Moneyland

Moneyland Plot Summary

Introduction

Money has always sought freedom, but in our modern era, it has achieved an unprecedented level of liberation. While ordinary citizens remain bound by the laws of their nations, the ultra-wealthy inhabit what might be called "Moneyland" - a borderless realm where wealth moves invisibly through a labyrinth of shell companies, trusts, and nominee directors. This shadow financial system began taking shape in the 1960s when innovative bankers discovered they could create financial instruments that existed in the gaps between national jurisdictions. Since then, it has evolved into a sophisticated ecosystem that allows trillions of dollars to flow beyond the reach of tax authorities, law enforcement, and public scrutiny. The implications of this parallel financial universe extend far beyond tax avoidance by the privileged few. When corrupt officials can loot their national treasuries with impunity, knowing their stolen billions will be safely laundered through Western banks and real estate markets, it undermines democracy itself. The same mechanisms that help wealthy Americans protect their assets from lawsuits also enable Russian oligarchs, African dictators, and drug cartels to hide their illicit gains. Understanding this shadow financial system is crucial not just for economists or policymakers, but for anyone concerned with growing inequality, democratic erosion, or the puzzling disconnect between soaring national wealth and stagnating living standards for ordinary citizens.

Chapter 1: Breaking Bretton Woods: The Birth of Offshore Finance (1960s-1970s)

The story of Moneyland begins in the aftermath of World War II, when the Allied powers gathered at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire in 1944 to design a new global financial architecture. Traumatized by the economic chaos that had contributed to the rise of fascism, they created a system that prioritized stability over freedom of capital movement. Currencies were pegged to the dollar, which was in turn pegged to gold at $35 an ounce. Most importantly, strict capital controls prevented money from flowing freely across borders. This system resembled an oil tanker with separate compartments - money couldn't slosh from one national economy to another, potentially capsizing the whole vessel. The first significant breach in this carefully designed system came through the City of London in the late 1950s. British bankers, seeking to revive London's financial prominence after the decline of empire, discovered they could handle dollar transactions outside American jurisdiction. These "eurodollars" existed in a regulatory limbo - American authorities couldn't touch them because they were in London, and British regulators didn't care because they weren't in pounds sterling. This regulatory gap created a space where money could exist beyond national control, the first glimpse of what would become Moneyland. The true revolution came in 1963 when Siegmund Warburg, a German-born London banker, pioneered the "eurobond" - a financial instrument designed specifically to exploit this regulatory gap. Working with his colleague Ian Fraser, Warburg created a $15 million bond issue for the Italian highway authority that was deliberately structured to avoid regulations in any single country. The bonds were issued in London, denominated in dollars, paid interest in Luxembourg, and were bearer bonds - meaning whoever physically held the certificate owned the bond, with no names recorded anywhere. This anonymity made them perfect for anyone seeking to hide wealth, from tax-evading Western businesspeople to Holocaust survivors with money hidden in Switzerland to Nazi war criminals who had looted Europe and fled to South America. By the early 1970s, the pressure on the Bretton Woods system became unbearable. Every restriction the U.S. government placed on dollar movements just made it more profitable to keep dollars offshore, leading to more leakage. The eurodollar market grew from $1 billion in 1959 to $57 billion by 1970. Eventually, in August 1971, President Nixon abandoned the gold standard, effectively dismantling the Bretton Woods architecture. The philosophical question of who really owned money - the person who earned it or the nation that created it - had been answered in favor of private wealth. The wealthy had won their freedom from national constraints. This period established the basic infrastructure of Moneyland - a world where money could move freely while laws remained trapped within national borders. As the offshore system expanded, small jurisdictions like the Cayman Islands and Jersey discovered they could attract vast sums by offering secrecy, tax advantages, and protection from regulation. What began as financial innovation in London evolved into a global network of tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions, creating unprecedented opportunities for both legitimate tax planning and outright criminality. The stage was set for the offshore explosion that would follow in subsequent decades, particularly after the fall of communism created new opportunities for looting national wealth on an industrial scale.

