In October, the “Four Moderates” (Austria, Denmark, Holland, Sweden) became extremely inherent in the subject. “Respect the rule of law” As a condition of granting access to European funds, few thought that it was the real reason for their persuasion. Veto Poland and Hungary The approval of the European Union Budget and Recovery Fund, in order to undermine the economic plan they opposed, they opposed last July. The prime ministers of the four countries at the time were critical of the size of the plot, saying it was not just loans, but “non-performing loans” and that the conditions for disbursing and controlling money were not strict enough. The head of the Dutch government, Mark Rutte, called for a national veto on funding. Politicians and the media from southern European countries have labeled the Netherlands a “tax haven” that cannot afford to mock others without looking at their own homes, because what is happening in the Netherlands is destroying the tax authorities in all other EU countries.

According to the report, published on June 16, the Netherlands is no less than the first country in the world in terms of direct investment on the African continent by the end of 2018. With $ 79 billion, it surpassed France ($ 53 billion), Kingdom United ($ 49 billion), US ($ 48 billion) and China ($ 46 billion). For a country with a GDP, the investment of each of these countries is almost double that of one-third of France and the United Kingdom, less than fifteen in China and less than twenty-one in the United States. Africa without historical ties (except migrant farmers in South Africa at the end of the 17th century)? The vast majority of this figure represents the transfer of African capital nominally to the Netherlands, registering with companies controlled by African elites, using Dutch tax controls and paying a small tax on that money invested and profitable in Africa.

The Sentry Report credits this interpretation with an analysis of five cases, although it does not mention the names of any of the countries where corruption was found: the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), i.e. the former Syria. D A person with close business dealings with a high-ranking political figure in the DRC reads the commentary in the first case, which exposes several Dutch-based companies to the Dutch financial sector (…). The individual and many companies that he or she owns are subject to U.S. sanctions. The entrepreneurial empire owned and operated by the beneficiary includes various subsidiaries with different jurisdictions without clear objectives. (D) Ultimately many of the subsidiaries owned by the individual are still registered in the Netherlands, with Dutch tax residences and nominal directors in Gibraltar. These subsidiaries benefit from local tax benefits, while meeting only the minimum Dutch significant requirements, including minimum capital and number of employees.

In connection with the second case, we read: Lux has a Dutch presence through a complex network of large multinational (Company A) parent companies and subsidiaries integrated in Luxembourg. This includes Netherlands-based Company A’s direct parent company and several wholly owned subsidiaries involved in various Congolese mining projects. Some of these affiliates are involved in transactions that are being investigated by the authorities of another country. Company A has several affiliated and subsidiary parent companies registered in the Netherlands, two of which are owned by several subsidiaries and opaque jurisdictions in the DRC. The share structure of DRC-based Company A’s subsidiaries consists of multiple levels of Dutch-based parent companies. DRC-based subsidiaries have close ties with top political leaders and the families of top DRC politicians. ”

The same music in the third case: “One of the world’s largest commodity traders (Company B) is used by entities based in the Netherlands by asset managers, joint ventures and direct parent companies with a majority stake in another company. Company B, which has tainted its operations, also relies on parent companies with opaque jurisdictions and engages in joint ventures and business relationships with top political leaders.Company B was the subject of criminal investigation in both jurisdictions. Similar situations exist, including the jurisdiction of the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the DRC.

According to figures first published by Statistics Netherlands (Dutch Estate) in 2018, the year before the Netherlands received $ 5,200 billion in foreign direct investment, 80 per cent of which went to other opaque locations. After enjoying the benefits of the Dutch system; In fact, the country will contain post office boxes of 14,000 foreign companies that do not actually operate on the site. Multinational companies such as Google and Apple are taking advantage of the current restrictions, showing business identities such as the Rolling Stones and U2. According to Arjan Lejor, a professor of economics at Tilburg University, the Dutch tax system removes 22 billion euros in tax revenue from other countries each year. Instead, according to estimates by the Tax Justice Network, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which brings together 36 of the world’s industrialized nations, will lose a little less than $ 21 billion to all Dutch-ruled countries on July 21, according to official figures released by the states to the OECD. Was equal to the euro. In any case, far from other jurisdictions that steal tax revenue, Holland would be the country with the most damage to other states’ treasuries: Bermuda (UK region, $ 10.9 billion), Puerto Rico (US region, $ 9 billion), Luxembourg ($ 8 billion), and $ 7.9 billion. ). How much of the 21 or 22 billion euros in question will Holland deduct from EU tax revenue? 11.2 billion, according to the European Parliament. The figures are based on a resolution passed on March 26, 2019 (A8-0170 / 2019).

Photo by Ansa