrote:
| Yeah, my only use of this post was to see if there was anything
| I could get my business removed from in the tools listed. I
| just don't like people knowing where I live; various past
| experiences have made me hypervigilant about this. It isn't
| hard to track someone down with a state and sufficiently
| uncommon full name.
|
| "As soon as you run a business or have more than $X you have no
| right to privacy" is a position a bizarre number of otherwise
| normal people have, though never stated in those terms.
| 9dev wrote:
| I have no clue how it is in the US, but can't you simply set
| up a post office box to register your business?
| IggleSniggle wrote:
| I _don 't_ share the position you describe, but I don't think
| it's particularly bizarre in a capitalist society. When
| capital is very directly connected to the power you wield
| over everyone else, it's not unreasonable to wish to know the
| identity of the people that "control your fate." It's just
| the natural tension between the power of the people and the
| power of the wallet.
| sealeck wrote:
| I think privacy is really about power - we think the individual
| deserves privacy because it protects their personal autonomy
| from either corporate or state abuse. My view is that privacy
| is important because it's a prerequisite for self-expression -
| it's not just "oh you might have something to hide", it's that
| if you are watched/monitored then your behaviour will change.
|
| Why is this different when it comes to corporations? First,
| some jurisdictions (e.g. the UK) argue that limited liability
| is a privilege because it provides extensive legal protection
| for those undertaking a venture. With that privilege come
| certain responsibilities and duties, one of which is non-
| anonymity. There's also a pragmatic argument that it deters bad
| behaviour which is another reason to justify this.
|
| Second, I think it's _really_ hard to argue that being able to
| have an anonymous, offshore shell corporation is essential for
| your self expression. Especially not when you are using it to
| hide large amounts of money. In fact, this infringes upon other
| people's right to self expression by depriving the state of
| funding that it would use to provide services to them such as
| education, subsidising the arts, etc.
|
| There's a good piece in the New Yorker which explores exactly
| this question:
| https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/27/why-the-privac...
| skinkestek wrote:
| Friends of mine ran a small Ltd as a moonshine operation to
| fundraise for causes they wanted to fundraise for.
|
| The way they do it has been tried all the way to the top here
| and everyone agree it is legal.
|
| They still lost all their contracts, again[1], after media
| found out and made a fuzz about the fact that nobody took out
| salaries but transferred the profit to causes they identified
| with. Media even pointed out that it was legal, but, big orgs
| don't care: they do whatever it takes to get media away.
|
| [1]: yes, this isn't the first time.
| sealeck wrote:
| I really can't comment here because it seems like there are
| a million possible details that could make this either
| something very illegal or a miscarriage of justice.
| skinkestek wrote:
| It was in all the papers. Went through all instances, all
| the way to the relevant department.
|
| But of course there is nothing in Norwegian law that that
| denies people the right to donate their share, as long as
| every other law is followed.
|
| Which is why last time media even pointed it out in
| cleartext the article: everything is legal.
|
| They just wrote the article in the style of a criminal
| investigation anyway and askes big companies questions
| the same way they would have done with if they were
| caught dealing with russian mobsters.
|
| That way they can point to the fact that they have
| informed about it while still destroying the marked for
| someone they don't like.
|
| (Sorry, English is nit my first language.)
| mistrial9 wrote:
| > non-anonymity. There's also a pragmatic argument that it
| deters bad behaviour which is another reason to justify this.
|
| that goes both ways .. tax collection, arbitrary and
| capricious enforcement of regulation, scrutiny-as-punishment
| .. these things are as old as cities
| sealeck wrote:
| I think this is usually a problem which is more easily
| solved by better funding tax authorities and installing
| better oversight rather than by making it easier for people
| to not pay tax.
|
| I think most people's tax affairs are pretty clear-cut to
| assess (e.g. if you are an individual earning an income or
| run a small business). People who structure their tax
| affairs in convoluted ways where it becomes non-trivial to
| work out what the correct amount of tax they should be
| paying is (or even a question which can't really be
| answered until you are in caught) generally have a lot of
| money or are trying something stupid (e.g. trying to pay
| yourself your salary as a loan through an offshore company
| where the tax authority are obviously going to think this
| is illegal, see
| https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/01/18/barrowman_fraud).
| jacksnipe wrote:
| Corporations have all sorts of special legal protections, on
| top of being the very thing (centers of capital) that the
| entire structure of government is meant to protect.
|
| Individuals do not (unless backed by a corporation).
| dietmtnview wrote:
| It's absolutely wild that you're equating the rights of a
| person to the rights of a corporation. Corporations impact all
| of us whereas a person using a VPN to remain anonymous is
| protecting themselves from corporations.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossack_Fonseca
| logifail wrote:
| > It's absolutely wild that you're equating the rights of a
| person to the rights of a corporation.
|
| What about a one-person corporation?*
|
| * I know that in some jurisdictions you need more than one,
| but let's not jump on that... Big business this isn't
| tech_ken wrote:
| Money isn't speech and corporations aren't people. I'm fine
| with someone using Tor to circumvent like a national content
| ban, I'm not fine with someone using a shell-corp to evade
| trust regulation or hide their involvement with a shady
| industry.
