faz.net
Cum-Ex Schemes Continue to Defraud Germany Despite Legal Changes
Former Cologne prosecutor Brorhilker reveals that Cum-Ex schemes, costing Germany at least €10 billion between 2006-2011, persist despite a 2012 law, facilitated by data stored in foreign jurisdictions with weak legal protections; she advocates for a centralized German authority to combat such financial crimes.
- What are the immediate and specific consequences of the continued occurrence of Cum-Ex and Cum-Cum schemes despite legal changes?
- Between 2006 and 2011, Cum-Ex schemes cost German taxpayers an estimated €10 billion. Despite a 2012 law change, these schemes, involving the illegal refund of taxes, continued. A foundation established in 2016 exemplifies the ongoing nature of this tax fraud.
- How does the international nature of Cum-Ex and Cum-Cum schemes, and the location of banking data, hinder effective prosecution in Germany?
- The persistence of Cum-Ex and Cum-Cum schemes highlights significant flaws in international tax enforcement. The decentralized nature of investigations, coupled with data stored in jurisdictions offering weak legal protections, hinders effective prosecution. This allows perpetrators to operate with impunity across borders.
- What systemic changes are needed in Germany to more effectively combat Cum-Ex and Cum-Cum schemes, given the limitations of current investigative approaches?
- Germany's fragmented approach to tackling financial crime, including a lack of specialized expertise and data limitations, necessitates a centralized authority. Without this, the recovery of stolen tax revenue will remain severely hampered, leading to continued losses and a lack of accountability for perpetrators. The low risk of detection for banks further exacerbates this issue.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative frames the Cum-Ex scandal as an ongoing and largely unresolved problem, emphasizing the vast sums of money lost and the slow pace of recovery. The headline (if there was one, which isn't provided) likely reinforced this negative framing. The repeated use of phrases like "Steuerraub" (tax robbery) and "ausrauben" (rob) adds to the sense of outrage and injustice. While accurate, this framing could overshadow the efforts made by authorities to address the issue.
Language Bias
The article uses strong and emotive language, such as "Steuerraub" (tax robbery), "kriminelle Energie" (criminal energy), and "ausrauben" (rob). This language, while potentially accurate based on the nature of the events, is not neutral and conveys a strong sense of moral outrage and indignation. Neutral alternatives could include more descriptive and less charged words, such as 'tax evasion', 'illegal activities', and 'significant financial losses'.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the perspective of Brorhilker, a former prosecutor, and might neglect counterarguments or alternative explanations for the slow progress in recovering Cum-Ex funds. While it mentions the government's efforts and the complexity of the cases, it doesn't delve into potential limitations or challenges faced by investigators beyond Brorhilker's criticisms. The article also doesn't explore potential success stories or positive developments in recovering stolen tax money in detail.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic dichotomy between the "criminals" and the "victims" (the German state). The nuances of culpability within the banking sector and the role of regulatory failures are not fully explored. While it mentions regulatory changes, it doesn't analyze their effectiveness in preventing future Cum-Ex schemes in detail.
Gender Bias
The article focuses primarily on Brorhilker's perspective and expertise. While this is justified given her central role in the investigation, the lack of other prominent female voices might unintentionally reinforce a perception of this being a predominantly male-dominated field. The article does not appear to use gendered language unfairly or stereotype based on gender.
Sustainable Development Goals
The Cum-Ex scandal resulted in a massive loss of tax revenue ('at least ten billion euros'), exacerbating income inequality by disproportionately impacting public services and social programs funded by these taxes. The slow pace of recovery and the ongoing nature of similar schemes further entrench this inequality.