In January, I blogged about the opaque ownership of Kildrummy Estate in Aberdeenshire. A gamekeeper, George Mutch, had been convicted of wildlife crime. Under Section 24 of the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011, an employer or agent of George Mutch can be charged with vicarious liability.

I asked a simple question – against whom would such a charge be brought? The estate is owned by Kildrummy (Jersey) Ltd. and, having outlined the complex ownership structure of Kildrummy (Jersey) Ltd. (see below and January blog for a full explanation), I speculated that the Crown Office might have a job on its hands to determine who (if anyone) could be prosecuted.

This week, thanks to the diligent and dogged investigative work undertaken by Raptor Persecution Scotland (RPS), we are now closer to answering that question. In  September 2015, the Crown Office told RPS that,

“Despite further investigations including investigations which focused on establishing vicarious liability, no-one else has been reported to COPFS in relation to the events which took place in Kildrummy Estate in 2012 and accordingly, no further prosecution, including any prosecution for a vicarious liability offence, has taken place

RPS followed this up by asking Police Scotland why they had been unable to report anyone to the Crown Office who might be considered to be vicariously liable for the crime carried out by George Mutch. Police Scotland’s response was published by RPS yesterday. The key part of Police Scotland’s reply is as follows

“Significant international investigations were undertaken…… was established that due to insufficient evidence the additional charge of Vicarious Liability could not be libelled“.

This suggests that it was impossible, within the resources available to investigators, to identify with sufficient certainty who is actually behind Kildrummy (Jersey) Ltd. The Police may well know who could be libelled for the offence but had insufficient evidence to connect that person with Kildrummy (Jersey) Ltd. for the simple reason that is is virtually impossible to ascertain the answer to that question. If the Police, with the full range of investigatory powers available to them (including powers to force the Jersey authorities to divulge what information they hold), cannot find that answer, it is hard to see how anyone else might be able to.

Beyond the implications for wildlife crime legislation (and the Police note that “The experience of this case has, however, identified opportunities for refining future Vicarious Liability investigations….”), this raises questions about Scottish Government policy in relation to the offshore ownership provisions in the Land Reform Bill.

In a blog – Scottish Land and Secrecy Jurisdictions -from last month, I refuted the Scottish Government’s arguments as to why they could and would not implement the recommendation by the Land Reform Review Group and the proposal in their own consultation paper to restrict the registration of land by legal persons (companies etc) to those registered within the EU. The provisions currently set out in Sections 35 and 36 of the Bill merely allow authorised persons to ask the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland to, in turn, ask further questions about the true ownership of companies in secrecy jurisdictions. It is a meaningless provision since authorities in Jersey, British Virgin Islands and Grand Cayman are under no obligation to provide any answers. If even the Police cannot find such answers, what hope has the Keeper?

Included in the Scottish Government’s reasoning was a bullet point 3 that

There is no clear evidence base to establish that the fact that land is owned by a company or legal entity that is registered or incorporated outside the EU has caused detriment to an individual or community.”

The Kildrummy case is prima facie evidence of precisely the circumstances in which opaque ownership in a secrecy jurisdiction has caused detriment – specifically to the ability of the Police to gather the necessary evidence to pursue a prosecution under an important statute passed by the Scottish Parliament.

Had Kildrummy Estate been owned by a company registered in the EU, the Directors of that company would be easily identified and could have been charged with vicarious liability.

The Rural Affairs, Environment and Climate Change Committee is currently preparing its Stage One report into the Land Reform Bill due to be published in early December. It might like to reflect on the Kildrummy case

The Scottish Tenant Farmers Association issued the following media release today.


The Scottish Tenant Farmers Association has welcomed the focus given to land and tenancy reform at last week’s SNP conference and the clear signal from SNP grassroots support for strengthening the land reform proposals in the current bill.  The delegate’s call followed a powerful documentary on Channel 4 TV which highlighted what are seen as some of the worst areas of bad land and estate management in Scotland.

The conference also heard pleas to halt the impending eviction of tenant farmer Andrew Stoddart whose tenancy on Colstoun Mains in East Lothian is due to come to an end in a few short weeks.  Andrew Stoddart, who also spoke at a fringe event, is the first of the Salvesen Riddell tenants to be forced to quit their farms following the Remedial Order passed by the Scottish Parliament last year.

