> Deloitte Cyprus said it could not comment on the specific allegations because the documents were more than 20 years old and no longer accessible.
That's convenient.
Also, I received a similar response when inquiring about a financial account that had been overlooked (there are reasons, I'm not getting into it) for a couple of decades. "Can't help you. Too old for us to have records." Well, my records are printed documents. Why can't you tell me anything? Reminds me of when the USA government stole my money from a bank transfer claiming suspicion of whatever (my landlord had a Middle Eastern sounding name and it was the 2000s) and then said they had no record of it when I provided all the required documentation to recover it.
In both cases, unfortunately, I concluded that the odds are so stacked against me that I gave up. Convenient system if you're fabulously wealthy or a massive org (such as corporations and government).
Most institutions (especially financial) have strict document retention policies to protect themselves from situations like this. It's not shady – just a way of limiting liability.
At my first job I made the mistake of discovering a cache of old documents, documents that were far older than the company's seven-year document retention policy. The cache, being my discovery, meant I became the one responsible for destroying it. It was dozens on dozes of bankers boxes filled with documents that I de-spine before shredding.
You would have thought that the process was a chore but for me it was exhilarating. The slowness of the process gave me the opportunity to speed read through it all. There was nothing scandalous in there, but I became somewhat of a historian over many quiet nights.
Deloitte has, I've heard (!), in their training material a section about integrity and how important it is to act ethically correct. Deloitte also does sh*t like this and - again, I've heard (!) - asks its employees to bill hours on projects they are not working on so that they can maximize profits at their clients expenses. Also elephants are pink.
How this company can proceed to exist is beyond me.
For legal reasons I must emphasize that this is hear-say and should not be trusted as facts. At least one statement is a lie. What you believe is true is up to you.
I see their work product with some regularity. To say I'm not impressed would be a severe understatement and I really don't understand why companies keep hiring them.
KPMG, E&Y, PWC, they're all the same because they have to compete with each other's dishonesty in order to both maximise profits and maximise cough tax savings cough for their customers.
There have been a couple of scandals in Australia, and yet they all remain part of 'the big four'. They're all tainted as fuck.
Its a bit more complex. its a network of national firms, and each member firm is a separate legal entity> in this case it was the Cypriot member firm.
From the footer on (the Uk section) of their website:
> Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (“DTTL”), its global network of member firms, and their related entities (collectively, the “Deloitte organisation”). DTTL (also referred to as “Deloitte Global”) and each of its member firms and related entities are legally separate and independent entities, which cannot obligate or bind each other in respect of third parties.
I dunno. This all implies a level of central control that doesn't reflect how professional services firms operate. Mostly they're loose partnerships and local offices and partners have the significant discretion. Even legally they're mostly not structured as a global corporation but rather a loose association of legally distinct entities.
There's a tension between having a brand that reflects trust and institutional rigor and avoiding liability for the actions of partners in some far flung jurisdiction.
I just know this will be thoroughly investigated, all responsible parties held accountable, and the proper countermeasures and applicable laws will be updated to punish and disincentivise this behaviour in the future. Just kidding.
Things change when the cost-benefit analysis moves. If you apply the law strictly and effectively, the behaviour will adjust.
I think you’re framing this at the wrong level: the cost-benefit analysis needs to be vs the rest of the rich world sanctioning Cyprus. It’s far from clear that it’s currently in Cyprus’s best interests to see heads roll for this, and so the rest of Europe needs to grow some balls for enforcement.
The Big Four really like back-dating things to help their clients. But lying is difficult because the facts come with built-in consistency. Mother Nature ensures all her arithmetic lines up properly every single time like clockwork, but when you try to make stuff up you have to do all that work and not make any mistakes.
And so it's actually easier to spot this fraud than to conduct it. What you need is people willing to go look and people willing to prosecute it even though that's uncomfortable because these crooks always have powerful friends.
Ultimately the bigger problem is the Big Four themselves. They are obviously Too Big To Fail and three of them are based in a single place, London. I believe that the Paris MOU provides us a model for how to fix this in the medium term but I've seen no political will to even look at the problem, much less address it.
I know this is anecdotal but I remember anywhere you went in financial or political circles in 1990s London, everyone was falling over themselves about the nouveau riche from Russia and former Warsaw Pact countries investing. There were some who said it would drive up real estate prices and some upset about lack of oversight but they were looked at in the media and by politicians as kooky or close to it. Decades later - the Panama Papers, the Epstein files and articles like this and from that journalist killed in Malta exposing corruption.
Mind-boggling what people and corporations knew and did in the shadows while we cheered on and cheer on their holdings.
This must be the first time someone important [0] has been involved in shady financial dealings. One of the joys of being in the internet era is we have much better visibility on the vast multinational web moving money around. We know that senior politicians are well aware of it because they use it to.
