Bank Julius Baer Issues Statement On WikiLeaks

dtwood writes "The bank that got WikiLeaks.org erased from DNS finally hired a PR agency and issued a press release filled with half truths and non-statements. Tynan on Tech has it, along with some brief commentary. Worth a look."

Um... ok

[downix (84795)]

Can someone please tell Mr Baer that anything he says will be used against him in the court of public opinion?

Sounds like his lawyers are getting nervous.

Re:

[jesdynf (42915)]

Hmm. This claim is plausible, if improbable coming from a user ID under 50K.

However, because I'm just that kind of guy, I'll step in for you.

In modern times, the use of all capital letters in electronic messaging has come to signify emphasis, or a raised voice. As more and more internet communication is conducted on forums with internal markup, instead of the flat 7-bit ASCII NNTP favored, this convention's technical justification has begun to fade.

There is a strong reaction against using all-capital letter

Re:

[reddburn (1109121)]

I'm far more annoyed by stupidity than all caps.

Other banks associated?

[KublaiKhan (522918)]

Are there any US institutions that are associated with this bank that I should be considering boycotting?

it is used for tax evading and money laundering

[someone1234 (830754)]

So, it is more like for private people than institutions.

Re:it is used for tax evading and money laundering

[milsoRgen (1016505)]

Apparently they have a U.S. mutual fund unit. [forbes.com] Other than that, all I can find in regards to U.S. activity is an New York Address. [newyorkcity.com]

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Are there any US institutions that are associated with this bank that I should be considering boycotting?

Dude, this is a major Swiss private bank, with subsidiaries in other countries with bank secrecy laws and no taxes (like the Cayman Islands).

The bank specializes in wealthy clients, helping them avoid/evade taxation in their home countries.

They do not deal with little people like you (or me).

Re:Other banks associated?

[zippthorne (748122)]

Does this bank pay interest?

If so, then they must be investing in something. That's who you boycott.

If you don't deposit money, they just make less money. If their investments fail to profit, they lose money.

Re:

[bberens (965711)]

If they're like every other investment group it'll be corporate/municipal bonds and mutual funds. You're probably out of luck.

Want to know how to kill a bank?

[Colin Smith (2679)]

Transfer all your money to them, then take it out as cash. Actual physical paper and metal.

Because of the fractional reserve multiplier it has a currently 10 fold (in the USA, 30 fold in the UK and 50 fold in the EU) effect on their ability to generate further loans.

 

they make a good point:

[greenslashpurple (1236792)]

"The posting of confidential bank records by anonymous sources significantly harms the privacy rights of all individuals." Especially individuals engaged in tax fraud.

Re:they make a good point:

[howdoesth (1132949)]

Isn't being engaged in tax fraud a prerequisite for having a bank account in the Cayman Islands?

Actually

[wsanders (114993)]

I once worked at a place where a lot of people had security clearances. A coworker enjoyed scuba diving, and bought a condo in Grand Cayman. That security clearance whooshed away faster than a bottle of vodka in Britney Spear's glove compartment.

Eventually the coworker was reinstated, so there are bind fide reasons for transacting business in the Caymans. Scuba diving, nig game fishing, genocide, drug dealing, weapons smuggling, corporate espionage come to mind, in addition to plain old tax fraud.

Re:they make a good point:

[Trails (629752)]

Not that I'm a fan of his or anything, but Chavez was democratically elected. If all it took to be called a dictator was being a blowhard with some odd policies that haven't panned out so well, and foreigners wondering what the hell your country was smoking to have elected such a douche, then I know a certain schmuck in the white house who's a dictator.

Re:they make a good point:

[jtheisen (893138)]

Which is exactly what happened a couple of weeks ago here in Europe: German tax offices bought (with the help of the BND, Germany's service for foreign intelligence) records from a leaker of a bank in Lichtenstein with information about who had foundations there - foundations that are almost always used in order to commit tax fraud. They bought it for 3 million Euro, but claimed to get much more than that back. The CEO of the German Post fell over that scandal. According to SPIEGEL ONLINE, many other countries, including the US, also bought that information. Naturally, Liechtenstein got quite a fit about this and accused the German goverment of "Hehlerei im großen Stil" (legal expression, to receive stolen goods as a criminal act).