Chapter 2: Shell Games: How Tax Havens Became Secrecy Jurisdictions

By the 1980s, the offshore financial system had evolved from a clever innovation into a sophisticated global network. Small territories, often former colonial outposts with limited economic prospects, discovered they could attract enormous wealth by crafting laws specifically designed to protect the assets and identities of the wealthy. Nevis, a tiny Caribbean island with just 11,000 inhabitants, exemplifies this transformation. When it gained independence as part of the Federation of St Kitts and Nevis in 1983, its economic future looked bleak. However, under the leadership of Simeon Daniel, the island seized on a unique opportunity to become a pioneer in the offshore industry. American lawyer Bill Barnard approached Daniel with a proposal to establish a legal framework that would attract foreign wealth. Starting with a ship registry for Americans seeking to dodge U.S. regulations, Nevis quickly expanded into the secrecy business. In 1985, it passed a confidentiality ordinance that banned anyone from giving financial information to unauthorized parties. Over the years, American attorneys like David Neufeld helped Nevis craft increasingly sophisticated asset protection laws. The island became a formidable fortress for hiding wealth: it doesn't recognize foreign court judgments, requires a $100,000 bond to bring a case in its courts, and automatically dismisses claims for events more than a year old. Companies registered there face no reporting, auditing, or accounting requirements. The shell company emerged as the fundamental building block of this offshore world. These are legal entities with no substantive operations, existing primarily on paper to hold assets or conduct transactions. The genius of shell companies lies in their ability to create a gap between an individual and their assets, making it nearly impossible to connect the two. As Jack Blum, a veteran investigator of corruption, explained about Nevis companies: "The directors and officers have no fiduciary responsibility, and there's no requirement that such minimal records as may exist be kept in the place of incorporation. You could waterboard the entire board of directors and nobody would know anything." This proliferation of shell companies created what one observer called "a criminogenic environment" - a financial ecosystem that not only enabled crime but actively encouraged it. The same structures that helped wealthy Americans protect legitimate assets from what they perceived as an over-litigious society also attracted criminals and kleptocrats from around the world. Jeffrey Fisher, a top American divorce lawyer who has battled Nevis structures, explained: "The asset protection industry is trillions of dollars, not billions of dollars. Essentially, it's: we're going to find a way to screw legitimate creditors out of collecting a legitimate debt." The impact on law enforcement was devastating. John Tobon, deputy special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations in Miami, estimated that being able to easily identify the true owners of property would cut investigation time in half: "We would be able to concentrate our efforts on putting the pieces together, rather than trying to find the pieces. Right now, we spend most of our time trying to find the pieces." This opacity created a perfect environment for money laundering, tax evasion, and corruption. A search for "Nevis" on the U.S. Department of Justice website reveals countless cases involving securities fraud, embezzlement, and corruption by officials from countries like Ukraine, Russia, and Azerbaijan. By the early 2000s, this system had created a fundamental mismatch between the global mobility of money and the territorial limitations of law enforcement and taxation. As Bullough notes, "Money can travel instantly, but laws cannot." This asymmetry became the defining feature of Moneyland, allowing wealth to slip through the cracks between national jurisdictions. The stage was set for the massive looting of public resources that would follow, particularly in the former Soviet Union and developing nations with weak institutions and limited oversight.

