Analysis

Offshore Finance: Why Tax Havens Are Thriving Despite Crackdowns

Published

2 months ago

May 26, 2026

There is a lot more to havens than crystal-clear waters and a promise of opacity

In June 2025, a deadline passed that was supposed to mark a turning point. The United Kingdom had demanded that its Overseas Territories — the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda — establish publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership by that date. All three missed it. A Foreign Office minister called the outcome “progress.” He welcomed the compliance of St Helena and the Falkland Islands, two territories with a combined handful of registered companies. The three jurisdictions that actually matter — that between them host trillions of dollars in offshore structures — simply carried on. The offshore finance industry, it turns out, is extremely good at absorbing pressure while changing remarkably little.

The reforms were real. The pressure was genuine. Since the 2009 G20 summit in London, governments have pushed hard for a more transparent global financial system, deploying everything from automatic information exchange to blacklists and the sweeping architecture of the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project. The 15% global minimum corporate tax under Pillar Two began applying from January 2024, with over 135 jurisdictions formally signed up.

Yet the money kept moving offshore. According to the EU Tax Observatory, $12 trillion — equivalent to roughly 12% of world GDP — was held offshore by households at the end of 2022, a figure that excludes real assets such as art, yachts, or real estate. A more recent Oxfam analysis suggests global offshore wealth reached $13.25 trillion in 2023, with as much as $3.55 trillion potentially concealed from tax authorities. These are not numbers heading in the right direction for reformers. Taxobservatory BreezyScroll

Why Are Offshore Tax Havens Still Thriving Despite Global Crackdowns?

Offshore finance thrives because the industry does not resist change — it incorporates it. The offshore financial centres of 2025 are no longer selling secrecy as a primary product. They are selling legal compliance infrastructure, governance structures, and regulatory arbitrage that operates entirely within the letter of international rules. The crackdowns made havens evolve; they did not make them disappear.

The Core Development: Adaptation, Not Extinction

The template of the classic tax haven — a sun-drenched island, a brass-plate company, an anonymous numbered account, and an absolute refusal to answer questions — is largely gone. What replaced it is more sophisticated and, crucially, harder to attack.

The Cayman Islands offers the clearest illustration. The Cayman Islands’ Beneficial Ownership Transparency Act and its accompanying regulations came into force on 31 July 2024, replacing the previous beneficial ownership regime and creating a consolidated legal framework that, on paper, aligns with international standards set by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). In the BVI, sweeping changes to beneficial ownership reporting came into effect on 2 January 2025, requiring entities to file details of their beneficial owners directly with the Registry of Corporate Affairs rather than with private registered agents — a structural shift in accountability that would have been unthinkable a decade ago. Ogier Ogier

That is the glass-half-full reading. The glass-half-empty version matters more.

Compliance and transparency, in this context, are not the same thing. Historically, beneficial ownership information in the BVI remained largely confidential, with only competent authorities and law enforcement agencies able to access beneficial ownership information — and even the July 2025 amendments merely extended access to third parties demonstrating “legitimate interest,” a term whose definition remains contested and narrow. A journalist, a civil society researcher, or an ordinary citizen cannot freely search who owns what. Ogier

Professor Jason Sharman of Cambridge, one of the world’s leading authorities on offshore finance, is blunt about the overall picture: “Offshore financial centres in general are doing fine. There is probably more money offshore than ever before — subject to the caveat that it is harder than it might seem to distinguish ‘offshore’ from ‘onshore.'” World Finance

That caveat contains a story of its own.

The Structural Shift: From Secrecy to Substance — and Why It Changes Less Than You’d Think

The OECD’s Pillar Two global minimum tax is the most ambitious piece of international tax architecture in a generation. By imposing a 15% effective rate on multinational enterprise groups with revenues above €750 million, it was designed to sever the link between where profits are booked and where taxes are paid. Many jurisdictions have taken steps to implement these rules into domestic law, with the global minimum tax starting to apply from the beginning of 2024 through the Income Inclusion Rule. OECD

Yet the architecture has a structural weakness: it targets large multinationals, not the vast majority of offshore finance activity. Private wealth held through trusts and family offices, the preferred vehicles of the ultra-rich, sits largely outside Pillar Two’s scope. Offshore structures remain useful for governance, asset protection, and operational flexibility — not just tax optimisation. Substance, transparency, and banking acceptance now play a bigger role than ever. Structures that are clear, explainable, and aligned with real activity are far more resilient under Pillar Two rules. Q Wealth Report

What this means, in practice, is that the industry shifted its sales pitch. The pitch is no longer “hide your money.” It is “structure your money correctly.” The distinction sounds lawyerly because it is — and that is precisely the point.