Looks like my dreams have been canceled

[Dice (109560)]

Sigh.

I was hoping this story wouldn't get big. I was really hoping that I'd found a bank through which I could launder and stash various... shall we say... "unreported monies". Like a stack of $100 bills the size of a small room. Homeland Security can be really unforgiving about that sort of thing, you know?

Re:Looks like my dreams have been canceled

[KublaiKhan (522918)]

HELLO good sir i am an honest man from the UNITED STATES who has a BUSINESS proposition for you in good health and honesty for good christian man of good character such as yourself.

I am prepared to offer a BUSINESS deal to great advantage for you in monetary security terms for the storage of your FINANCIAL difficulties for very reasonable rate. Please to send to me your

name
date of birth
bank routing number
social security number
mother's name

and i will PROVIDE for YOU a small room for the storage of your MONETARY. For this service you may keep 10% of the AMOUNT GIVEN in good health as thanks for your ASSISTANCE.

In good health and honesty,
Fow Ern Ineteen, Esq.

Re:

[compro01 (777531)]

Homeland Security can be really unforgiving about that sort of thing, you know?

the DHS? don't make people laugh, they're wussy amateurs compared to the IRS. they've got what it takes to take what you've got, along with everything you'll ever have. the government takes receiving "their" money very very seriously.

Re:

[Mister Whirly (964219)]

"the DHS? don't make people laugh, they're wussy amateurs compared to the IRS."

No doubt. The IRS brought down Al Capone for christ sakes. No other law enforcement agency could come close to bringing him down.

Re:Looks like my dreams have been canceled

[I confirm I'm not a (720413)]

In the UK there used to an agency called "Customs and Excise". They - unlike the police - carried guns on operations, they didn't trust or liaise with the police, and they normally didn't need a search warrant to carry out raids. The government decided that they weren't powerful enough, and merged them with...
drumroll...
the Inland Revenue!

Opinions, Opinions

[matt4077 (581118)]

Quote: "And the statement "Julius Baer's sole objective has always been limited to the removal of these private and legally protected documents from the website" means either that a) they're lying, b) they really did think that wiping WikiLeaks.org from the DNS records of the Net would only remove those 'inauthentic' documents they're so concerned about, or c) they're lying."

I'd interpret it as meaning they tried everything else and then had to resort to these means to get these documents offline. In a way, I can understand the Bank. If the documents are true, it's confidential information that shouldn't be published. If they're forged, it's obviously defamatory and shouldn't be published, either. I'm not sure if exposing some tax fraud is a goal high enough to disregard legal standards. WIkileaks is obviously doing good work, as with last years documents about african dictators. Not sure if this is among that good work,

Re:Opinions, Opinions

[JustinOpinion (1246824)]

I'm not sure if exposing some tax fraud is a goal high enough to disregard legal standards.

Well this is the fundamental question of whistle-blowing. Nearly all whistle-blowing is illegal, since someone is violating a confidentiality agreement, breaking a contract, publishing private information, etc.

I don't know to what extent this has been legally codified, but the consensus has grown to be that whistle-blowing should be somehow allowed, or even encouraged and protected. This is why we consider it reasonable for a reporter to "not disclose a source" and why Wikileaks should be protected.

If the information can be shown to be false, then yes it should be removed. But unauthorized publication of data which unequivocally proves that some bigger crime has occurred has to be allowed and protected if we are going to fight big crimes. This protection has to extend to the original whistle-blower, and the reporting agents (journalists, wikileaks, etc.), even though they may be technically breaking certain laws (e.g. disclosure of private data).

Re:

[ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371)]

Nearly all whistle-blowing is illegal, since someone is violating a confidentiality agreement, breaking a contract, publishing private information, etc.

Which makes me question the legality of such confidentiality agreements.