|
| > "X shouldn't get to be secret because I don't think they have
| a legitimate reason" doesn't differentiate between these two
| cases.
|
| It does differentiate because what constitutes a 'legitimate
| reason' for having privacy is extremely different between the
| contexts. An individual human has much more latitude for
| seeking privacy than a chunk of capital given legal status by a
| contract, IMO.
| monkpit wrote:
| > Money isn't speech and corporations aren't people.
|
| US case law has entered the chat.
| EdwardDiego wrote:
| Limited liability companies were created to allow risk-taking
| in business. They impose a social cost when they fail, but it's
| one we accept because the ability to have a crack at creating a
| business, without being personally bankrupted if it fails,
| creates more economic activity [0].
|
| However, it doesn't mean we have to accept their usage for tax
| evasion or money laundering.
|
| [0]: Caveats - depending on your jurisdiction, don't trade
| while insolvent, don't personally guarantee business loans or
| leases.
| wnevets wrote:
| > I think that if the article were about linking "tor users"
| with their secret owners then we would see the opposite stance
| being taken.
|
| Companies aren't people.
| paulddraper wrote:
| But their owners are.
|
| Company = Tor client
|
| Owner = Operator
| wnevets wrote:
| but their owners don't share the same liability as the
| company. The entire reason the concept of companies exist
| is to create a separate entity that isn't a person.
|
| To put it another way when a company breaks the law should
| its shareholders (aka owners) go to prison?
| logifail wrote:
| > To put it another way when a company breaks the law
| should its shareholders (aka owners) go to prison?
|
| The governing body of a corporation isn't its
| shareholders.
|
| If you're asking what happens if a company breaks the
| law, then look up VW Dieselgate. Yes, some executives
| were prosecuted; yes, some of them went to jail.
|
| I'm not sure what (company) shareholders have to do with
| this.
| wnevets wrote:
| > I'm not sure what (company) shareholders have to do
| with this.
|
| The comment I replied to said this in reply to my
| original comment.
|
| > But their owners are.
|
| Shareholders are the owners, not executives.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > To put it another way when a company breaks the law
| should its shareholders (aka owners) go to prison?
|
| Forfeiting dividends+penalty that were the product of
| illegal or negligent corporate practices seems like a
| reasonable start.
|
| Stated more broadly: As far as investing in unethical and
| anti-consumer practices is a winner now - society would
| be better served if the opposite were true.
| logifail wrote:
| > Companies aren't people.
|
| Umm, in many jurisdictions they are [almost]:
|
| "In most countries, a corporation has the same rights as a
| natural person to hold property, enter into contracts, and to
| sue or be sued. Granting non-human entities personhood is a
| Western concept applied to corporations."
|
| https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-
| companies-...
|
| https://www.purduegloballawschool.edu/blog/news/corporate-
| pe...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
| wnevets wrote:
| > a corporation has the same rights as a natural person _to
| hold property, enter into contracts, and to sue or be
| sued_.
|
| A person has rights other than to hold property, enter into
| contracts, and to sue or be sued.
| logifail wrote:
| > A person has rights other than to hold property, enter
| into contracts, and to sue or be sued
|
| Indeed.
|
| In the context of this thread, how are those other rights
| relevant?
| wnevets wrote:
| > In the context of this thread, how are those other
| rights relevant?
|
| That a company isn't a person. We know this because a
| person has rights a company doesn't.
| logifail wrote:
| > That a company isn't a person. We know this because a
| person has rights a company doesn't
|
| It would appear that this view is not widespread:
|
| "In law, a legal person is any person or 'thing' (less
| ambiguously, any legal entity) that can do the things a
| human person is usually able to do in law - such as enter
| into contracts, sue and be sued, own property, and so on.
| The reason for the term "legal person" is that some legal
| persons are not people: companies and corporations are
| "persons" legally speaking (they can legally do most of
| the things an ordinary person can do), but they are not
| people in a literal sense (human beings)."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person
| 998244353 wrote:
| IMO this is a red herring. A corporation's right to hold
| property, enter into contracts and to sue or be sued might
| be technically called "corporate personhood", but this is
| very different from what laypeople mean when they compare
| companies and people.
| slim wrote:
| companies don't have any right to privacy
| cogman10 wrote:
| Because corporate shell companies have political sway.
|
| I'm happy to grant any corporation all the privacy they desire
| IF we had campaign finance and lobbying laws that prevented the
| corporations from interacting with politicians (At least, not
| without a significant barrier, IE, only being able to talk to a
| third party and getting criminal charges if they try and give
| them money).
|
| The issue is money can buy sway. We saw this with Disney and
| copyright law becoming long and longer with more strict
| enforcement.
| demondemidi wrote:
| Reminds me of certain political persuasions who believe
| "corporations are people".
| lazide wrote:
| In most locales, kinky sex parties between consenting adults
| are also perfectly legal - depending on details, of course.