Why does offshore wealth keep growing despite transparency rules? Offshore finance persists because transparency frameworks and tax rules address different problems imperfectly. Automatic information exchange catches declared accounts in cooperating jurisdictions but cannot easily reach trust structures, real assets, or entities layered across multiple non-cooperating jurisdictions. Pillar Two covers large corporations but not private wealth. Each reform closes one gap and, inadvertently, signals where the remaining gaps are.

Implications: The Geography of Money Is Being Redrawn

The most consequential second-order effect of the crackdown era isn’t that offshore finance shrank. It’s that it moved — to places with better reputations, better infrastructure, and better lawyers.

Singapore is the most important beneficiary. HSBC’s 2025 Affluent Investor Snapshot, drawing on data from nearly 11,000 investors across 12 markets, confirmed Singapore’s emergence as the top choice in Asia for affluent investors opening overseas accounts, ranking alongside the United States and Hong Kong as one of the three most preferred destinations globally. Singapore is not conventionally understood as a tax haven. It has a corporate tax rate of 17%, maintains FATF compliance, and participates in automatic information exchange. It is also a jurisdiction where private wealth management operates with a level of discretion, regulatory clarity, and legal sophistication that rival jurisdictions cannot match. It combines the appearance of legitimacy with the functionality of a haven. Hsbc

The UAE is the even more striking case. According to Henley & Partners, the UAE is forecast to attract a net inflow of around 9,800 millionaires in 2025, bringing an estimated $63 billion in investable wealth, as the Dubai International Financial Centre emerges as the jurisdiction of choice for international families and corporates. The UAE’s zero income tax, residency-by-investment programmes, and modern trust law make it simultaneously a lifestyle destination and an offshore finance hub — a combination that is extraordinarily difficult for regulators to target. Alpadis

Then there is the United States. South Dakota, by 2025, has accumulated trust assets running into hundreds of billions of dollars, shielded by perpetual trust laws and among the loosest disclosure requirements of any developed jurisdiction. Delaware incorporations continue to offer minimal transparency to non-US inquirers. The country that leads the charge against offshore abuse is itself, by any objective measure, one of the world’s significant offshore finance destinations. That contradiction is not lost on reformers — and it substantially weakens Washington’s moral authority when pressing smaller jurisdictions to comply.

Gabriel Zucman of the EU Tax Observatory proposed in 2024, at the G20 Finance Ministers’ meeting in Brazil, that billionaires be required to pay a minimum of 2% of their wealth in taxes annually. The proposal targets around 3,000 billionaires globally and is estimated to raise an additional $250 billion a year in revenues, primarily in the richest countries where the great majority of billionaires reside. In November 2024, the G20 leaders gave it lukewarm endorsement. The Trump administration’s posture toward global tax coordination has since complicated the picture considerably. Tax Justice Network

The Counterargument: Reformers Have Made Real Gains

It would be a mistake to dismiss the last decade of reform as theatrical. The progress is genuine — partial, incomplete, but real.

The OECD’s Common Reporting Standard, now operating across more than 100 jurisdictions, has transformed the baseline of financial transparency. Nearly 100 countries are now automatically exchanging information on accounts worth $11 trillion — a scale of data-sharing that was unimaginable before 2013. Tax authorities in France, Germany, Australia, and elsewhere have used that data to collect billions in previously unpaid taxes. Several classic bank-secrecy jurisdictions — Switzerland chief among them — have fundamentally altered their operating models. Tax Justice Network

Pascal Saint-Amans, the former director of the OECD’s tax policy division who ran much of the reform programme, has argued that the normative shift matters as much as the technical one. Before 2009, he observed, jurisdictions openly defended secrecy as a legitimate policy. Nobody defends it in those terms today.

Still, critics are right to push back on triumphalism. The Tax Justice Network estimates offshore wealth at between $24 trillion and $36 trillion when a broader range of asset classes is included, dwarfing the OECD’s narrower figure. The gap between information exchange agreements signed and enforcement action taken remains wide. And the beneficial ownership registers that do exist are frequently incomplete, filed with inaccuracies, or practically inaccessible to the investigators who most need them.

The offshore finance industry did not survive a decade of unprecedented regulatory pressure by being fragile.

