I think a distinction between most corrupt and largest dollar sums involved in corruption, should be made. The UK is a very wealthy nation with very large, global banking interests. That inherently tilts things in terms of scale.
If we're going by most corrupt, the UK is absolutely not at the top of that list, nor is Spain, in regards to Europe.
I'll go with Transparency International's rankings of most corrupt in Europe, I find it far more plausible: Ukraine at #130 globally, Russia at #119 globally, Belarus at #107. Those last two are fascist dictatorships, the corruption is nearly absolute in terms of state power and abuse.
I listened to a MoneyBox radio programme about this. The "financial expert" said that it was effectively a tax-deferral program, just like a pension plan. Any gains inside the fund were tax free until the money was brought back into the UK. It may seem unfair at face value, but any UK citizen can defer taxes on up to 100% of their annual income in a registered pension plan[0]. So, IMO, the fairness would depend on what investors can do with the offshore fund that regular people can't do with their pension plans?
It's factually incorrect that high ranking British politicians are named on the Panama papers.
It's widely known Cameron's dad was in the PP but also that he was not a British politician. It still stinks but there's no evidence of David Cameron being directly involved.
> David Cameron has finally admitted he benefited from a Panama-based offshore trust set up by his late father.
> Cameron also admitted he did not know whether the £300,000 he inherited from his father had benefited from tax haven status due to part of his estate being based in a unit trust in Jersey.
Maybe he was not directly named in the papers, but he committed as much (or as little) corruption as the Spanish politicians.