Chapter 3: The Kleptocrat's Playbook: Stealing, Hiding, and Spending Wealth

The 1990s marked a watershed moment in the evolution of Moneyland. The collapse of the Soviet Union created unprecedented opportunities for looting on an industrial scale, with the offshore system ready and waiting to absorb the proceeds. This period revealed how the sophisticated financial secrecy tools developed for Western tax avoiders could be devastating when deployed in countries without strong institutions or the rule of law. A clear pattern emerged that Bullough identifies as the kleptocrat's playbook: steal, hide, and spend. The stealing phase typically involves mechanisms like rigged privatizations, inflated government contracts, or outright embezzlement from state budgets. In Russia, the privatization of state assets in the 1990s allowed well-connected individuals to acquire valuable companies for a fraction of their worth. In Ukraine, procurement fraud became so systematic that basic government functions like healthcare collapsed. When Russian troops invaded Crimea in 2014, Ukraine's state institutions were so hollowed out by corruption that they barely functioned. The admiral turned over the Ukrainian navy to Russia despite his oath of loyalty. Border guards stamped passports with the Ukrainian trident while their country evaporated around them. The hiding phase involves obscuring the origins of stolen money through complex offshore structures. A pivotal moment came in March 1999, when Russian state television broadcast compromising footage of Prosecutor General Yuri Skuratov with two young women. This was no ordinary scandal - Skuratov had been investigating massive corruption involving the Russian Central Bank, which had secretly transferred billions in IMF loan money to an obscure offshore shell company called FIMACO, registered in Jersey. When investigators tried to uncover who was behind this scheme, they found only layers of offshore companies. The sex tape effectively ended Skuratov's investigation, and a young FSB chief named Vladimir Putin, who authenticated the tape, soon became president. The spending phase involves transforming dirty money into respectable assets and social status. When Viktor Yanukovych fled Ukraine in 2014, protesters who stormed his presidential residence discovered a palatial estate featuring a private zoo, a replica galleon on an artificial lake, and gold-plated bathroom fixtures. Documents revealed that the property was owned not by Yanukovych directly but through a complex web of companies registered in places like Liechtenstein and the British Virgin Islands. Similarly, in Equatorial Guinea, the president's son Teodorin Obiang amassed a fortune that included a $30 million mansion in Malibu, a fleet of luxury cars, and Michael Jackson memorabilia worth millions - all while serving as a government minister with an official salary of less than $100,000 per year. The human cost of this looting was immense. In Ukraine, the cancer treatment system collapsed as funds were siphoned off, leaving patients to pay bribes for basic care or go without treatment entirely. In Nigeria, despite billions in oil revenue, basic infrastructure deteriorated and poverty remained endemic because so much money disappeared offshore. As Nigerian novelist Chinua Achebe observed, the problem wasn't just the scale of the theft but how it normalized corruption: "The trouble with Nigeria is simply and squarely a failure of leadership... The Nigerian problem is the unwillingness or inability of its leaders to rise to the responsibility, to the challenge of personal example." This period demonstrated how the offshore system had evolved from a tool for tax avoidance into an enabler of industrial-scale corruption. The same mechanisms that helped wealthy individuals legally minimize their taxes also served kleptocrats stealing from national treasuries. Western enablers - bankers, lawyers, real estate agents, and corporate service providers - were essential to this process, creating a symbiotic relationship between corrupt officials in developing countries and professional facilitators in financial centers like London, New York, and Geneva.

