Morgan Stanley says it will contest Dutch dividend tax evasion probe
THE HAGUE, May 28 (Reuters) - Morgan Stanley (MS.N), opens new tab said on Wednesday it will contest a Dutch public prosecutor's investigation into tax evasion related to dividends on Dutch shares.
The Dutch public prosecution service said on Wednesday it would subpoena a foreign bank on suspicion of dividend tax evasion. It said that between 2009 and 2013, a subsidiary of a foreign bank based in Amsterdam submitted five corporate tax returns in which a total of 124 million euros in withholding tax was offset, related to 825 million euros in dividends that were distributed on Dutch listed shares.
"Following an investigation...there is suspicion that the subsidiary has unlawfully offset the withholding tax and is therefore suspected of tax evasion," the Dutch Public Prosecution Service said, adding it was also holding the European parent company responsible.
The prosecutor did not specify the foreign bank being investigated, but a source close to the investigation said the probe concerns Morgan Stanley.
Asked about the report, a spokesperson for Morgan Stanley said the bank was aware of the probe and would defend its case.
"Morgan Stanley rejects the Prosecutor's allegations about this complex, decade-old matter and intends to contest them vigorously," the bank said. "Despite our full cooperation and the lack of clarity in the relevant tax legislation, the Prosecutor is basing this decision on an incomplete investigation and record, in violation of established process."
Morgan Stanley offers a full range of banking services in the Netherlands since the opening of its Amsterdam office in 1997.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
an hour ago
- ITV News
Correct offences prosecuted in Winston Irvine case, Northern Ireland prosecutors insists
The correct offences were prosecuted in the case of a leading loyalist who was jailed for firearms offences, Northern Ireland's Public Prosecution Service (PPS) has Irvine was sentenced to two-and-a-half years, with half to be served in jail, at Belfast Crown Court last month following an incident where firearms and ammunition were found in the boot of his avoided a statutory five-year sentence on several of the charges he faced after Judge Gordon Kerr KC ruled that there were 'exceptional circumstances' in his case, namely Irvine's 'work for peace and his charity work in the community'.The PPS has previously said it is considering whether there is any legal basis to appeal the the length of Irvine's sentence and the fact that he and his co-accused Robin Workman were not prosecuted for terrorism offences have attracted criticism from some a statement, the PPS said it understood the public interest relating to the sentences but said some of the 'recent commentary on and coverage of this case has contained a number of factual inaccuracies'.It said the charges were brought under the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order PPS statement added: 'Consideration was given to whether additional offences should be prosecuted.'After careful consideration of all the evidence submitted by police, it was concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute either defendant for any additional offence, including a terrorist offence, such as membership of a proscribed organisation.'To prosecute for such an offence, there needs to be admissible evidence upon which a court could be sure that a defendant is a member, and not merely an associate of members of a proscribed organisation, or a supporter of any such organisation.'Statements in the media in relation to a defendant's alleged position within a proscribed organisation do not constitute admissible evidence.'The PPS is satisfied that the correct offences were prosecuted in this case.' Irvine, 49, of Ballysillan Road in north Belfast and Workman, 54, of Shore Road in Larne, County Antrim, had both previously admitted possession of a firearm and ammunition in suspicious also admitted two counts of possessing a handgun without a certificate, one count of possessing ammunition without a certificate, possessing a prohibited weapon and possessing a firearm without a further pleaded guilty to possessing a .177 calibre air rifle without holding a firearm offences were committed on June 8 2022, when Workman transported a quantity of weapons and ammunition to the Glencairn area of Belfast in his van, which were then put into the boot of Irvine's Volkswagen Tiguan car.A short time later, Irvine's vehicle was stopped by police in Disraeli Street.A long-barrelled firearm, two suspected pistols, several magazines and a large quantity of ammunition were discovered inside a bag in the the judge noted that UVF paraphernalia was found in the homes of both defendants, he did not consider that there was a terrorist link to the weapons that were PPS statement said that while sentencing is a matter for the independent judiciary, the Director of Public Prosecutions is currently giving consideration to referring the sentences as 'unduly lenient'.The statement added: 'The full sentencing remarks and submissions are being obtained, and the advice of senior counsel sought, to assist in determining whether there is a proper legal basis to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal.'A decision to refer must be taken within 28 days of the date on which the sentence was imposed.'The date by which a referral must be made in this case is June 17.
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
Gossip: Kelleher set to replace Flekken
Bayer Leverkusen have agreed a fee worth 10m euros (£8.43m) to sign 31-year-old Netherlands goalkeeper Mark Flekken from Brentford. (Sky Germany), externalThe Bees have agreed an initial £12.5m deal, rising to £18m, with Liverpool for Republic of Ireland goalkeeper Caoimhin Kelleher, 26, to replace Flekken. (Sky Sports), externalWant more transfer stories? Read Monday's full gossip column Follow the gossip column on BBC Sport
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
Israel fears the threat of trade sanctions — but is the EU ready to follow through?