If I remain silent because of a confidentiality agreement, then am I an accomplice in the crime I have discovered? Under these circumstances, can I be legally be bound to remain silent? If I am forced to testify in court, does this still violate the agreement and make me liable? If polic

Re:

[StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989)]

There seem to be several possible senarios here.

1. All the documents are authentic and expose illegal activity.

In which case, claiming forged documents would solve to PR problem.

2. All the documents are forged.

In which case, claiming forged documents would solve the Pr problem.

3. Some of the documents or document information is real s

inaccurate

[abigsmurf (919188)]

I'd hardly describe that press release as being filled with half truths. Only point that's really debatable is the dialogue part but there's nothing especially wrong with asking for dialogue between lawyers, especially given the potentially legally complex nature of the post.

"You cant be a leaker and a liar at the same time"

[circletimessquare (444983)]

actually, yes you can. the bank's efforts at defending itself are certainly vile, but this doesn't mean the leaker has virtuous motivations either. if you think it is impossible to leak and lie at the same time, you've never encountered a disgruntled ex-employee or ex-client before

it's sort of like some of the problems surrounding allegations of rape. most charges of rape are indeed cases about a real rape, that needs to be punished harshly. but a handful of charges of rape are made by women who's motivations are completely false. the horrible tragedy is that the real damage such women do is not to the man they want to hurt, but to the 100 other cases of genuine rape their false rape charges now put into doubt

so let us hope this wikileaks case does not involve a maliciously intended disgruntled ex-employee or ex-client. not that the bank's actions are defensible in any way, regardless of the leaker's motivations, but if the motivations of the leaker aren't squeeky clean, on such a high profile affair, then this entire wikileaks first amendment situation gets poisoned in a way it would be viewed on the street in a way no one who cares about the first amendment wants to see happen

Re:

[orclevegam (940336)]

You don't get it. There is no way for this to be a "saboteur", because it requires complicity of both parties involved. Even if the source is a pissed off ex-employee, the company committing the tax evasion, and the bank facilitating it are both still guilty. It really doesn't factor in who the source was, and anyone who thinks it matters at all be they the "public" or anyone else is a moron. The only reason it matters in rape cases is because there's the potential for the one doing the accusing to have tri

Re:

[orclevegam (940336)]

There is no legal defense to bank fraud. You cannot claim "self defense", and motives don't have an impact on the decision or the charge you're guilty of. There are no extenuating circumstances in a case such as this, therefor the motives of the accused or the ones doing the accusing are not a factor.

Anyone see the irony here?

[Sepiraph (1162995)]

According to wikipedia,

On February 18, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a permanent injunction against Dynadot forcing it to "lock the wikileaks.org domain name

Whereas what wikileak did was to release the illegal activities of asset hiding, money laundering and tax evasion.

So U.S. District Court, where is the justice?

Liar and a leaker...

[Mike1024 (184871)]

From the article

You can't be a leaker and a liar at the same time. In fact, it's really unclear what Baer claims is legit (but stolen) and what it claims is false or forged.

It would be possible to have both stolen true information and fabricated false information in the same document - or to have a mix of authentic documents and forged documents. Hence "stolen and forged bank records" could be true.

Also, it makes sense for a company not to comment on the authenticity of leaked documents - and the bank could argue that wikileaks should remove the documents if they are fake (assuming wikileaks purports to be a factual site); and should remove them if they are illegal; and therefore should remove the documents without the bank specifying if they are authentic or not.

That said, hosting fictional information probably isn't a crime (unless you could work slander or libel into it); and hosting private/secret documents against the rights holders' wishes is kind of wikileaks' raison d'etre.

Just my $0.02

News coverage

[Zork the Almighty (599344)]

Did anyone see the Associated Press coverage? link [yahoo.com].

"An effort at damage control has snowballed into a public relations disaster for a Swiss bank seeking to crack down on a renegade Web site for posting classified information about some of its wealthy clients."

Apparently, company information is "classified information", and WikiLeaks is a "renegade" website. I guess it is compared to the Associated Press. Here's a high school example of propaganda. Perhaps it was written by a high school student.