Chapter 4: Property and Passports: Transforming Assets into Respectability

By the early 2000s, the mechanics of hiding wealth had evolved beyond simple secrecy to include sophisticated strategies for "de-embarrassment" - transforming dirty assets into respectable ones. Two key elements of this process were property investments in prestigious Western cities and the acquisition of new citizenships and residency rights. These mechanisms allowed the wealthy not just to hide their assets but to enjoy them openly while building new identities disconnected from questionable origins. London emerged as the premier destination for offshore wealth seeking respectability. The city's property market became so dominated by foreign buyers that entire neighborhoods like Knightsbridge and Belgravia were transformed into what locals called "ghost districts" - rows of magnificent homes that remained dark most of the year. A study revealed that across England and Wales, more than 100,000 properties were owned by offshore companies. In London's Eaton Square alone, eighty-six properties were held via anonymous structures in places like the British Virgin Islands, Guernsey, Jersey, Panama, and Liechtenstein. The appeal was obvious: property in London was both a safe investment and a status symbol. The mechanics of property ownership revealed the sophistication of Moneyland's operations. Consider 29 Harley Street, a distinguished address in central London with a long history of housing eminent doctors. By 2014, this single building had become home to over 2,000 companies, many involved in elaborate frauds. For just £50 a month, anyone could claim this prestigious address as their corporate headquarters, with receptionists answering phones in their company's name. This veneer of legitimacy enabled countless scams, including one where an actor posing as "Sir Richard Benson" convinced investors to hand over millions for fictional investment opportunities. Citizenship itself became a commodity in this period. St Kitts and Nevis pioneered the concept of "citizenship by investment" in 1984, but the industry took off dramatically in the 2000s. Christian Kalin of Henley & Partners transformed St Kitts' passport program from a shadowy operation into a legitimate industry. Instead of simply selling passports, St Kitts would offer citizenship through contributions to a Sugar Industry Diversification Foundation or investments in real estate. The program took off like a rocket: from selling just six passports in 2005, St Kitts was selling over 2,000 annually by 2013. The appeal of these programs was multifaceted. For wealthy individuals from countries with restrictive passports - like China, Russia, or Middle Eastern nations - a St Kitts passport provided visa-free travel to over 100 countries, including the European Union. For someone like Kamal Shehada, a Palestinian civil engineer who struggled with travel restrictions his entire life, a Caribbean passport offered freedom his countrymen could only dream of. The success of St Kitts inspired similar programs across the Caribbean and eventually in Europe, with Malta and Cyprus launching schemes that brought in hundreds of millions of euros. Some wealthy individuals sought an even more powerful shield: diplomatic immunity. In 2014, Saudi billionaire Walid al-Juffali was appointed as St Lucia's ambassador to the International Maritime Organization in London. This appointment came just as he was facing a potentially expensive divorce from his wife Christina Estrada. When her lawyers approached him, he claimed diplomatic immunity - he was an ambassador, British law could not touch him. Although al-Juffali ultimately lost his case on a technicality, the incident revealed a dangerous loophole in international law. The implications of these developments were profound. Through property ownership and citizenship acquisition, the wealthy could effectively transcend national boundaries in ways unimaginable to ordinary citizens. They could live in London or New York while maintaining citizenship in a tax-free Caribbean nation and controlling assets through companies registered in yet other jurisdictions. This mobility created what Bullough calls "the Moneyland ratchet" - a one-way mechanism that continually enhances the freedom of capital while making it increasingly difficult for authorities to track or tax it. The result was a two-tier global system: one set of rules for ordinary citizens bound by national laws, and another for the wealthy elite who could operate beyond them.

Chapter 5: Legal Weapons: Using Courts to Silence Investigation

Beyond passports and shell companies, Moneyland has another powerful defense mechanism: the ability to silence those who might expose its workings. This is accomplished not through censorship in the traditional sense, but through the strategic use of litigation to intimidate journalists, researchers, and publishers. The threat of expensive legal action creates a chilling effect that prevents many stories about corruption and kleptocracy from ever reaching the public. Britain has become particularly notorious as a venue for what is known as "libel tourism." The country's defamation laws traditionally placed the burden of proof on the defendant rather than the claimant, making it extraordinarily difficult and expensive to defend against libel claims. Even after reforms in 2013 intended to address this problem, the fundamental imbalance remains: a wealthy individual will always have more money to throw at a speculative case than a publication will have to defend it. This creates what media lawyer Mark Stephens calls "inequality of arms" - a situation where the legal outcome depends not on the merits of the case but on the financial resources of the parties involved. The consequences are far-reaching. In 2014, Cambridge University Press declined to publish Professor Karen Dawisha's meticulously researched book on Vladimir Putin's links to organized crime. In a letter to Dawisha, the publisher explained: "Even if the Press was ultimately successful in defending such a lawsuit, the disruption and expense would be more than we could afford, given our charitable and academic mission." The book, Putin's Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia?, was eventually published in the United States, where free speech protections are stronger, but the incident revealed how legal threats could effectively censor academic research. Similar stories abound. Transparency International's UK chapter received threatening letters after publishing reports on dirty money in British property. Robert Barrington, the organization's executive director, described the experience: "I was sitting here at my desk one day, a courier arrives with this letter and, you know, it felt like I'd been kicked in the stomach by a horse, like the whole edifice was going to come crashing down. Even if we'd won, we couldn't have afforded it." The organization was forced to spend valuable resources on legal advice rather than its anti-corruption work. This legal intimidation creates a perverse situation where journalists cannot write about corrupt individuals unless they have been convicted of crimes, while those individuals cannot be convicted because journalists cannot alert law enforcement to their activities. It's a perfect feedback loop that protects the wealthy and powerful from scrutiny. As Bullough notes, "If you can't write about someone unless they've been convicted of a crime, and they can't be convicted of a crime unless someone writes about them, then they can never be convicted of a crime, and no one can ever write about them." Supporting this system is an entire industry of PR agencies, law firms, and consultancies that help launder the reputations of wealthy foreigners. The playbook is well established: buy impressive property, establish a charitable foundation, cultivate relationships with politicians and royalty, and perhaps endow a university or buy a football club. These activities create a protective shield of respectability that makes it even harder to question the origins of someone's wealth. When journalists do manage to publish critical stories, they often face not just legal threats but personal intimidation, including surveillance and harassment. The impact extends beyond journalism to law enforcement. Police officers around the world rely on media reports to alert them to suspicious behavior. When journalists are silenced, this crucial source of information is cut off. Private investigatory agencies also depend on media coverage when conducting background checks. The result is that the very mechanisms that might expose Moneyland's operations are systematically undermined. This problem remains largely unaddressed in efforts to combat financial secrecy and corruption, creating a significant blind spot in the global fight against kleptocracy.

