Bears Armed Mission wrote:“Greetings.
“While we decide about how — and, indeed, whether — to proceed with the most recent proposal that we have already brought before you, here for your consideration is another legislative project that we’d been thinking about for quite a while.”
Ursiosina RedRose,
Commercial Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.
Fourth draftInternational Money Transfers
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Description: The World Assembly,
Aware that many people travel, work, and in some cases even take up long-term residence, outside their homelands,
Understanding that people living abroad may wish to transfer money to and from home, and that people still living at home may wish to transfer money internationally,too,
Concerned that some governments might unreasonably hinder such transfers, and that money transferred might sometimes be subjected to direct taxes in both nations involved,
Believing that people should not be unreasonably hindered from using their own legally acquired money as they wish, and that double taxation is unfair on the people concerned,
Decided that because such transactions are international rather than purely ‘domestic’ in nature they are a valid subject for international legislation;
Hereby,
1). Stipulates that the only reasons for which a member nation or entity within a member nation can legally block the international transfer by a person or family (hereinafter ‘subject’) of their own personal or familial wealth (in a legal form), if that nation’s own laws would allow it to do so, are: A)The two nations concerned are in a declared war against each other, or the nation where the wealth now is has declared complete full economic sanctions against the other nation;
B) The subject is fugitive from justice orillegally immigrantan illegal immigrant in either nation, or seeks to enter a nation without official consent to do so;
C) There is definite proof that the wealth was acquired illegally, or that the transfer would be used to pay for activities illegal either in the target nation or under WA law;
D) The subject has been charged with a crime or is involved in a law-suit in either the nation where the money was acquired or the one where it now is, or in a nation with which the latter has an extradition treaty, judgement in which could require that the wealth be used to pay fines or compensation or even be forfeited outright;
E) The money is in escrow as a surety of some kind;
F) The money is needed in the nation where it now is to meet the subject’s existing financial obligations there;
G) The money would be needed to support dependents left behind there while the subject is abroad;
or
H) The subject is not legally competent;
2. Therefore requires that member nations, unless acting on the basis of any reason listed in clause 1, must_
A) Allow and legally permit all subjects resident within them to send their personal or familial wealth abroad (as currency, bank transfers, or any other legal form) and receive wealth from abroad, without limits or (except that up to eight consecutive days may be used, if really needed, for legality checks) hindrance;
B) Allow any subject who is legally entitled to a payment of any kind within them but is resident abroad to have that payment sent to them where they now are;
C) Permit any subject who has an account with a financial institution to access that account, if the institution’s own rules allow, at branches in any nation;
3. Declares that no subject must be required to pay direct taxes on any wealth, nor have that wealth counted when assessing liability for direct taxes, in more than one nation unless the nations involved have a treaty to the contrary;
4. Forbids member nations to use the fact that wealth is being transferred internationally as grounds for taxing it, or to place any tax or tariff on the actual making of such transfers.
Changes from the second draft:
Clause ‘1.D’ has been extended to cover nations with which the one where the money now is has extradition treaties.
Clause ‘2.A’ has been modified to clarify that it applies to “personal wealth” “as currency, bank transfers, or any other legal form” rather than just to “personal money”, and to let nations impose a delay of up to eight consecutive days (if honestly needed) for checking an international transfer’s legality before allowing it go through;
Clause ‘3’ has been modified slightly to clarify that the ban is on taxing a single subject twice on the same money, rather than on taxing two successive owners of that money separately;
And various relatively minor changes in wording (but not, I hope, in meaning) have been made to free-up the extra characters that were needed for those clarifications.
I have suggested changes, written in red text. They are mere grammatical errors. The legislation is fairly decent in it's current form otherwise. We support this legislation. OOC: mainly because, IRL, somthing like this really should exist, but doesn't.