It would actually be reasonable if this was headline was news to Abramovich. I expect there are a bunch of standard services rendered to wealthy Russians and they just all use the same guy, who is known to get good results and no-one ever asks why. It is quite likely that there are a small group of fixers who maintain networks for certain geopolitical in-groups. They probably have excellent connections to people like Jeffery Epstein too. No surprise if the Russian circuit is actually flouting western law directly.
Deloitte didn't deny it. The only possible interpretation of their statement is that they absolutely did do it, but they believe they can get away with it. Otherwise you'd just say "Deloitte doesn't falsify documents"
Also real estate prices in London at the top of the market are going down and down now that the money pump of corrupt Russian money has been switched off.
It was one huge tax evasion mechanism and even purchasing tens of millions of pounds worth property was likely only a side effect of it. It even tickled the British pride a little for a moment because they were made to believe that someone appreciates their mansion architecture;)
I thought this article was a parody for the first few paragraphs... that's how times have changed, I guess.
I couldn't agree with the guy more, when he says:
>> when workers have more money, businesses have more customers—and need more employees
But that seems to be exactly the sane logic that old Jeff Bezos is spending his life and his billions trying to find a hack around. I'm still not clear who Amazon's customers will be if everyone's unemployed and AI and robots have taken all the middle class jobs... oppressive governments, I guess.
The article brings up Ford Motor Co. in the early 20th century as an argument for why this doesn't have to be the case. There have been other examples of businesses that care for their employees and society at large. The author is saying that that mentality needs to come back into fashion.
I think that this type of thought about strengthening the middle class is possibly the most dangerous and verboten to the people with a radical utopian worldview who are looking for revolution. In a sense, it's probably more important to attack this than it is to attack billionaires. Massive inequality is a much preferable state for would-be revolutionaries than a stable middle class with centrist political views. Which only reinforces the author's point.
... and yet he still looks cleaner than Trump. Selling early access to White House decisions to the highest bidder for (minimum) $100k/month is now responsible for about 40% of Trumps' wealth.
And that's a lower bound, assuming his commercial real estate hasn't dropped further, which is a BIG assumption given that everyone else's has, and ignoring that he's obviously going to be levered up with the interest on his loans at least tripling soon ...
Trump might have been bankrupt if he wasn't elected, especially given that commercial real estate not only has gone down significantly but there doesn't seem to be anything on the horizon that would help it out.
The audience of this site is VCs, founders, wannabe founders, and a few wannabe VCs. They will do anything to get rich. Used to be you'd get rich by making useful software, now you get rich by corruption.
Communist with a capital C - means the post-USSR oligarchs. When the nominal state control collapsed, a few well-connected people managed to walk away with all the state's assets, and those are the post-{USSR|Communist} oligarchs.
> Deloitte Cyprus said it could not comment on the specific allegations because the documents were more than 20 years old and no longer accessible.
That's convenient.
Also, I received a similar response when inquiring about a financial account that had been overlooked (there are reasons, I'm not getting into it) for a couple of decades. "Can't help you. Too old for us to have records." Well, my records are printed documents. Why can't you tell me anything? Reminds me of when the USA government stole my money from a bank transfer claiming suspicion of whatever (my landlord had a Middle Eastern sounding name and it was the 2000s) and then said they had no record of it when I provided all the required documentation to recover it.
In both cases, unfortunately, I concluded that the odds are so stacked against me that I gave up. Convenient system if you're fabulously wealthy or a massive org (such as corporations and government).
Most institutions (especially financial) have strict document retention policies to protect themselves from situations like this. It's not shady – just a way of limiting liability.
At my first job I made the mistake of discovering a cache of old documents, documents that were far older than the company's seven-year document retention policy. The cache, being my discovery, meant I became the one responsible for destroying it. It was dozens on dozes of bankers boxes filled with documents that I de-spine before shredding.
You would have thought that the process was a chore but for me it was exhilarating. The slowness of the process gave me the opportunity to speed read through it all. There was nothing scandalous in there, but I became somewhat of a historian over many quiet nights.
> It's not shady – just a way of limiting liability.
And storage costs.
> It's not shady – just a way of limiting liability.
It's not euphemistic – just diplomatic phrasing.
"Its just how we commit crimes quietly"
Even in the year of 2026 not everyone is dumb enough to record themselves committing crimes and then brag about it online.
2013 is not 20 years old so those documents should be readily available.
2003 is, though. Apologies if I missed anything but a quick ctrl-f on the articles didn't find anything for 2013.
Deloitte has, I've heard (!), in their training material a section about integrity and how important it is to act ethically correct. Deloitte also does sh*t like this and - again, I've heard (!) - asks its employees to bill hours on projects they are not working on so that they can maximize profits at their clients expenses. Also elephants are pink.
How this company can proceed to exist is beyond me.