Chapter 6: America's Paradox: Fighting Secrecy While Creating Loopholes

The 2010s revealed a profound contradiction in America's approach to offshore finance. On one hand, the United States positioned itself as the global leader in fighting tax evasion and financial secrecy, using its economic might to force other countries to share information about American taxpayers. On the other hand, it refused to provide the same transparency about foreigners keeping assets in America, effectively turning itself into one of the world's premier secrecy jurisdictions. This transformation began with a whistleblower named Bradley Birkenfeld. In 2007, Birkenfeld approached U.S. authorities with evidence of how his employer, Swiss banking giant UBS, was helping American clients evade taxes. He revealed that UBS bankers were traveling to the United States to recruit wealthy clients, promising them "zero income tax, zero capital gains tax, and zero inheritance tax." Birkenfeld admitted to smuggling diamonds in a toothpaste tube for one client and described how bankers used encrypted laptops and counter-surveillance techniques to avoid detection. Though Birkenfeld himself served prison time for his role in the scheme, his revelations triggered an earthquake in the world of offshore banking. In response to the UBS scandal, the U.S. Congress passed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) in 2010. This legislation required foreign financial institutions to report accounts held by U.S. citizens or face severe penalties. For the first time, a major power was using its economic leverage to force transparency on the offshore world. The impact was immediate and dramatic. Swiss banks, which had previously refused to share any client information, began handing over data and paying billions in fines. UBS alone paid $780 million to settle charges that it had helped Americans hide $20 billion in assets. However, this crackdown on foreign tax havens created an unexpected opportunity. When the U.S. implemented FATCA, it created a one-way flow of information. While the U.S. demanded data from other countries, it did not commit to sharing equivalent information in return. When the rest of the world developed the Common Reporting Standard in 2014, the U.S. declined to join, arguing that FATCA already addressed its concerns. This asymmetry created an obvious opportunity: wealthy individuals from other countries could now move their assets to the United States to avoid automatic reporting to their home governments. States like Nevada, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Delaware quickly capitalized on this opportunity. These states had already been competing with each other to attract trust business by offering favorable laws, such as perpetual trusts that could last forever, asset protection from creditors, and minimal disclosure requirements. Now they began explicitly marketing themselves to international clients seeking alternatives to traditional offshore centers. As one Nevada trust company advertised: "While more countries are taking measures to decrease privacy, Nevada is one of the few locations left in the world where the privacy of families is still respected and protected." The scale of this shift was remarkable. In South Dakota alone, assets held in trusts grew from $32.8 billion in 2006 to over $226 billion by 2016. Much of this growth came from international clients moving money from places like Switzerland, Singapore, and the Cayman Islands, which could no longer guarantee the same level of secrecy. The American financial industry vigorously defended this arrangement, with banking associations mounting fierce opposition to any regulations requiring U.S. banks to report interest paid to foreign account holders. This hypocrisy did not go unnoticed internationally. Mark Brantley, the prime minister of Nevis, expressed frustration that his small island was being pressured to adopt transparency measures while America created new secrecy products: "What is happening now is that money that was traditionally offshore is now flooding onshore, and is going to Delaware and Nevada and places like that." The consequences extended beyond tax issues. The same secrecy that attracted legitimate wealth seeking privacy also drew illicit funds from Russian oligarchs, Chinese officials, and Latin American drug traffickers. The American paradox illustrates a fundamental challenge in combating financial secrecy: as long as jurisdictions compete to attract mobile capital, there will always be incentives to create new loopholes and exemptions. This is the Moneyland ratchet in action - always loosening regulations for the benefit of those with money to move around, and never tightening them. The fight against offshore finance requires not just technical fixes but political will to address these contradictions and establish consistent global standards.