Plenty of blame for both sides

[taustin (171655)]

Looking at the archive of correspondence, it looks to me like both sides were evasive, rude and snotty. Both sides, no doubt, had their reasons. Given the nature of the web site, and the history of this kind of fight, were I the bank's lawyers, I'd be very concerned that they would zip it all up and send it off to a hundred other web sites as soon as they got file names, especially if they could so do legally (and they could, since they wouldn't have gotten the C&D yet). Given the history of such C&D efforts, I can see why the web site wouldn't want to give out any freebies to the other side's lawyers.

However, in the end, the only thing Wikileaks made available to the bank to deal with was their domain name. I can't imagine how else they thought this would go, when the bank had no other path to follow.

Irony of the situation

[sugar and acid (88555)]

Ahh the irony. The way wikileaks facilitates the distribution of stolen,illegal and/or highly sensitive information in broadly very similar mechanisms that banks like BRB facilitates the hiding and laundering of stolen,illegal and/or highly taxable amounts of money.

Keep the information about where it came from tightly secured. Distribute and flow it through a number of international sites, ideally with favourable political/legal/tax climates. Fight tooth and nail against any attempts to force divulging or removal of information when requested by various national legal jurisdictions.

Re:Non-truths?

[Itninja (937614)]

I think any reasonable person knows what a half-statement. It's a completely legitimate. Most English professors.

Re:Non-truths?

[I confirm I'm not a (720413)]

> If you're going to chide a company for putting out a shitty document, at least have the balls to use some real language when you do it.

> Is it a lie? then call it a lie! "half truths" my ass.

You mean like this?

And the statement "Julius Baer's sole objective has always been limited to the removal of these private and legally protected documents from the website" means either that a) they're lying, b) they really did think that wiping WikiLeaks.org from the DNS records of the Net would only remove those 'inauthentic' documents they're so concerned about, or c) they're lying.

I'm betting on a and c. How about you?

Looks to me like the article accuses Bank Julius Baer of... lying.

Re:Non-truths?

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

Erm, well, one of the things they say relates to the documents being "stolen and forged". Then, in the very same paragraph, they refer to the documents as "private" and "confidential".

Sorry, but, um, forged documents aren't private or confidential unless they contain some degree of accurate information, I suppose...but then they're not subject to banking laws because they're fake documents, right?

So, which is it, Julius Baer? Are these documents forgeries, or are they real documents and therefore subject to banking privacy laws? You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too.

If JB lawyers really had the aim to stop the publication of the documents, they could have just sent WikiLeaks a C&D, who maybe would have even taken it down. But instead, they call up WikiLeaks asking them who their lawyer is and refuse to identify themselves. Who do these people think they are? The fscking Mafia? Wait, don't answer that ... :-D

Re:Non-truths?

[HTH NE1 (675604)]

So, which is it, Julius Baer? Are these documents forgeries, or are they real documents and therefore subject to banking privacy laws? You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too.

Have you not heard of superposition? It's a matter of quantum legal entanglement.

Re:Non-truths?

[The Angry Mick (632931)]

Have you not heard of superposition? It's a matter of quantum legal entanglement.

Is that when the plaintiff gets to be on top, or is it the other way around?

Re:

[dubbreak (623656)]

So, which is it, Julius Baer? Are these documents forgeries, or are they real documents and therefore subject to banking privacy laws? You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too.

Have you not heard of superposition? It's a matter of quantum legal entanglement.

In law you can have "conflicting" statements via alternative arguments. For instance:

• I was not at the scene of the crime.
• alternatively, I was at the scene of the crime but was not involved and did not see the crime take place from my vantage point.
• in the further alternative, I was there, saw it happen but was unable to intervene or identify the culprits

It may seem to logically conflict, but each argument stands by itself. You could think of each alternative argument as a root to an individual tree

Re:Non-truths?

[harryHenderson (729254)]

Not to defend the bank, but a set of documents CAN be both legitimate and forged at the same time. Some can be real and some can be false. The problem that the bank could be in (if they aren't totally lying) is that only demanding the take down of the real documents in the C&D will expose which records are real, and as such need to be kept confidential. The ONLY thing the bank could do in that case is to BOTH deny any of the documents are true and demand that they all be taken down.