After many months of inaction and complicity in the face of Israel's destruction of Gaza, Europe is finally beginning to stir. Tens of thousands of people killed and attacks on schools and hospitals had apparently not been enough. But, along with the blocking of humanitarian aid and open calls for ethnic cleansing, Israel's actions finally became too severe to ignore, deny or justify. In recent weeks, a cascade of unusually strong statements, diplomatic rebukes and threats of sanctions has emerged from European capitals – each move amplifying the next, as if a long-dormant herd has suddenly jolted into motion. Among these developments, the most significant may be the possible suspension of the EU-Israel association agreement, which grants Israel preferential access to the world's largest single market. Last month, the Dutch foreign minister, Caspar Veldkamp, broke the EU's silence with a letter demanding a formal review of Israel's compliance with article 2 of the agreement, which requires it to 'respect human rights'. That move triggered a wave of other EU states lining up behind the idea. At the 20 May meeting of EU foreign ministers, a clear majority – 17 member states – backed the Dutch proposal. EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, who had appeared sceptical ahead of the meeting, seemed to shift during the discussion and at the end clearly announced the launch of the review. Is this a real turning point or just more empty words? That remains to be seen. What is clear is that the EU's dynamics have shifted. A year ago, when Spain and Ireland – the governments most vocal about the Palestinian plight – proposed the same review idea, they found little support. The Netherlands, by contrast, is traditionally closer to Israel and sits in the EU's middle ground on this issue. It is this broad centre, which up until now favoured dialogue and close ties with Israel, that has now shifted and aligned with the more critical flank. Only Israel's staunchest backers – including Germany, Italy, Hungary and the Czech Republic – remained in a minority voting against the review. The review is only the first step: an examination of whether Israel is breaching article 2, which defines respect for human rights as an 'essential element' of the agreement. Given the scale of violations and crimes in Gaza and the West Bank, backed up by findings from international courts, such a review shouldn't even be necessary. As one Irish campaigner put it: 'It's like standing in front of a burning building and asking for a review of whether there's a fire.' The facts are clear – but even acknowledging them is politically explosive. The review, which is expected to be done by the next EU foreign ministers' meeting on 23 June, now depends on two key figures: Kallas and the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen. Will they confirm the obvious – that Israel is in breach of article 2 – and draw the logical consequences? Or will they seek to shield EU-Israel ties from any rupture? Kallas, a liberal from Estonia, had until recently avoided much criticism of Israel, though now seems to have moved along with the EU's political centre. Von der Leyen, a German Christian Democrat, represents the bloc's more Israel-aligned wing. She was the face of the EU's initial blanket support for Israel's devastating response to Hamas's 7 October 2023 atrocities, and then fell largely silent as civilian deaths in Gaza soared. But last week, for the first time, she stated that Israel's killing of civilians is 'abhorrent' and 'cannot be justified under humanitarian and international law'. That language points unmistakably toward the only credible conclusion the review can reach. Once the review is completed, EU foreign ministers will discuss options for next steps, which should include suspending the association agreement. A full suspension would require unanimity among all 27 member states – an impossible bar given diehards such as Hungary. But suspending the agreement's preferential trade component – the most economically significant part – requires only a qualified majority: 15 member states representing at least 65% of the EU population. The trade pillar is where the real leverage lies. The EU is Israel's largest trading partner, accounting for 32% of its total trade. Israel, by contrast, represents just 0.8% of the EU's trade. Revoking preferential access wouldn't stop trade, but would impose a tangible cost on Israel in the form of higher tariffs and reduced market access. The EU could also suspend Israel's participation in Horizon Europe, the union's flagship research programme – a prospect already causing alarm in Israel's academic sector. Reaching a qualified majority is still a tall order. Not all states that voted for the review necessarily favour actual suspension. And to meet the 65% population threshold, Germany or Italy – large states that opposed the review – would need to shift. For now, that seems unlikely. But if Israel continues its current extremist course, pressure will mount. Chancellor Friedrich Merz's unusually strong rebuke of Israel last week suggests that not even Berlin's backing can be taken for granted. And if the EU decided to ignore the findings of an honest review, it would render article 2 meaningless and undermine human rights clauses in EU agreements around the world. Since the 1990s, the EU has invoked such clauses over 20 times to suspend benefits over serious violations, mostly in Africa. That's why the possibility of suspension cannot be dismissed. Unless Israel fundamentally changes course, the likelihood will only grow. For Europe, this is an opportunity to step out of its self-imposed irrelevance and begin to matter again. Pressure-free dialogue has completely failed. When the EU held an association council meeting with Israel in February and politely urged more aid to Gaza and a halt to settlement expansion, Israel responded by blocking all aid and accelerating settlement growth. Only after the Dutch initiative began gaining traction did Israeli officials start pushing internally to allows some aid into Gaza, citing the threat of EU sanctions. To prevent the looming horror of ethnic cleansing and annexation, the EU must go further and impose a real economic and political cost on Israel. If it does, the prospect of restoring suspended benefits could then become the EU's most powerful lever to encourage a different path: one that leads not to endless oppression and violence, but to peace and security based on equality. Martin Konečný runs the European Middle East Project (EuMEP), a Brussels-based NGO
