Home | About | Donate

'Seriously Sinister': Foremost Bank Whistleblower Says CIA Behind Panama Papers


'Seriously Sinister': Foremost Bank Whistleblower Says CIA Behind Panama Papers

Lauren McCauley, staff writer

While many observers have questioned why the Panama Papers leak has seemingly only revealed the economic corruption of notable U.S. adversaries, such as Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a notable tax evasion whistleblower has come forward with what he believes is the answer.


The US Government is getting rid of the competition in the way of Tax havens.

The message is simple. If you want to keep your illicit monies free from prying eyes keep it in the USA.

Those investors that fall for that will then see those assets confiscated once the whole thing comes tumbling down.

The journalists that are part of this have either a part of it or have been conned and that con might be the impetus needed to dig deeper and get more of that collateral damage


My suspicions confirmed! When the Panama papers were first exposed I smelled a rat because only the so-called enemies of America were implicated.


True. Too bad there are so many brainwashed sheeple that do not realize it...yet!


What's really disturbing about this is the fact that so many journalists at so many different news organizations across Europe are essentially working as CIA fronts. Many must be unwitting dupes while others are on the payroll.


Just a clarification: Vladimir Putin's name is not mentioned anywhere in the documents.


Recall former CIA Director George HW Bush being complicit in Panama dictator Manual Noriega's operations in the 80s.

Yesterday Jeb bowed out of the July GOP Convention BEFORE the family is implicated so he can blame his decision on Trump, not the Panama Papers.


.. but it was in every headline ..


This statement is unfortunate, because this banker clearly doesn't understand a leaking, and b) media editing. This is one dude's speculation--like many of us were doing when this story broke--being peddled as fact simply because this guy used to be a banker and a whistleblower.
The problem is that there is no evidence at all of this assertion. Further, there are two cogs in this machine operating independent of each other. You have the leaker, and then the messengers.
The leaker could be valid, but you still might not see "allied" names because media won't print them. They cold be CIA, and then the media's less culpable.
Either way, there's no proof of anything, so we're still left where we've always been: we don't know. Yet.
Remember one last thing: there are at least plausible explanations why there aren't "friendly" names being released or in those papers, and none of them implicate the CIA.
Let's just please stay suspicious but not start asserting as fact something that isn't even close to fact.


Agree. This is a plausible theory, but a theory nonetheless. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it were true, though. There appears to be no level too low to which our government will not sink.


RAT?! Please consider reading 'Clinton Cash' by Peter Schweitzer, as the Clinton Foundation is entangled with each of these countries in deals that the "sheeple" are supporting unwittingly with tax dollars also. NOT accusing here, just advising a enlightening read..!


Thanks for your reply.


I would take to this suggestion were it not for the long History of the US Government being involved in such and the fact that over all those many years those whistle blower leaks tend to be proven true.

So just as example US involvement in the coup in Chile and In Iran , the faked Gulf of Tonkin affair, the fabrication of reasons to make war on Iraq , the US Involvement in Gladio all started off as speculations and leaks with people taking much the same course as you, that being they not factual and one must wait on more solid evidence.

As further example even as the US Government paid damages for peoples affected by MK Ultra the official position of the Government is there was "no blame" that could be pinned on the CIA.

So to that I go by the old adage "you made your own bed now lie in it" when it comes to that same Government. Thier history of lies and coverups of media manipulation used on the Public in the past is a matter of the Public Record and I for one am far past giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Might I be wrong? Yes but if there a 90 percent chance of rain tomorrow chances are it going to rain and I put the odds of this having the involvement of the CIA or other such agency as being right around those odds.


Or, it could be that since 2010 US citizens have to declare all their foreign accounts. Apparently the shell companies these guys were setting up are some kind of grey area in most places. But once you have law requiring disclosure it's a pretty cleat cut deal.

BTW, if the CIA is behind it, they finally started earning their keep cuz lately they weren't looking to great.


This is nonsense: are soccer players in Denmark and the prime minister of Britain enemies of the US?

