Talk:Ugland House

Conflict of interest
This appears to be posted by Ugland house itself. I hope somebody could shine more light on the details of Ugland house. President Obama called it the biggest financial scam. This wikipage doesn't even have the quote from the leader of the free world. While Ugland house is at center of all bad press on Cayman Islands, this wikipage almost paints a rosy picture - wreaks of handwork of Ugland house itself. Hope someone knowledgable about Cayman Islands and Ugland house edits this page for accuracy (for ommissions)

Karankrishnan (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Full agreement; this entry is a joke. The solution is simply to actually read the GAO's report on Ugland House and characterize it honestly here. That would pretty much solve this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.72.107.194 (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Tax evasion
I have added a WP:V text about the tax evasion statements. This is relevant to the article as there are thousands of articles about this issue. The text does not accuse Ugland House of any wrong-doing and it complies IMO to WP:NPOV. I mean that the overwhelming press about this issue means that we do not have to give equal validity to the minority views of those associated with the Ugland House (WP:GEVAL) - I have nevertheless left the 2nd section intact, as this obviously is that view.--mabahj 14:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabahj (talk • contribs)
 * The text added was removed without any discussion so I put it back. Please initiate a discussion before removing. I believe that the reasons stated above are valid and that the text therefore should remain. If Obama withdrew his accusations, please provide a reference. And if so, that still does not justify removing the first part "and has for years been linked to tax evasion.", which has several references. --mabahj (talk) 10:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The text was removed because it is defamatory. The articles cited second hand information and do not provide substantive information. The US government has never alleged tax evasion from Ugland House nor has it uncovered any link between Ugland House and tax evasion. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and Senate Finance Committee each did thorough investigations of Ugland House and independently reached this conclusion. Additionally, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recently added Cayman to the “white list” of approved jurisdictions that uphold internationally recognized tax standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.151.103.9 (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

- I find your post amusing. The general concept of evading taxes through means most people, including candidate Obama, find morally repulsive and the actual on-the-books statutory crime named "income tax evasion" are two completely different things.

Non-lawyers and people who are not corporate mouthpieces and apologists, who can be presumed to be the bulk of Wikipedia readers, use the term "tax evasion" to describe the former.

You appear to be demanding retraction by attempting to impose on these ordinary readers the contextually non-normative, more rarefied and lawyerly interpretation of this phrase. You then use that interpretation to label the common usage as "defamatory".

Of course by labeling it as such, some readers may take that to mean that Wikipedia may be subject to legal action.

The plethora of references to "tax evasion" as applied to "Upland House" in mainstream media and on Google searches validates the application of this common, non-technical and highly descriptive term to Upland House here as elsewhere.

I am not aware of any court decision which presumes to restrain the speech of ordinary people between themselves such that it must comport with the interpretations found in the most narrow verticals of expertise, which verticals may happen to have borrowed or otherwise share words and phrases with the larger linguistic community they are enclosed by.

The specialized use is easily and typically differentiated by referring to the specific penal code section, if that is intended by the speaker / author.

Indeed, the best example of this can be found in courtrooms and legal documents which invariably reference the narrow interpretation in just this specific way. In fact, failure to cite laws by their penal code section leaves filings, would-be laws and judgments uninterpretable and undefined.

You seem confused, so perhaps I can make this clearer with an example.

Suppose the American CEO or lawyer or one of their agents for an American-based multinational flies over the Caribbean, perhaps passing over a U.S. naval ship bearing the bodies of American soldiers who died protecting America, on his way to the Cayman Islands to stash some money in such a way that he (legally) doesn't have to pay any income tax to the U.S. government.

While he is there, he seeks sexual congress with a series of sixteen year old girls who are living in poverty and would otherwise be repulsed by the CEO's, lawyer's or their agent's sagging jawline, swaying pectorals, clutching, clubby hands and bulging waistline. Many Americans would refer to these CEOs or their lawyers or agents as

(and here I am forced to use a colorful word for the sake of verisimilitude)

(which word, we must note, is used here, as in the original speech, as a "fleeting expletive", the FCC prohibition of which has been found to be "unconstitutionally vague" by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeting_expletive )

"fucking child molesters".

However, as such CEOs and lawyers or their agents are very well aware, the age of consent in the Cayman Islands is, in fact, 16.

Therefore, as they would be quick to point out, they broke no law.

The question is- do Americans have the right to converse with each other in this way using the specific phrase "fucking child molester" or do the CEOs, lawyers and their agents have the power to force the speech of ordinary Americans to conform to the narrowest possible interpretation of "fucking child molester"?

Of course Americans have the right to converse thusly. Laws and crimes are properly identified unambiguously by their code and section numbers and common speech is not constrained by lawyers to conform with the narrow meanings findable therein. This despite the fact that lawyers themselves routinely appropriate and use common words to refer to those specific laws and crimes.

So really, your point is confused. I recommend that the allegedly defamatory content- an allegation which itself could be considered in some districts and jurisdictions to be defamatory- be reinstated.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.72.107.194 (talk • contribs) --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)