Chapter 7: The Global Pushback: From Leaks to Transparency Reforms

By the late 2010s, the secretive world of offshore finance faced unprecedented challenges. A series of massive data leaks exposed the inner workings of the industry, while public outrage over inequality and corruption created political momentum for reform. These developments marked the first serious international effort to crack down on financial secrecy since the creation of the offshore system decades earlier. The breakthrough came with the Panama Papers in 2016 - the largest data leak in history at that time. An anonymous source provided the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) with 11.5 million documents from Mossack Fonseca, a Panamanian law firm specializing in offshore services. The documents revealed how politicians, celebrities, and business leaders used shell companies to hide wealth and avoid taxes. The fallout was immediate and dramatic: Iceland's prime minister resigned after it emerged he had hidden ownership of an offshore company with claims against failed Icelandic banks. Pakistan's prime minister was disqualified from office following revelations about his family's offshore holdings. In total, the leak implicated twelve current or former heads of state and government. This was followed by the Paradise Papers in 2017, which exposed the offshore activities of major corporations like Apple and Nike, and the Pandora Papers in 2021, which revealed how world leaders, billionaires, and celebrities continued to use offshore structures despite increased scrutiny. These leaks transformed public understanding of offshore finance, making it impossible to dismiss concerns about tax havens as conspiracy theories. As ICIJ director Gerard Ryle noted: "We're seeing something that was always hidden. It's like taking a hot air balloon up and looking down at society. You're seeing the patterns of behavior." The leaks coincided with growing public anger about inequality and austerity in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. When governments bailed out banks with taxpayer money while ordinary citizens faced cuts to public services, the revelation that the wealthy were using offshore structures to avoid taxes became politically explosive. This created momentum for reforms that would have seemed impossible just a few years earlier. The momentum for transparency continued to build. In 2014, countries around the world agreed to the Common Reporting Standard (CRS), which extended FATCA's principles globally. Under this system, participating jurisdictions automatically exchange information about foreign account holders with their home countries. By 2018, over 100 countries had joined the system. These reforms were complemented by new beneficial ownership registries in some jurisdictions. The UK, for example, began requiring companies to disclose their "persons with significant control," making it harder to hide behind nominee directors. Anti-money laundering regulations were also strengthened, requiring banks and other gatekeepers to conduct more thorough due diligence on clients and report suspicious transactions. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global standard-setter for anti-money laundering, revised its recommendations to emphasize the importance of identifying the beneficial owners of companies and other legal entities. Even traditional secrecy jurisdictions like Switzerland and Singapore were forced to adapt, shifting their business models from secrecy to legitimate wealth management. However, the response was far from perfect. The new transparency measures contained significant loopholes and exemptions. The United States, having led the charge with FATCA, refused to fully reciprocate by sharing data with other countries about their citizens' assets in America. This created a new opportunity for those seeking secrecy to shift their assets to states like Nevada and South Dakota. Meanwhile, the beneficial ownership registries often relied on self-reported information with little verification, and many jurisdictions still allowed nominee directors and shareholders to obscure true ownership. Perhaps most importantly, the reforms primarily targeted tax evasion by individuals from wealthy countries, while doing little to address the looting of developing nations by kleptocrats. Poor countries often lacked the resources and leverage to benefit from the new information exchange systems. The fundamental mismatch between global money and national law enforcement remained largely unresolved, allowing the most sophisticated players to stay one step ahead of the authorities. Despite these limitations, the period marked a significant shift in the global approach to offshore finance. The combination of whistleblowers, data leaks, investigative journalism, and public pressure created a new environment where complete secrecy could no longer be guaranteed. As one Swiss banker lamented: "The golden age of Swiss banking secrecy is over." While Moneyland continued to adapt and evolve, its foundations had been shaken for the first time since its creation.