  1. Alternative plausible explanations (and remember, this is directly related to the claim that the leaker(s) is CIA.
    A. Leaker could be authentic, CIA infiltration could be at media level.
    B. Leaker could be a private party working for a financial concern, like, say, Goldman Sachs (after all, this came out around the time that G-Sachs was getting their financial wrist slapping).
    C. Media might be dealing with legal issues surrounding privacy cases if America names were released (I think this is goofy, but it's possible, and some people are saying it).
    D. No Americans of note are even in the leak, because in the US, there's no need to use a Panamanian law firm to launder your cash. That's why baby Jesus created Delaware. (This is a pretty compelling argument, btw.).

What should "evidence" look like in case like this?

First, let's look at your example, Big Tobacco. Lots of people suspected they were lying, but they didn't have proof, so they kept after it until they finally got their "inside man". But before that moment, it was all suspicion, circumstantial, and hearsay. It's a lot of smoke--worthy of continued inquiry, obviously, but not evidence of wrongdoing. And even then, the whistlblower wasn't enough. He led to th subpoenas that got the real evidence.

So here's the claim: "The CIA released the data"
And the basis for the claim?
Two things: some motive, and lots of historical shenanigans.
This isn't evidence. It's innuendo or suspicion. Here's why.
First, lots of other people or organizations can have motives to leak the data. Any good whistleblower (the original claim by the leaker) has at least as good a motive as the CIA. SO this claim? Absolutely hot air.
Second, as far as shenanigans go, it's true, the CIA's middle name could be shenanigans. But are they the only governmental or private organization with a history of deceptive behavior? I'm gonna go with "no". St Dept could've leaked this. Commerce could have. A powerful bank with hackers could've done it. Hell, Panama could have done it, too, as could a private competitor of the Panamanian firm. You could come up with a list of plausible suspects to fill the slots of a dartboard and just pick the one the dart hits.

So what would evidence look like? Well, the CIAs been busted before, so look at those cases for guidance. Leaked memos, letters, email from a doo gooder. Certain kinds of anonymous sources might work, too, although for me, that's not quite good enough. Sworn testimony from people involved in the scheme. A reverse trace on the hack by law firm to find out who broke in would be good, as long as it was verifid by a third party. Edit: A genuine congressional inestigation would work, too.

That's what evidence would look like.


Catch is the only way for the rich and greedy to attack the Panama Papers is to blame the KGB or the CIA and as the KGB are gone and the FSB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Security_Service just doesn't quite have the same ring to it, that leaves only the CIA.
At the end of the day, why worry as long as your name is not on the list. So what about all the names not mentioned, lest just prosecute the ones we know, we can always hunt and expose the rest later ie "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb", in this case the Panama papers, better some than none and the entire Cameron family (all inherited that tax evasion and none declared), is no small fish.
Those most exposed might be the enemies of the US empire but the reality is they are also ours. When the CIA serves, use it, when the FSB serves, use it, when main stream media serves, use it. Makes no difference, don't necessarily trust it but when the opportunity comes, most definitely use them and of course keep watch to make sure you are not used by them.
All those who championed austerity whilst cheating on taxes, belong in prison, some better than none but that doesn't mean we stop there, plenty of other 1% fish to fry :wink:.


How on earth can you claim there was no evidence if wrongdoing on the behalf of the tobacco companies?

The evidence was always there. That people were not willing to accept that evidence hardly means it did not exist.

This the same as the US role in the Chilean Coup. There was all manner of evidence of that involvement. There were also all manner of people trying to suggest that evidence was meaningless and that the US played no role.

Which side was correct?

Wesley Clark indicated several years before the attacks on Libya and Syria that the US government was preparing to attack the same. Was this evidence or not and was he wrong?


When I first saw this and saw there was a total absence of US participates, I knew that was not possible, unlikely and far from realistic. US corporations and the 1 Percenters have been seeking tax havens offshore for decades. As for the CIA, that seems a stretch. Hiding US moneyed elites would fall under the realm of State or the DoJ, even the FBI.


A. assertion of fact isn't fact. I can claim that because the burden of proof is always on the accuser.
In the case of tobacco, there were two claims in order. The first, cigarettes are bad fr you, was factual. Proven scientifically by 3rd parties. The second, that companies knew it was, was not fact. This claim assumes to know the mind of another infallibly. It was a reasonable suspicion, not a fact. At least untle Mr Whistlelower showed up and then RJR/Phil Morris got subpoenaed.
B. "which side was correct" is confirmation that someone guessed right, and someone didn't.
C. Wes Clark counts as evidence. Does he not meet my standard above? Yes, he does.