Le Monde | • Updated | By
After three days of semi-denial and four releases embarrassed face the charges contained in the “Panama papers” , British Prime Minister David Cameron had to change gear. He admitted, on the evening of Thursday, April 7, he had benefited from Trust Fund ( “Trust”) as his father Ian, who died in 2010, had run through the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca without paying any tax for thirty years.
in a television interview organized specially on ITV, Mr Cameron acknowledged that his wife Samantha and himself had held between 1997 and 2010 units of Blairmore Holding Inc. the funds managed by his father. This period includes the time he was the leader of the conservative opposition. The Prime Minister said he had made a profit of 19,000 pounds (23,500 euros) by selling them in 2010 just before becoming prime minister. “I did not want anyone to say that I had other agendas or private interests” , he justified, claiming to have on that amount, paid tax income but not the one on capital gains.
the prime minister also said he did not know if the 300 000 pounds he had inherited his father had enjoyed a tax exemption related to domiciliation to Jersey company that managed them. “I can clearly not go to the source of each sum of money, he said, and Dad is gone for now I ask him these questions . “While the ” Panama papers “ challenge his favored light sources, Mr. Cameron, a former ultra-chic Eaton School, assured that he had ” never hidden the fact that he was very lucky to have wealthy parents who [had it] given a great education and funded for me an extraordinary school. ” “I have never pretended to be someone I’m not,” , is it forbidden
Read also. “Panama papers”: the David Cameron’s father had created an offshore company
dubious communication
These explanations came after three days of erratic communication from the “No comment” absolute semi-confession. These errors could contribute to dangerously weaken a prime minister already struggling with a difficult campaign for the referendum of 23 June on maintaining or breaking with the European Union.
Monday, after the first revelations of “Panama papers” in the British media partners – the BBC and the Guardian – Downing Street had said that the Prime Minister’s heritage was part of a “private matter” . On Tuesday, Mr Cameron himself had thought to end the controversy by stating that he personally had “no part” company. But the press had insisted that this declaration did not cover either the extended family or the past.
A few hours later, the Prime Minister’s services had seen fit to issue a press beginning a formula that appears unhappy today. “to be clear …” the text stated that neither the Prime Minister nor his wife, nor their children were receiving income off shore . But he acknowledged that Mr Cameron “has a small number of units linked to the land of his father, and he says the income. “ Wednesday, the protests of the opposition and unbelief of the press, government communication was made even more enigmatic to mask a further decline: ” In the future, the Prime Minister or children will derive benefits from any offshore fund or trust company. “
Read also: David Cameron splashed by the scandal of” Panama papers “
” moral crisis “
the Labour opposition said Thursday evening that the summit of the Conservative party was shaken by “a moral crisis” . “After refusing for four days to answer that question, David Cameron was finally forced to admit that he had directly affected the profits of Blairmore, a company that has paid no taxes for thirty years “Richard slammed Burgon, the Minister of Labour shadow cabinet finances by requiring that the Prime Minister is due to Parliament on Monday.
Mr Cameron’s position is all the more hard since he came to power, he posed as champion of financial transparency. He promises to make it compulsory in June, registering on a central register of beneficial owners of British companies and to preside in London in May an anti-corruption summit. But Thursday, the Financial Times found that in 2013 it had intervened with Brussels for the transparency of measures prepared by the European Union do not include trust funds similar to the one his whose father had run and now we know that Mr. Cameron has personally benefited junior
Read also. “Panama papers”: the UK financial regulator asks for explanations to banks
No comments:
Post a Comment