Summary

The story of Moneyland reveals a fundamental contradiction at the heart of our global financial system. While goods, services, and legitimate investments flow across borders with increasing freedom, so too does stolen wealth, criminal proceeds, and tax-evading capital. This shadow financial system didn't emerge by accident but through deliberate exploitation of the mismatch between global money and national laws. From the first eurobonds in 1960s London to the trust havens of present-day South Dakota, financial innovation has consistently outpaced regulatory efforts, creating an ever-more sophisticated infrastructure for hiding wealth from taxation, law enforcement, and public scrutiny. The consequences of this system extend far beyond lost tax revenue. When corrupt officials can safely stash their stolen billions in Western real estate and luxury goods, it undermines democracy, fuels inequality, and perpetuates poverty in developing nations. The offshore world has created a two-tier global system: one set of rules for ordinary citizens bound by national laws, and another for the wealthy elite who can operate beyond them. Breaking this cycle requires not just technical fixes like beneficial ownership registries or information exchange agreements, but a fundamental rethinking of our approach to financial regulation. As long as some jurisdictions can profit by undermining the rules of others, Moneyland will continue to thrive at the expense of democratic governance and economic justice worldwide.

About Author

Loading...

Oliver Bullough

I moved to Russia in 1999, after growing up in mid-Wales and studying at Oxford University. I had no particular plan, beyond a desire to learn Russian, but got a job at a local magazine and realised I liked finding things out and writing about them. The next year I moved to Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, then joined Reuters news agency, which sent me to Moscow. The first major story I reported on was the Moscow theatre siege of 2002, when a group of Chechens seized a theatre in the capital. It both horrified and fascinated me, and I resolved to find out as much as I could about Chechnya and the North Caucasus, to try to understand the roots of the conflict that had burst so unexpectedly into my life. I travelled extensively in the mountains that form Russia’s southern border, falling in love with the scenery, the food and above all the warm and welcoming people. When I left Russia in 2006, I was exhausted by it, however. I had seen too much misery and never wanted to write about Chechnya again. But I had promised to give a talk to a society in London. After the talk, I was asked if I would ever write a book about what I had seen. I wrote down a few thoughts, took them to a friend who knew about books, and she introduced me to a publisher. I travelled in a dozen countries to meet all the people I needed for the stories I wanted to tell, and wrote them down in Let Our Fame Be Great. Penguin published it in the UK in 2010. It won the Oxfam Emerging Writer Prize and was short-listed for the Orwell Prize, with prize judge James Naughtie calling it “an extraordinary book... a wonderful part-travelogue, part-history”. Basic Books published it in the United States, where the Overseas Press Club awarded it the Cornelius Ryan Award for “best nonfiction book on international affairs”. After it came out, though, a number of Russian friends objected that I had made the Russians into the villains. I don’t think I did, but their complaints chewed away at me a little. Perhaps some readers had been left feeling all Russians were complicit in the crimes of their leaders. The Russians after all suffered as much as anyone at the hands of the government in Moscow. That provoked me into writing my second book, The Last Man in Russia, which describes the struggle of a Russian to live in freedom and the efforts of Soviet officials to stop him. The life story of Father Dmitry, the Orthodox priest I chose as my central figure, seems to me to mirror the life of his whole nation, which is beset by depression and alcoholism. Travelling to meet the people I wanted to talk to and to see the places I wanted to describe took me to the far north of Russia, to rotting gulag towns; to the west of Russia, to half-abandoned villages; and to the Ural Mountains, where the communists locked up their doughtiest opponents; and to Moscow itself, that great fat spider in the centre of its web. I would like to write more books one day but, at the moment, I’m concentrating on my day job as Caucasus Editor for the Institute of War and Peace Reporting. I also write freelance articles and worry about the Welsh rugby team.http://www.oliverbullough.com/biograp...

Read more