Re:Non-truths?

[whoever57 (658626)]

Non-truths and half-statements?>br>
What the hell is that??

I think that any Brit will know that the correct term is being "economical with the truth"

Re:Example

[everphilski (877346)]

a bag of walnuts!

Re:Go BJ Baer!

[downix (84795)]

So, if the New York Times publishes a report on tax evasion, one should bulldoze the city of New York?

Pulling the DNS is an option to be done *when all others have been exhausted*, and fact is, this was the first option the courts pulled, which is akin to my above statement. An initial order had to be for Wikilinks to pull the documents off of the site by a set date, and if they didn't, hold the executives in contempt. That is how the rule of law works.

Re:

[portnoy (16520)]

Yeah? And who would you serve that order on, since Wikileaks won't tell you who their lawyer is or how/where to serve them?

Wikileaks' response made perfect sense to me -- effectively, they said that they're a multi-national organization (note the presence of the domain name in .be, .uk, .au, .cn, and .in, to name a few), so they need to know which URL was a problem in order to give you the contact info for the appropriate legal organization. BJB never responded. I'd call that acting without good faith.

Re:Go BJ Baer!

[z80kid (711852)]

I think the big deal (as pointed out in the article) is:

1. According to the correspondence shown by wikileaks, Bear's lawyers did not attempt to discuss what they wanted. They only tried to contact them to serve legal papers. You'd be evasive too.

2. Bear is asserting that the documents are 1) fake, and 2) violations of banking privacy law. One of those two is the truth and the other is a lie. If they are fake, then there is no violation of banking privacy, so #2 is a lie. If they are real, #1 is a lie.

Re:Go BJ Baer!

[dubl-u (51156)]

They tried to serve Wikileaks with a notice [...] pulling the DNS was about all they had available to them.

That's bullshit. Over the years, I've been on the receiving end of a variety of notices, requests, and demands from lawyers, cops, and federal agents. Wikileaks was mildly jerky, but the lawyers were even more so. If they had a problem with particular documents and intended to sue in the US, they could have just said which documents and where they were planning to sue.

This isn't censorship, as the government isn't doing it. Nor ir it prior restraint on publication.

You did notice that it was shut down by a court, right? I know some think that courts are naturally occurring mineral formations, but I swear, this one is part of the federal government.

What's the big deal? Do the haters think people have the right to publish anything on the 'net, no matter how false or scurrilous, without any repercussions whatsoever??

I'm not sure if you're trolling here or just clueless, but I'll run with the latter. If the documents were actually false, then BJB should just say, "yet more Internet" and ignore them. Obviously, the problem is that the documents are actually valid but put them in a bad light.

We grant limited legal protection to information for reasons like "advancing the sciences and the useful arts" or running a legal business. Although it's a little amazing given our congressmen, those valid reasons to not include malfeasance, corruption, and skulduggery. In fact, just the opposite: whistleblowing is frequently protected by law because it helps us nab people up to things not in the public interest. Like, it appears, Bank Julius Baer and some of their clients.

Re:

[oliphaunt (124016)]

Anyone who needs a refresher on the free-speech implications can find it here (although digg found it first, so the whole article is temporarily posted static on the main page):

Vying for Control of the Internet: is Wikileaks Unstoppable? [thelegality.com]

Re:

[hengist (71116)]

WikiLeaks emails made it very clear that they have several legal representatives, and they needed to know

1) what documents were at issue, and
2) who the other party actually was,

so that the appropriate counsel could be selected. Despite repeated requests from WikiLeaks, that information was not provided by BJB's lawyer. It is quite clear that BJB's lawyers were not acting in good faith. I hope there are sanctions against them at the end of this, as they clearly abused process.

Re:

[BridgeBum (11413)]

Wikipedia has it. 88.80.13.160

Re:Do we have free speech in the USA?

[el borak (263323)]

The lawyers OWN congress.

The lawyers ARE congress.