Closing

The central tension in offshore finance is not between the havens and the reformers. It is between the pace of legal architecture and the velocity of capital. Regulations are drafted, debated, passed, implemented, and tested — a process that takes years. Capital moves in seconds, guided by lawyers and advisers who have read every proposed amendment before it becomes law, and who have already begun stress-testing the structures that will operate within the new rules the moment they take effect.

The crackdowns are real. So is the $13 trillion. The offshore world isn’t thriving in spite of transparency reforms — it’s thriving, in significant part, because of them. Every new compliance framework creates a premium for jurisdictions that can credibly offer both legitimacy and discretion. The more the rules tighten, the more valuable expert navigation of those rules becomes.

Opacity used to be free. Now it’s expensive, sophisticated, and dressed in a compliance report.

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Up Next

When the Data Centre Became the Nuclear Industry’s Best Customer

Don't Miss

Benefitbay Raises $18M to Build the Plumbing for America’s ICHRA Shift

Click to comment

Analysis

Pakistan’s $10bn US Facility Request: Inside the New Gulf Capital Triangle

Published

18 hours ago

July 30, 2026

Abdul Rahman

Pakistan’s finance minister spent the week of July 20 in Washington doing something Islamabad has rarely been able to do from a position of relative strength: asking for a safety net rather than a rescue. In meetings with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Muhammad Aurangzeb requested a $10 billion Exchange Stabilisation Support Facility, framing it as insurance for a currency and reserves position that, by his own account, has already stabilised without emergency help — improved fiscal and external balances, record remittances and stronger reserves.

The request is easy to read as routine diplomacy. It is more useful read as a symptom of a structural shift now visible across three of the markets in this briefing set — Pakistan, the UAE, and the United States — in how mid-sized emerging economies are financing themselves after two years of IMF-led stabilisation.

The numbers behind the ask

Pakistan’s economy grew 3.7% in FY26, the fastest pace in four years but still short of official targets, according to the government’s own economic survey. The same survey reported a KSE-100 rally of 18.4% in the July–March period, a current account deficit contained near zero, and public debt-to-GDP falling from a 2023 peak of 75% to 68.5%. The IMF’s own country data lists 2026 real GDP growth at 3.6% and consumer price inflation cooling to 7.2%, a marked drop from the double-digit prints of recent years.

None of that happened by accident. It followed the disbursement structure typical of Pakistan’s current IMF-EFF arrangement: $1.2 billion in EFF funding, plus $2.7 billion from multilateral partners, $1.1 billion in bilateral development financing and $2 billion via Naya Pakistan Certificates during the July–March window alone. A separate IMF staff report on the programme’s second review flagged that Pakistan met most quantitative benchmarks but missed a structural condition on sugar-import tax exemptions and delayed cabinet approval of sovereign wealth fund governance reforms — a reminder that “stabilised” and “reformed” are not the same thing in IMF language.

Why Washington, and why now

The $10 billion ask did not happen in isolation. Aurangzeb’s Washington trip also included direct engagement on the broader US tariff regime announced under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and a separate meeting with Honeywell Technologies about modernising Pakistan’s refinery sector. According to Pakistan’s finance ministry, both governments agreed to identify near-term investment transactions and finalise a strategic economic framework, expected to be signed on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in September 2026.

That timeline matters. It places a formal US-Pakistan economic framework roughly two months after the current 60-day IMF review cycle and in the same window that Gulf sovereign investors — the UAE and Saudi Arabia chief among them — have been rolling over short-term deposits with the State Bank of Pakistan, a practice that has quietly become one of Islamabad’s most reliable bridge-financing tools. Business Recorder’s economy desk reported friendly countries rolling over roughly $6 billion in July 2026 alone, extending a pattern that predates this administration but has become more central to it.

The Gulf link most coverage misses

Coverage of Pakistan’s IMF programme tends to treat Washington, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi and the multilateral lenders as separate storylines. They are increasingly one story. The UAE’s own trade data shows non-oil foreign trade approaching AED 2 trillion in the first half of 2026, a record, with the emirate simultaneously deepening financial-sector ties across South Asia, Africa and now — via a newly concluded Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement — Canada. Pakistan sits inside that same Gulf capital web: its rupee stability, its remittance base (heavily Gulf-sourced), and its rollover financing all trace back to the same handful of Gulf treasuries that are simultaneously recycling petrodollars into Dubai property, Abu Dhabi sovereign funds, and now formal free-trade frameworks with Western economies.

