Barney Frank Wants To Share Information With Foreign Auditor Authorities
(As an aside before we get started on Barney Frank’s undermining of the Constitution, I want you to be aware of this new legislation that has been proposed, but as of yet, the text is unavailable. As soon as it becomes available, the Monster will be on it!
Aug 7, 2009 – Bill Action
Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI] introduced this bill.)
Here is what is happening now. It’s a short bill and easily understandable until you get to the part they don’t want you to understand. Read it! Italics are my emphasis.
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 3346
To amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to permit the sharing of confidential supervisory information with foreign auditor oversight bodies.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 27, 2009
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself and Mr. KANJORSKI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services
A BILL
To amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to permit the sharing of confidential supervisory information with foreign auditor oversight bodies.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO SHARE CERTAIN INFORMATION.
(a) Definition- Section 2(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7201(a)) is amended by inserting after paragraph (16) the following:
‘(17) FOREIGN AUDITOR OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY- The term ‘foreign auditor oversight authority’ means any governmental body or other entity empowered by a foreign government to conduct inspections of public accounting firms or otherwise to administer or enforce laws related to the regulation of public accounting firms.’.
(b) Availability To Share Information- Section 105(b)(5) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7215(b)(5)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘(C) AVAILABILITY TO FOREIGN OVERSIGHT AUTHORITIES- When in the Board’s discretion it is necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Act or to protect investors, and without the loss of its status as confidential and privileged in the hands of the Board, all information referred to in subparagraph (A) that relates to a public accounting firm within the inspection authority, or other regulatory or law enforcement jurisdiction, of a foreign auditor oversight authority may be made available to the foreign auditor oversight authority if the foreign auditor oversight authority provides such assurances of confidentiality as the Board determines appropriate.’. (Does any of that make sense to you?)
(c) Conforming Amendment- Section 105(b)(5)(A) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7215(b)(5)(A)) is amended by striking ‘subparagraph (B)’ and inserting ‘subparagraphs (B) and (C)’.
Why is this important? Here ya go:
- 3.13.09: Switzerland eases banking secrecy
- 7.21.09: Swiss Banks Freeze Out U.S. Clients
The Swiss Government held an extraordinary meeting today to talk about how America’s legal battle to obtain client names from UBS will hit the legendary Swiss banking industry.
Talks to settle the lawsuit, which had been expected to be completed on Friday, have hit difficulties over the issue of how the names would be conveyed from Switzerland to America.
The US and Swiss Governments and UBS are now due to update Judge Alan Gold, who is presiding over the case, on Thursday about their progress.
The Swiss Government, which is in recess, declined to comment on its special meeting. But the meeting was likely to centre around the possible damage wrought on Switzerland’s banking industry, famous for its promise of strict secrecy, by the case.
Switzerland’s banks look after about $2 trillion for foreigners but the country has seen the privacy it was able to offer banking customers chipped away in recent months by a series of bilateral tax treaties.
The US Department of Justice sued UBS in February for the identities of 52,000 Americans with Swiss bank accounts, whom the tax authorities suspect of using secret bank accounts to evade tax.
UBS claimed that to hand over the names would force the bank to violate Swiss banking secrecy laws and argued that the matter should be settled between the two countries.
Talks between the two governments and UBS have been going on for five weeks. Two weeks ago the parties said that they had reached a tentative settlement.
Hans-Rudolf Merz, Switzerland’s president, said yesterday that the latest snag in the settlement was related to the legal procedure for handing over the names.
The US is believed to want a guarantee that it will receive the information quickly, while Switzerland is thought to have warned that transmitting the names under the administrative assistance process – the legal framework for moving bank client details – could take months.
Anybody still thinking the New World Order is a conspiracy theory when Barney is going to hand over confidential information to “foreign auditor oversight authority”?
