Bank Secrecy and Public Good

Swiss banking has acquired an enviable reputation for efficiency and solidity in keeping assets safe for individuals with large incomes and assets. Indeed, one of its main selling points has been the bankable value of Swiss bank secrecy as a recognized character of most of those banks. I have been at a loss about the virtual arm twisting that has led Swiss banks to accept the release of details of a number of account holders who may have evaded taxes in the US and European countries.

Lacking the clarity and certainty that has been expressed by various liberty-loving and libertarian bloggers on the one side and state agents arguing for the right to find and punish banks that collaborate with tax evaders, I have eschewed a contribution to that discussion on this blog or elsewhere. However, reading what I think is a mildly tilted but passable opinion by Holman Jenkins Jr. of the Wall Street Journal here, I consider that I could venture with my views too.

To begin with, businesses of every kind should design and retain the liberty to emphasize features that would give them an advantage over others based in different countries or nations. For that reason alone, there is nothing completely objectionable about Swiss banking institutions stressing the secrecy as a sacrosanct feature in their service to clients. As Holman Jenkins Jr. states, this specific feature was developed by the Swiss legislature entirely for defensible purposes aimed at preventing the confiscation of private property by the government of Nazi Germany. To his admission too, the author states that the feature was neutral and allowed both some Nazis and the Jewish families to shield their property from confiscation.

Later however, the deployment of bank secrecy as a business feature has given Swiss banks a bad name and this was bound to boomerang badly sooner than later. To start with, many African and Latin American despots and killers are known and suspected of holding comparatively large fortunes in Swiss banks. Often after the demise of these despots, Swiss banks have hidden behind this secrecy feature to prevent national governments from claiming property that was stolen from national treasuries, all in the name of absolute bank secrecy laws. This has been a frustrating state of affairs for many residents of developing nations and has made a useful instrument highly suspect and the banks largely despised.

So while I am loath to concede to government wide regulation and forced participation in a disclosure scheme, I think that the banks could have preempted this loss of public confidence by refining the secrecy laws to allow fewer despots and thieves from escaping with large sums of cash. To my mind, a person who relocates his assets across countries to evade taxes is, strictly speaking, breaking the law but cannot compare to outright killers and thieves whose money has been parked in Swiss banks for decades. Unlike Holman Jenkins Jr., I am less inclined to accept that the the problem was that the banks deployed Swiss banking too widely, but agree that it indeed was cheapened by making outright killers keep dollars that they obviously did not earn and that were stolen from national treasuries. Swiss banking has a valuable attribute but it made itself cheap by keeping assets for killers and outright thieves.