An Exchange Stabilisation Facility from the US Treasury would not replace that Gulf financing — it would sit alongside it, giving Pakistan a dollar-denominated backstop that is politically distinct from both the IMF and its Gulf creditors. For a country whose FY26 external financing already blends multilateral, bilateral, Gulf and diaspora sources, that diversification is arguably as important as the headline number.

What could go wrong

Pakistan’s economic survey data cuts both ways. Poverty climbed to 28.9% in FY2024-25 even as headline growth accelerated, and April 2026 inflation ticked back up to 10.9% before easing. A $10 billion facility addresses reserve adequacy and currency confidence; it does nothing for the domestic demand and poverty dynamics that Pakistani economists increasingly flag as the programme’s unfinished business. Whether Washington grants the facility — and on what conditionality — will be one of the more consequential but underreported bilateral economic decisions of the autumn.

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Analysis

China Criticizes US Bill Targeting Russian Oil Buyers — Why It Matters

Published

20 hours ago

July 30, 2026

Abdul Rahman

On July 15, 2026, during a routine Chinese foreign ministry press briefing, spokesperson comments took on unusual significance for global energy and trade watchers: Beijing strongly criticized recent US sanctions measures affecting Cuba and, more consequentially, proposed US legislation specifically targeting major purchasers of Russian energy, according to sanctions-tracking analysis from law firm Steptoe. The pairing of Cuba sanctions criticism with concern over Russian-energy-buyer legislation is not coincidental — both represent the kind of secondary sanctions architecture that could eventually be extended to reach China’s own energy trade.

Why China has reason to be worried

China has emerged as one of the largest buyers of discounted Russian crude since 2022, alongside India, as Moscow redirected exports away from European markets closed off by sanctions. That trading relationship has functioned largely outside direct US sanctions exposure because existing measures have focused on Russian entities, vessels, and price-cap compliance rather than directly penalizing the buying countries themselves. Proposed legislation targeting “major purchasers of Russian energy” would represent a meaningful escalation — shifting from supply-side sanctions on Russia to demand-side sanctions on Russia’s customers, a category in which China is unambiguously the largest player.

The broader sanctions context this fits into

This is not an isolated legislative proposal. The EU Council has separately been expanding its own sanctions lists to include entities active in Russia’s energy sector, specifically firms producing automated control systems for oil and gas infrastructure — a sector the EU explicitly identifies as a substantial source of Russian government revenue, with designated entities subject to asset freezes and travel bans. That EU action, combined with the US legislative proposal China is objecting to, suggests a coordinated Western push in mid-2026 toward tightening the demand side of Russian energy sanctions after several years of focusing primarily on supply-side measures — price caps, shipping insurance restrictions, and tanker interdiction — that CREA’s own monthly tracking has repeatedly shown to be only partially effective.

Why demand-side sanctions would be harder for China to absorb than supply-side measures

China’s exposure to a demand-side sanctions regime differs meaningfully from Russia’s own exposure to supply-side measures. Russia has adapted to supply-side sanctions through shadow-fleet shipping, price discounting, and using non-sanctioned intermediary buyers — mechanisms that work precisely because the penalty falls on specific vessels, entities, or transactions rather than on the buying country’s broader economy. A US measure targeting “major purchasers” as a category would be far harder for China to route around through the kind of intermediary and shadow-fleet workarounds Russia itself has relied on, since it would target China’s status as a buyer directly rather than any specific transaction or vessel.

The timing question: why July 2026 specifically

The proposed legislation surfaces at a moment when Russian oil revenues are themselves in flux — recovering somewhat due to the Iran-war-driven price spike after falling to some of their lowest levels since the 2022 invasion earlier in 2026. A US Congress moving to tighten sanctions on Russia’s energy customers at precisely the moment Iran-war-driven prices are already inflating Russian oil revenue suggests lawmakers are attempting to prevent Moscow’s accidental windfall from becoming a durable financing lifeline — a goal that requires closing the demand-side gap that has persisted throughout the supply-side sanctions era to date.

What China’s public criticism signals diplomatically

Beijing’s decision to criticize the proposal publicly, rather than simply lobbying against it through diplomatic channels, is itself a signal. Chinese foreign ministry statements on sanctions issues are typically measured and procedural; explicit public criticism paired with a separate objection to Cuba sanctions suggests Beijing is framing this as part of a broader pattern of what it characterizes as unilateral US extraterritorial sanctions overreach, a framing China has used consistently in disputes over technology export controls and is now extending to energy trade.

