New Democracy Rejects Proposal to Open MP’s Bank Accounts in Switzerland

The clash between ND and PASOK continues over the issue of corruption and money laundering. Yesterday, PASOK brought its proposal to the Parliament to open all bank accounts of politicians in Switzerland. Mr. Mihelakis, ND’s spokesman, accused Mr. Kahrimakis, PASOK’s  spokesman, of populism. He pointed out that the crucial issue is to find out whether the amount of money they have is legal or not. Besides, he said, most people have transferred illegal money at offshore companies and not in Switzerland. He also said that PASOK cannot ask from MP’s to present proof that they are not corrupted. “Will PASOK ask us proof  that we don’t have money deposited in every tax relief heaven?,” was his last question towards Mr. Kahrimakis.
The question though is, why did PASOK propose such a thing, given the fact that many of its members are either seen as corrupted by the general public or, like Tsohatzopoulos, wait for their trial under the accusation of bribery. I think it is easy to answer this question; obviously those who had deposits in Switzerland have moved it to other tax relief heavens.
Also, it may be an informal way to alarm those that still have their money in Switzerland. If you really want to see if there is money illegally deposited in a country, you do not say in public that you want to start digging. You do it as secretly as you can. Why does ND refuse to open bank accounts? The last five years they were in office, from 2004 to 2009, 50 scandals came into light. Most of the people involved in those scandals are still highly promoted members of ND and given the public’s distrust towards politicians, huge bank accounts in Switzerland would be a blow for ND two weeks before elections. Why is it so important to reveal whether it’s legal or not? The answer comes from Mr. Voulgarakis, an ex-Minister of ND who admitted publicly that he had created an offshore company to avoid paying taxes. In a question from a journalist he replied “you imply that what is legal might not be ethical.” The phrase was interpreted as “what is legal is ethical.”