For legal reasons I must emphasize that this is hear-say and should not be trusted as facts. At least one statement is a lie. What you believe is true is up to you.
> about integrity and how important it is to act ethically correct
There's also a fine print at the bottom that says 'lolz'.
I see their work product with some regularity. To say I'm not impressed would be a severe understatement and I really don't understand why companies keep hiring them.
They had me watch some nonsense on integrity as part of the training.
All the while we were doing financial regulation software without any proper tests on the models being done outside of some spot checks.
And the idea of doing those was frowned upon :)
Lovely place.
Amazing. Simply amazing. I also loved the one that allegedly says that you can't publicly criticise the leadership structure. Allegedly.
For what it’s worth, I’m not so sure there’s much of a difference in delivered value between the hours truthfully billed vs. fraudulently billed
KPMG, E&Y, PWC, they're all the same because they have to compete with each other's dishonesty in order to both maximise profits and maximise cough tax savings cough for their customers.
There have been a couple of scandals in Australia, and yet they all remain part of 'the big four'. They're all tainted as fuck.
Sounds like every other corporation in America?
Deloitte, for the record, is a multinational based in London.
Its a bit more complex. its a network of national firms, and each member firm is a separate legal entity> in this case it was the Cypriot member firm.
From the footer on (the Uk section) of their website:
> Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (“DTTL”), its global network of member firms, and their related entities (collectively, the “Deloitte organisation”). DTTL (also referred to as “Deloitte Global”) and each of its member firms and related entities are legally separate and independent entities, which cannot obligate or bind each other in respect of third parties.
Sounds like every other multinational based in London.
Standard corporate nonsense. Enron famously had integrity plastered across it's corporate walls as it's values when they got done for fraud.
> How this company can proceed to exist is beyond me.
Isn't the whole point of these companies to rubberstamp shady things corporations are doing, so they can shed resposibility more easily when caught?
Not only. They are also used when a CEO wants to do something and needs someone to produce evidence supporting what the CEO already wanted to do.
Cyprus and Deloitte, why am I not surprised to see those names mentioned together in connection with alleged tax evasion?
For those who don't know, Cyprus is widely regarded as one of Europe's tax havens. And, of cause, Deloitte has offices there.
[delayed]
I dunno. This all implies a level of central control that doesn't reflect how professional services firms operate. Mostly they're loose partnerships and local offices and partners have the significant discretion. Even legally they're mostly not structured as a global corporation but rather a loose association of legally distinct entities.
There's a tension between having a brand that reflects trust and institutional rigor and avoiding liability for the actions of partners in some far flung jurisdiction.
This publicity is probably an actual advertising campaign for them.
I just know this will be thoroughly investigated, all responsible parties held accountable, and the proper countermeasures and applicable laws will be updated to punish and disincentivise this behaviour in the future. Just kidding.
Things change when the cost-benefit analysis moves. If you apply the law strictly and effectively, the behaviour will adjust.
I think you’re framing this at the wrong level: the cost-benefit analysis needs to be vs the rest of the rich world sanctioning Cyprus. It’s far from clear that it’s currently in Cyprus’s best interests to see heads roll for this, and so the rest of Europe needs to grow some balls for enforcement.
A classic story, as if there was nothing new
Repeat offenders?
Sanction Deloitte Cyprus: don't ever except any paperwork from them again. "Sovereign state", my ass...
The Big Four really like back-dating things to help their clients. But lying is difficult because the facts come with built-in consistency. Mother Nature ensures all her arithmetic lines up properly every single time like clockwork, but when you try to make stuff up you have to do all that work and not make any mistakes.
And so it's actually easier to spot this fraud than to conduct it. What you need is people willing to go look and people willing to prosecute it even though that's uncomfortable because these crooks always have powerful friends.
Ultimately the bigger problem is the Big Four themselves. They are obviously Too Big To Fail and three of them are based in a single place, London. I believe that the Paris MOU provides us a model for how to fix this in the medium term but I've seen no political will to even look at the problem, much less address it.
I know this is anecdotal but I remember anywhere you went in financial or political circles in 1990s London, everyone was falling over themselves about the nouveau riche from Russia and former Warsaw Pact countries investing. There were some who said it would drive up real estate prices and some upset about lack of oversight but they were looked at in the media and by politicians as kooky or close to it. Decades later - the Panama Papers, the Epstein files and articles like this and from that journalist killed in Malta exposing corruption.
Mind-boggling what people and corporations knew and did in the shadows while we cheered on and cheer on their holdings.
This must be the first time someone important [0] has been involved in shady financial dealings. One of the joys of being in the internet era is we have much better visibility on the vast multinational web moving money around. We know that senior politicians are well aware of it because they use it to.