What comes next

The practical test will be whether the proposed legislation advances through Congress with enough bipartisan and administration support to become binding policy, or whether it remains a negotiating lever — a credible threat used to extract concessions from China on other fronts (trade, technology, Taiwan) without ever being formally enacted. Given the scale of China’s Russian energy imports and the diplomatic and economic disruption a genuine demand-side sanctions regime would cause, most sanctions analysts view near-term full enactment as unlikely, though the legislative threat itself already appears to be shaping Chinese diplomatic posture.

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Analysis

Malaysia GDP Growth vs Stock Market: The 2026 Disconnect

Published

2 days ago

July 29, 2026

Abdul Rahman

Malaysia posted its biggest trade surplus on record and second-quarter GDP growth of 5.8% in 2026, yet its stock market has stubbornly refused to rally — a disconnect that is puzzling investors even as the country climbs global competitiveness rankings and hosts record investor turnout at its largest retail investing event.

Record Growth Meets a Muted Market

Malaysia’s economy expanded 5.8% year-on-year in the second quarter of 2026, underpinning what former senior investment banker Ian Yoong Kah Yin describes as one of the most competitive economies globally, buoyed by the country’s largest-ever trade surplus, according to reporting in The Star. Yet with the exception of the semiconductor and plantation sectors, Yoong notes that many shares on Bursa Malaysia remain undervalued relative to that underlying strength — a gap he summarised memorably: “It’s like we held a party and no one came.”

The disconnect comes even as Hong Leong Investment Bank upgraded Malaysia’s full-year 2026 growth forecast to 4.7% from 4.5%, citing stronger-than-expected performance in the electrical and electronics sector alongside resilient domestic demand, according to BusinessToday. Household loans grew 5.2% year-on-year and credit card spending rose 10.2%, signalling that consumer demand remains a genuine pillar of growth rather than a statistical artefact of export strength alone.

A Competitiveness Ranking Jump — and a Retail Investing Boom

Malaysia’s underlying reform story has been validated externally. The country climbed eight places to rank 15th among 70 economies in the 2026 IMD World Competitiveness Ranking, its best showing in recent years, following an 11-place jump the year before, according to The Star. Economists attribute the climb to policy reforms improving government and business efficiency, streamlined investment approvals, accelerated digitalisation, and stronger fiscal management.

Retail investor enthusiasm, meanwhile, appears robust even if institutional capital has been slower to follow. INVEST Fair 2026, Malaysia’s largest retail investment event, drew an expected 20,000 visitors across more than 70 hours of programming at Kuala Lumpur’s Mid Valley Exhibition Centre in July, according to event coverage on TradingView. Separately, a survey of more than 3,500 active users by digital wealth platform Versa found that 70% of respondents would prioritise investing over debt repayment or emergency savings if they received a sudden windfall, according to The Star — evidence of a pronounced retail “investment reflex” even amid broader questions about household financial resilience.

Fixed Income Is Where the Real Money Is Flowing

While equities lag, Malaysia’s fixed income market tells a different story. Employees Provident Fund chief investment officer Mohamad Hafiz Kassim told the Sasana Symposium 2026 that Malaysia is “punching above its weight” on global fixed income indexes, drawing outsized capital allocation given interest rate and yield differentials between Malaysian Government Securities and US Treasuries — a dynamic occurring even as the ringgit has remained notably stable, according to The Star. Speakers at the same event pointed to the broader global shift toward passive investing as a structural tailwind Malaysia is well-positioned to capture with continued policy follow-through.

What Explains the Equity Gap

Analysts point to several possible explanations for the growth-market disconnect: persistent foreign investor caution tied to regional and Middle East-driven geopolitical risk, a valuation overhang from prior years, and sector concentration that leaves broad indices under-exposed to the semiconductor and technology names actually capturing AI-linked investment flows. Whatever the cause, the gap represents either an opportunity for value-focused investors or a warning sign that Malaysia’s headline growth figures are not yet translating into corporate earnings momentum broad enough to move the market.

What to Watch

The second half of 2026 will test whether Malaysia’s fixed income strength and competitiveness gains eventually pull equity valuations upward, or whether the stock market’s caution proves to be the more accurate signal about underlying corporate health. Continued data centre and semiconductor investment, alongside any further IMD-style competitiveness validation, will be key catalysts to track.