|
| In very, very few locations is it a good idea to let all but a
| small subset of people know you're having them. Jealousy is an
| ugly thing.
|
| Same with money.
| golergka wrote:
| Both encryption and shell companies are technologies to achieve
| privacy, and both are sometimes abused by bad actors.
|
| It's very sad to see commenters here fail applying the same
| principle to both.
| joshstrange wrote:
| Honest question: What are some examples of legitimate uses of
| shell companies? I don't know enough about this to know "good"
| cases, I'm only aware of some bad ones. I can come up with tons
| of "encryption" good/bad examples but I'm coming up blank on
| good shell companies.
| VMG wrote:
| Evading stalkers or organized crime. The state cannot always
| help
| agys wrote:
| Not shell companies but made me remember They Rule...!
|
| https://theyrule.net
| bluerooibos wrote:
| Jesus. Perhaps showing my ignorance but I'm surprised by the
| amount of overlap these board members have across major
| companies.
| tristor wrote:
| They Rule is outdated, but the unfortunate truth is that
| there's been even more consolidation since it first went
| online. This is partly due to the consolidation of liquidity
| through institutional investors. It's one of the consequences
| of passive investment strategies being dominant among retail
| investors.
| bozhark wrote:
| Companies, state dept., politicians, revolving door
| tennisflyi wrote:
| Just like those Reddit power mods
| VirusNewbie wrote:
| I did the apple board and the majority of people weren't on any
| other boards...
| pksebben wrote:
| holy cow. This is one of the best writeups[1] of "the mess"
| I've ever seen.
|
| Thanks for sharing.
|
| 1 - https://theyrule.net/so_what
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Double blind trusts are specifically designed to keep those in
| control of the assets isolated from public scrutiny and taxes.
|
| The fact the News cycle quickly forgot about who the Panama
| Papers exposed... proved there is a deeper cultural issue in
| North America.
|
| This has been going on for over a century, and it is foolish to
| think one could stop someone's full-time job hiding wealth. =)
| jmyeet wrote:
| An awful lot of tax evasion could be solved with just two things:
|
| 1. Clear beneficial ownership of any company; and
|
| 2. Taxing at source when the beneficial ownership isn't clear.
|
| This particularly applies to real estate. Two of the biggest tax
| havens now are the US and the UK. The US requires all sorts of
| financial disclosures from other countries but doesn't
| reciprocate. The UK (London in particular) seems to exist solely
| to allow billionaires from sanctioned countries to launder money
| through real estate. Like that's the entire business model.
| p1necone wrote:
| Can someone do this with userbenchmark? I'm dying to know what
| unhinged maniac runs that site.
| Stagnant wrote:
| There is no mention of any company name on userbenchmark's site
| so there is nothing to search. I guess not selling anything and
| not accepting donations helps to keep the owner private.
| beryilma wrote:
| Shell companies, in a sense, have been used to evade local laws
| and ordinances, even by semi-public institutions. IIRC, Harvard
| University, for example, used LLCs and law firms to buy land
| secretly in Brighton and Cambridge, MA against the policies of
| local governments. It would be good to know the real institutions
| behind such transactions...
| bozhark wrote:
| If they can get around it, it's not against policies.
|
| Policies need to change
| patrakov wrote:
| The https://opencorporates.com/ site is also useful for finding
| companies registered using a stolen identity or a fake address
| that matches yours. In the past, I was a victim of some bad guys
| registering a shell company using my address in a not-yet-built
| house. I reported that to the tax officers back then.
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| YCombinator accepts Cayman Islands LTDs and LLCs too IIRC.
|
| It's not always about dirty deals of trafficking substances and
| arms, it's honestly desirable for a corporation to be located in
| a tax neutral jurisdiction and then the various owners can vote
| with their feet where to locate themselves according to their
| individual preferences.
|
| The inevitability of death and the fact that you can't take money
| with you (and also the fact that people accostumed to a certain
| lifestyle would find their life pretty lacking in a 0% tax
| country) would compel the aforementioned owners to cash out and
| start spending at some time and then non-0% tax countries would
| get their fair share tax on their capital gains, income as well
| as consumption.
|
| If a guy never cashes out and never spends, then what can you do?
| They are just monodimensional, obsessed individuals, perhaps
| heavily on the spectrum too, that's their tax right there, not a
| monetary tax but still a huge tax and a heavy burden that they
| "paid" throughout their lifetime.
| tomrod wrote:
| > that's their tax right there, not a monetary tax
|
| That's not how taxation works.
| heroprotagonist wrote:
| > perhaps heavily on the spectrum too
|
| That's not how autism works.
| atum47 wrote:
| Funny. I did a job interview once that covered basically this.
| Building a full stack app that would track the other companies of
| a given billionaire.
|
| Looking back at it, I did a bunch of code challenges crazy like
| that.
| Projectiboga wrote:
| There is a new national law for all corps to have their
| beneficial owners disclosed to the Department of the Treasury by
| the end of 2024, and all new firms within 30 days.
| kazinator wrote:
| [delayed]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-03 23:00 UTC)