It would actually be reasonable if this was headline was news to Abramovich. I expect there are a bunch of standard services rendered to wealthy Russians and they just all use the same guy, who is known to get good results and no-one ever asks why. It is quite likely that there are a small group of fixers who maintain networks for certain geopolitical in-groups. They probably have excellent connections to people like Jeffery Epstein too. No surprise if the Russian circuit is actually flouting western law directly.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_named_in_the_Pa...
I think it's maybe time to consider charging those responsible with treason.
Allegations, there was no trial or verdict.
An article like like this could be auto-generated with anybody's name.
Deloitte didn't deny it. The only possible interpretation of their statement is that they absolutely did do it, but they believe they can get away with it. Otherwise you'd just say "Deloitte doesn't falsify documents"
Check out the comments in r/soccer if interested -
https://old.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/1x3vru3/deloitte_he...
Login walled
> Deloitte Cyprus said it "acts in compliance with applicable laws".
They obviously haven't done anything wrong then.
The funniest part is that The Telegraph is simultaneously running articles on how the billionaires are leaving UK because of tax.
paying your taxes, if you can afford them is patriotic.
i miss being able to donate my liabilities away.
there's no way to absolve yourself from the murder machine anymore.
Why is that funny?
Am I the only one who can’t read the article because of the paywall? Since when does BBC paywall?
Do you want to have investments into London's real estate and football clubs or not? It takes sacrifices.
Totally fine without them.
Also real estate prices in London at the top of the market are going down and down now that the money pump of corrupt Russian money has been switched off.
If this isn't sarcasm, then something is wrong. If investments can't be done legally, then no they should not invest.
Just for clarity, of course it is. I challenge everyone to list one positive thing which resulted from inflow of oligarch money into UK.
Presumably lots of taxes were collected and misspent.
It was one huge tax evasion mechanism and even purchasing tens of millions of pounds worth property was likely only a side effect of it. It even tickled the British pride a little for a moment because they were made to believe that someone appreciates their mansion architecture;)
> taxes were collected
Oh sweet summer child
They (the billionaire class) all have no shame.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchfor...
I thought this article was a parody for the first few paragraphs... that's how times have changed, I guess.
I couldn't agree with the guy more, when he says:
>> when workers have more money, businesses have more customers—and need more employees
But that seems to be exactly the sane logic that old Jeff Bezos is spending his life and his billions trying to find a hack around. I'm still not clear who Amazon's customers will be if everyone's unemployed and AI and robots have taken all the middle class jobs... oppressive governments, I guess.
Great piece, and thanks for posting it.
Any individual business has contrary incentives to society as a whole. This is called a race to the bottom.
The article brings up Ford Motor Co. in the early 20th century as an argument for why this doesn't have to be the case. There have been other examples of businesses that care for their employees and society at large. The author is saying that that mentality needs to come back into fashion.
I think that this type of thought about strengthening the middle class is possibly the most dangerous and verboten to the people with a radical utopian worldview who are looking for revolution. In a sense, it's probably more important to attack this than it is to attack billionaires. Massive inequality is a much preferable state for would-be revolutionaries than a stable middle class with centrist political views. Which only reinforces the author's point.
BREAKING NEWS: Water is wet
... and yet he still looks cleaner than Trump. Selling early access to White House decisions to the highest bidder for (minimum) $100k/month is now responsible for about 40% of Trumps' wealth.
And that's a lower bound, assuming his commercial real estate hasn't dropped further, which is a BIG assumption given that everyone else's has, and ignoring that he's obviously going to be levered up with the interest on his loans at least tripling soon ...
Trump might have been bankrupt if he wasn't elected, especially given that commercial real estate not only has gone down significantly but there doesn't seem to be anything on the horizon that would help it out.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-donald-trumps-net-w...
Unsure why you're downvoted.
Making the relative comparison is useful in understanding what a shitshow is going on in the USA.
Back in the day, we used to think Abramovich was corrupt as fuck and very dodgy.
In 2026, I understand him to be a relative amateur ...
Well, I don't know if you can classify it as "amateur" when the others are corrupt in the wide open. They aren't even trying to hide anything.
They're being downvoted because Trump has more than a few supporters here.
Yeah, I have noticed that there are surprisingly many Trump supporters here given the international audience of the site.
The audience of this site is VCs, founders, wannabe founders, and a few wannabe VCs. They will do anything to get rich. Used to be you'd get rich by making useful software, now you get rich by corruption.
It's like the post-Communist oligarchs are chess players in the game of capitalism and free market. Then Trump stands on the shoulders of giants.
100% this. He's so thick this is his only option.
post-Communist oligarchs? Like post-moisture dryness?
Communist with a capital C - means the post-USSR oligarchs. When the nominal state control collapsed, a few well-connected people managed to walk away with all the state's assets, and those are the post-{USSR|Communist} oligarchs.
for a 6-day old account, I'm liking your contributions so far.