Report comment

This is likely to increase the opportunities for corruption, as is anything that gives the state overwhelming powers vis a vis the individual.

Let's suppose the authorities, or someone in authority, wants to put pressure on someone. Maybe it is in order to extort a bribe, maybe to "persuade" the target to withdraw from standing in an election, or to stop asking awkward questions, or not to proceed with an investigation, or to bring a halt to a political campaign or protest, or whatever. Well, here's a very suitable instrument to do so. It's yet another weapon in the arsenal of the authorities, which can be used to intimidate and browbeat anyone who is "causing trouble". A person doesn't have to have done anything wrong to find the prospect of having one of these orders served on them an unbearable stress. Suddenly to have to account, without error, for all one's assets, perhaps acquired in various ways over the course of a complex lifetime, on pain of having those assets disappear forever into the state's ravenous maw, and perhaps one's person disappear into prison as well, is enough to give anyone sleepless nights. It is going to be a courageous person that makes him or herself a nuisance to authorities which are in possession of such draconian powers.

Yes, and maybe it will be used to catch a few "Mr Bigs" or with a limit of just £50,000, more like "Mr Littles") as well, but I'm not holding my breath. If they were serious about catching financial criminals, they already have more than enough means to do so, without this sledgehammer.

I presume that Robert Barrington and Transparency International are sincere, but they are certainly terribly misguided.