Cyprus crisis puts Austrian bank secrecy on agenda

VIENNA Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:55am EDT

Willibald Cernko, CEO of UniCredit's Bank Austria unit, addresses the bank's annual news conference in Vienna March 18, 2013. REUTERS/Heinz-Peter Bader

Willibald Cernko, CEO of UniCredit's Bank Austria unit, addresses the bank's annual news conference in Vienna March 18, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Heinz-Peter Bader

VIENNA (Reuters) - Cyprus's financial crisis has put Austria's centuries-old tradition of banking secrecy under fresh scrutiny, posing a potential political problem for Vienna as it faces European Union and U.S. pressure to crack down on tax cheats.

Austria and Luxembourg are the only countries that do not share with other EU members the identities of EU residents with cross-border bank accounts. Instead Austria taxes interest income at source and returns the money to other EU states.

Austria has defended the system as more efficient than exchanging personal information, but the question is increasingly whether the model is sustainable in the harsh light cast from Cyprus's ill-fated model of attracting foreign funds.

"There could very well be consequences here from the Cyprus affair," Willibald Cernko, head of the Austrian Banking Association and chief executive at UniCredit unit Bank Austria, said in a weekend radio interview.

In its latest report on Austria, the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an intergovernmental body that fights tax evasion and money laundering, cited potential dangers.

Historical ties with central and eastern Europe could make Austria a transit point for drugs and other trafficking, it said, "as well as a destination for criminal money, attracted by its reputation for political stability, tradition of banking secrecy, and attractive tax regime".

Austrian banks for decades used banking secrecy as a marketing argument, and some still do.

"The strictness of its banking secrecy is part of Austria's attractiveness internationally - to change the provisions of section 38 of the Austrian Banking Act requires the equivalent of a constitutional amendment," Schoellerbank says on its website.


To be sure, Austrian banks have tightened rules on identifying customers, and even Austrians have capital gains tax withheld automatically from their accounts. The anonymous passbook is long a thing of the past.

"No one can open mafia accounts as 'Donald Duck' without identification. The know-your-customer principle is iron clad," Die Presse's Josef Urschitz wrote in a column questioning whether clinging to bank secrecy was doing more harm than good.

"The banking system is clean, at least cleaner than its reputation in the rest of the EU. So why in heaven's name risk being put on the same level as tax havens?"

Bank Austria's Cernko stopped short of saying banks no longer needed banking secrecy, but said the challenge was grooming public opinion for an inevitable debate on whether the law was advantageous or not.

Austria has already struck tax deals with neighbors Switzerland and Liechtenstein that preserve tax secrecy and is about to embark on tax talks with the United States, which is campaigning to track down the offshore wealth of its citizens.

Should Vienna strike a deal with Washington along the lines of one Switzerland signed last month to make banks disclose information about U.S. account holders, while withholding similar information from its fellow EU members, it will be a red flag for Brussels.

European tax commissioner Algirdas Semeta had in January criticized Austrian banking secrecy policies and said Vienna would break the law if it adopted such selective disclosures.

"A country like Austria cannot exchange bank account information with the United States and refuse it to its partners in Europe," he told Austrian paper Der Standard.

The Austrian National Bank said it was unaware how much of the 156 billion euros ($203 billion) in domestic savings deposits at end-2012 were held by non-Austrian EU residents.

(Editing by Stephen Powell)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (1)
scythe wrote:
if you are so interested in shonky money laundering, look no further than the usa and its protection of anonymous shell companies.

(quote) Anonymous shell companies are behind so many crimes and misdemeanors that eliminating them should probably be “a no-brainer,” as a US district attorney recently put it …. Corrupt dictators have used shells in the US and elsewhere to launder or hide money they’ve received from oil companies or stolen from their own countries.
“Offshore is the place where all the traces and connections disappear.”

The United States failed even to vote on a bill that would have insured transparency about company ownership and it is home to one of the world’s most significant secrecy jurisdictions, the state of Delaware.

That US bill, which had originally envisioned that US states would collect all information about actual owners, was called “a no-brainer” by New York district attorney Robert Morgenthau and was backed by American law enforcement. “The biggest problem in the world is the US when it comes to shell companies,” said Dennis Lormel, a former head of the FBI’s financial crimes unit. “The only way to get the problem resolved is for Congress to enact legislation. It would have a deterrent effect.”

Observers had high hopes for the bill, because it had been co-sponsored in 2008 by then-Sen. Barack Obama. They blame the bill’s death on money. “Obviously shell companies are a revenue source for states. They’re not shot in the butt about seeing any legislation enacted,” Lormel said.

The powerful Chamber of Commerce and the American Bar Association (ABA) also opposed the bill, said Lucy Komisar, a journalist who’s writing about the lack of transparency in the American Interest in December. The Chamber – which spent $92 million on lobbying in 2008, – said the law would expose a company’s business strategies if that company was trying to buy undervalued assets. “Actually, what they’re afraid of is that they won’t be able to use shell companies to avoid taxes,” Komisar said. The ABA, meanwhile, opposed the bill because it would have subjected lawyers to anti-money laundering directives which it felt would endanger the principle of attorney-client confidentialty. Komisar scoffed at this “Sorry, but helping your client launder money is not client privilege,” she said, adding that the EU adopted similar rules in 2005 without the death of attorney-client privilege.

Mar 25, 2013 4:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.