Talk:Mossack Fonseca

Page views for this article over the last 30 days
Detailed traffic statistics

Promotional material

I see that this article is being frequently edited in a similar manner by multiple accounts new to Wikipedia, but which are quick studies in WP formatting. I am reverting these edits because they appear to be replacing notable, cited information with trivial, POV information from dubious sources. For example, a major international business donating $1000 dollars toward trail maintenance gear is probably not especially notable. If you feel otherwise, I would urge you to explain why here, rather than edit-warring. Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2015

As of February 2015, here are widespread reports in the German press that the company is engaged in money laundering and tax evasion schemes, in connection with Commerzbank. Estimates are running to EUR 1BN of evaded taxes for their clients. Info about this should be added.

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/luxemburg-steueraffaere-erschuettert-commerzbank-1.2366678 Paul Ferdinand (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Paul! I have added this to the article. Tdslk (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Dubious Claims

The company has been alleged to help foreign citizens circumvent their local tax laws.[6] It has also worked with associates of dictators such as Robert Mugabe, Muammar Gaddafi, and Bashar al Assad to help them circumvent international sanctions.[7]

I went through the sources and for the first claim, it seems to me like it is all based on speculation., as for the second source, it seems to me like an editorial piece. Any chance we could get these removed? Cada mori (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that these statements should be well-supported. The sentence immediately after the two you quote details an example where Mossack Fonseca helped Germans avoid taxes, which would support the statement in the first sentence. I moved it to after the first sentence for clarity. As for the citation for the second sentence, I would call it reporting, not editorial; the author travels places, talks with people, and otherwise researches the topic, then presents his findings. In any event, I found other sources online supporting this statement, one of which I have added. Does that satisfy your concerns? Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Please note, this article claims "The company has been alleged to help foreign citizens circumvent their local tax laws" but when you read the source, it clearly states that the Mossack Fonseca representative deny the request and advice that such request is illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jandrade97 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

New information on staff and offices

As stated on my user page and in the interests of transparency, I work with Mossack Fonseca and there is information that needs updating, which I feel would be beneficial to include: In the overview section and right-hand sidebar: The company has 43 offices worldwide, which needs to be consistent in both sections (currently 44 and 45 are cited). Currently, Mossack Fonseca is the first and only Panamanian law firm to receive the ISO 9001:2008 certification and employs 551 staff worldwide [source: http://www.legal500.com/firms/51479-mossack-fonseca-co/offices/54418-panama-/profile ] Images of the founders can be found here: Jurgen Mossack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mossack_Fonseca#/media/File:Jurgen_Mossack.jpg

Ramon Fonseca https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mossack_Fonseca#/media/File:Ramon_Fonseca.jpg

I hope this helps, ping me a message if you have any questions. Many thanks Jandrade97 Jandrade97 (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jandrade97: I've amended the article a bit to correct the numbers and make it more neutral. As to the photographs, it's not usual to have a photograph of a founder in an article so short, so we prefer to just have a logo. However, I note one of them does have an article in the Spanish Wikipedia, so you can certainly upload the image to Commons and then add it over there. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog: Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Jandrade97 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jandrade97: The staff strength is usual in an article on a company, but the ISO certification is not unless it has received news coverage (not press releases). To me, it does not seem notable. My guess is that you will have a better list of news coverage for the company than most. My view is that it would be helpful to provide more coverage of what a corporate services provider / registered agent does. If you have sources that describe those functions (preferably by reference to MF), please do share them. Thanks ^Bongo_matic 04:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Another Semi-Protect?

In the wake of the Panama Papers, perhaps this should be locked to trolling edits? You know they're on their way....Axslayer33 (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

So far haven't seen anything. Suspect there are bigger fish to fry right now.—Luis (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The policy is that pages should not be locked preemptively, only when substantial vandalism is occurring. Danrok (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

"The policy is that pages should not be locked preemptively" This has already happened, I just removed an edit specifying the website to be of a parody site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.192.92 (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Pageview table

As a bit of an experiment, I've added a table of pageviews to the header of this page. Curious what others think. (Currently set to 7 days data, but I'd switch to 30 after the recent spike passes). —Luis (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Fuzheado likes this. - The top of talk pages has evolved towards a place to assemble important metadata in one glance. I like this idea of exposing visitors to relevant info quickly. Perhaps add an additional link to the more detailed stats page? -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Good idea, like it. —Luis (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth I currently see a purple box with the link to the detailed page and the header, but no actual information on this page. Turned off uBlock Origin, same thing. Not sure if it's me or something's up with it. --Axslayer33 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mossack Fonseca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160407224319/http://www.legal500.com/firms/51479-mossack-fonseca-co/offices/54418-panama-/profile to http://www.legal500.com/firms/51479-mossack-fonseca-co/offices/54418-panama-/profile
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/business/panama_s_the_place_to_be_1_1782652?action=logout
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160406213759/http://mossfonmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Statement-Regarding-Recent-Media-Coverage_4-1-2016.pdf to http://mossfonmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Statement-Regarding-Recent-Media-Coverage_4-1-2016.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)