What you need to know.

Governments are systematically attacking your right to any financial privacy at all. As ever, you need to know what methods are being used against you so that you can then DO something about them!

Remember that no one has the right to pry into all your affairs. Especially if you are not breaking the law.

The first golden rule of Secret Banking; always keep your secrets to yourself. And that means just you. No one else. Not your lawyer, not your accountant, not your best friend. Nobody. If you are a family man and you want to share the information with your wife or partner, this may be the only exception to the rule. But you should bear in mind that the highest instance of income-retrieval from offshore bank accounts by governments is as a direct result of the action of jealous relatives.

If in doubt, don't let it out!

Does Financial Privacy Exist?

Answering this question is not straightforward. Some people will tell you that finding a jurisdiction in which you can bank privately is simple. Others will tell you that the legislation introduced during the last twenty years in the US, and copied by many countries, has made secret banking a thing of the past. Our line is - even if you are repeatedly told that something is impossible, it is always worth looking for a way around the obstacles.

A glance at the situation in America will leave you in no doubt that the government there is pursuing a war against financial privacy. It is war they dress up as anti-drugs. But in reality, it is anti-ordinary people and pro-bureaucrat. As we do not have space here to cover all jurisdictions, we will take a look at the erosion of financial privacy in the USA because it is being used as a blueprint for other countries. The UK has followed its larger cousin's example. Japan has begun its own war on financial privacy. Most European countries are whittling away the rights of their citizens, including Britain, Switzerland and Germany and there are now over a hundred countries worldwide that have introduced legislation against money laundering.

So, even if you have no intention of ever visiting the USA, read through the next examples carefully. They will almost certainly have a direct impact on what your government is planning right now.

Let's take the case of Donald Scott, a 62-year-old man who was shot to death in his own house without ever facing a charge.

In 1992, Scott was lying asleep in bed. He was awoken by the sound of his front door being broken down and the noise of his wife screaming. Grabbing his handgun, he ran downstairs. In the hallway stood several armed men. One of them ordered Scott to drop his firearm. Scott obeyed. He was then shot dead.

The men who entered Scott's home that day were all specially-trained federal agents. In fact, they were from 5 separate state, county and federal agencies. They were members of a secret government task force ordered to break into Scott's property because they had received a tip off that he was growing marijuana on his 200-acre estate.

After shooting him, a thorough search of both the house and its estate revealed no evidence of drugs anywhere. Nor was there evidence of any connection to the drugs-trade whatsoever. No charges were ever filed against either Scott or his wife. The man who killed him was never brought to trial.

An investigation by the County District Attorney later revealed that "The statement of probable cause upon which the warrant was based includes a number of statements which could be considered false..."

But how did they get away with it, you ask? Simple.

Under US civil asset forfeiture statutes, an allegation that the property was being used for an illegal activity - regardless of any evidence - was sufficient cause for that property's forfeiture.

So, what were the real motives behind the killing?

Well, there are millions of Americans who meet the same profile as the Scotts'. Decent, hardworking middle-to upper class people who own largely or exclusively visible assets. Visible assets are tempting. If the laws can be changed in such a way as to allow seizure of these assets, the government is on to a winner.

The words of Amy Rudnick, director of the Office of Financial Enforcement at the Treasury department support this. In 1991, she described the US government's asset forfeiture program in the following way:

"The more assets you can identify and seize, the more money you've got, either going into the general treasury or into asset forfeiture funds. That money can be used to help law enforcement in criminal prosecutions. I see this as a money making enterprise for the government, and anything that's going to make money is not going to die too quickly."

So there you have it - straight from the horse's mouth.

This is the programme known as Asset Forfeiture, introduced by the 1984 Asset Forfeiture Act. It allows for random seizure of property - something expressly forbidden both by the US Constitution and the Declaration of Human Rights - even if no proof has been amassed against the accused.

Bear in mind that when the constitution was drawn up, there were only three federal crimes on the statute books. Now there are over three thousand, and this number continues to rise.

We are living in a world where almost anything we do is being legislated into badness.