Talk:CumEx-Files

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because the main source is based on 180,000 secret documents from banks, financial companies and law firms, but also from German police investigation material. 37 journalists from 19 media in 12 countries have participated in the work, which has lasted for about a year and is coordinated by the German investigation group, Correktiv. The 19 media groups that have has been working on this case are all top tier media of many countries involved. German media discovered the complex share scheme in 2017 and gave it the Latin name ‘cum-ex.’ I understand that the topic could be questionable, because it hasn’t been talked a lot of in international news. It's better known as dividend arbitrage in international news. I also understand that breaking news events is not always notable, but this event is highly notability due to its size. It is stated as “the biggest tax swindle in the history of Europe.”

Trustworthy news source:

• Financial Times
• New York Times

--MakesNoMistakes (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the notice as G11 doesn't apply. The IP who added it seems to be removing mentions of the subject in various pages. Isa (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

There is currently an investigation on in Hamburg. Spiegel writes in a teaser that the answers of people questioned 'looks like being dependent on the party book they hold'. It's behind paywall, so I cannot access it.

The reasons why this swindle is not well known in the English speaking world is, it is rather complicated to translate, requiring a specialist translator.

Many people with power and money must have been in it so there is less desire to write about it. Much of what is in the media comes from lobby/PR groups who work for pay - but nobody pays them for this.

Germans, as the main involved, do not publish names of people involved and it is difficult to get statements.

When I look back at what I have seen and experienced in Germany in my youth, I must say that in business circles there was no sense of wrongdoing in schemes like that. You must make money any which way you can, regardless, was the attitude then. I doubt anything will come of the investigations. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:657E:62C5:EDA:730D (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

new york times - trustworthy news source ? really 208.77.214.52 (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Conflation of criminal activity and reporting about it

The topic of this article seems to conflate criminal financial activity (a series of cases of dividend stripping in several EU states) with a particular report about it. E.g., by assigning a particular date in 2018, or using a particular news logo. Cum Ex has been widely reported on since at least 2016, and has been known to fiscal authorities since at least 2011. The article should probably focus on the criminal activity, and use that particular news report or network as one of numerous sources; instead of making the report a topic in itself? -- Seelefant (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

CumEx-Files is treated as Lux Leaks or Panama Papers are. I don't see much difference.Skaldis (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Since 2004

In a podcast the Dutch investigative journalist Eric Smit (Follow the Money, working with Corrosive) said the first time he encountered the scheme was in 2004 when a whistleblower in Fortis Bank - Global Lending and Arbitrage got kicked out with a golden parachute when he went up the hierarchy. He wrote an article about it in 2006 in Quote but didn't follow up on the scheme at the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUKRw8tmN5U

I'm not gonna mess in the article I'm not fluent enough in the English language.Skaldis (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

"cum-ex" is derived from Latin, meaning "with without"

Except it doesn't: Latin "cum" does mean "with", but Latin "ex" means "from" or "out of". See, for example, Ex cathedra ("from the chair"). However, the article references sources which contain the mistake. Is repeating mistakes from sources a good idea? Is correcting mistakes from sources considered Original Research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.222.159 (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Except it doesn't - it also means "from a point in time", i.e. "Immediately after". Lewis and short gives “Cotta ex consulatu est profectus in Galliam".

Ignoring the Latin debate, the citation at Note 5 is plainly wrong. The statement that cum-ex "refers to the disappearing nature of the fraudulent dividend payments" is simply untrue and I agree with the first poster here that citing an incorrect source doesn't make it true. I have found a much clearer source for the source of the name, with slightly better standing, as it comes from the European Parliament, which I intend to add here.CharlesSpencer (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted that paragraph. I think the original citations were very poor. I hunted down the original source and it seems to be this Bloomberg article from July 10, 2018: archived here. If we were to include it, we should probably attribute it to that article, but I think it's better to leave it out entirely.

As you said, the explanation makes little sense. Recall that cum/ex fraud works by (naked) short-selling stock cum-dividend, and then delivering a stock that was purchased ex-dividend, allowing two parties to claim a tax credit for a tax that was withheld only once. The obvious explanation of the name "cum/ex" is that it refers to the cum/ex dividend dates which are essential in the scheme.

The phrase "vanishing dividend payments in the trades" doesn't even make sense: no dividend payments disappeared in the scheme. Dividend was paid once and dividend tax was correctly withheld once; the problem is that two parties claimed credit for a single tax payment.

In short, the Bloomberg explanation defies logic, and I think we should keep it out unless we can corroborate it with a reliable independent source. MaksVerver (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

“The schemes were legal at the time they were carried out.”

The fact that many involved in the scheme are now prosecuted, shows that “ The schemes were legal at the time they were carried out.” is at least debatable.

This article says it was obviously illegal: https://blendle.com/shared/eyJuIjoid2ViZm9ybSIsImEiOiJibmwtbmV3eW9ya3RpbWVzNTI4LTIwMjAwMjE2LTMzMjA1YTE3N2RjNSIsInUiOiJiZTdhMTY2NS03N2Y2LTQxYTktYTBjYy00ZDI2YmZjOTQyMjAifQ.r8zkqjnwgrzFHiFBgae05yQ035evf5ao1OazlLYmhiA LongWindingRoad (talk) 08:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

More than three years down the track, who is prosecuted, reprimanded, fined?? I must have missed something. A difficulty is that when the software allowed a certain action so it appeared to be legal even when you know getting the same refund twice cannot be legal. The software producer is really the culprit here. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:2468:133D:CA29:3251 (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

In Denmark, one Tax officer was jailed for corruption, one British businessman has plead guilty and accepted an 8 year jail sentence while his boss is currently on trial . Said boss has as main defense claim that it was a "loophole" rather than insufficient checking for fraudulent claims due to excessive reductions in staff . 2A01:4F0:4018:F0:69E6:9F39:D21B:1895 (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)