Commenting on the grassroots “rebellion” at the SNP conference, STFA Chairman Christopher Nicholson said: “STFA has been concerned that the government may have been wilting in the face of intense pressure from landed interests, intent on weakening what can only be seen as an already diluted bill.  We hope that this message from the conference will strengthen the government’s resolve to deliver more radical and much needed reforms to create fairer conditions for tenant farmers, stimulating investment on agriculture, greater access to land and encouraging opportunities for new entrants.”

STFA has also become appalled at the recent treatment of tenant farmers affected by the Salvesen Riddell Remedial Order, including Andrew Stoddart who faces imminent eviction without having had the opportunity to take part in the government’s mediation process or be considered for any recompense which should be due from the government following the implementation of the Remedial Order.

STFA Director, Angus McCall who has been involved in the Salvesen Riddell debacle for the last few years said: “This whole episode has become Scotland’s shame which has seen the victims of a legal error hung out to dry by uncaring government lawyers and an inflexible government process.

“This tragic episode stemmed from legislation passed in 2003 which was proved to be defective.  The UK Supreme Court then instructed the Scottish parliament to remedy the situation and, as a consequence, 8 families will lose their farms and livelihoods.  However, rather than seeking to fulfil commitments made by government to parliament and the industry,  government lawyers are abdicating all responsibility and liability and refusing point blank to consider any compensation package for the affected tenants.  These tenants are now faced with a lengthy and expensive court battle to exert their rights.

“STFA has already written, and is writing again to the First Minister, Cabinet Secretary, Richard Lochhead, the RACCE committee and MSPs to get the matter resolved and allow these tenants and their families to move their lives on, but all to no avail.  Ministers, MSPs and some officials have expressed a willingness to help, but seem to be held to ransom by lawyers.

“We all appreciate that this is a complex situation, but the rulers of this country must accept a moral responsibility for the damage done though the actions of a previous government to these families and move without further delay to find a way towards an equitable settlement rather than forcing them into a long drawn out, expensive and life sapping legal battle.  This has been devastating for all concerned and, after 18 months of prevarication, the tenants’ lives are still on hold and they are no further on in knowing their future.

“This affair has been a well-kept secret, but it must be time for the Scottish people to wake up and realise what is going on and allow common decency and a sense of fair play to prevail and put an end to this sorry affair before any lives are tragically lost as has happened in the past?”

UPDATE 1 November 2015
I have submitted a version of this blog as further evidence to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. This evidence also contains my opposition to the hypothecation of non-domestic rates for the Scottish Land Fund. 

After a fairly hectic summer, I now plan to publish more regular analysis of the Land Reform Bill as it makes it way through the Scottish Parliament. The Bill is currently at Stage One with the lead committee, the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee (RACCE) taking evidence. The Committee will produce a Stage One report before the end of the year which will then be debated in Parliament before going back to Committee for Stage Two for detailed scrutiny and consideration of amendments.

In this blog, I want to return to one of the contested areas of the Bill – the question of land registered in offshore tax havens.


In 2012, during the passage of the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 2015, I proposed that it be incompetent to register title to land in Scotland in the name of any legal person (company, trust etc.) that is not incorporated in member state of the EU (see written evidence).This was opposed by Fergus Ewing, the Minister responsible for the Land Registration Bill and was rejected by Scottish Ministers despite a recommendation by the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee that “the Scottish Government should reflect further on options for ensuring that the land registration system reduces the scope for tax evasion, tax avoidance and the use of tax havens…” See here for comment.

In May 2014, the Land Reform Review Group made a similar recommendation that it be incompetent for any legal entity not registered within the EU to register title to land in the Land Register.

In December 2014, the Scottish Government launched a consultation on the measures to be included in the forthcoming Land Reform Bill. A proposal to restrict land registration to EU entities was included as proposal 2. In responses to the consultation, 79% of respondents agreed that such a measure should be adopted.

In June 2015, the Scottish Government published the Land Reform Bill. No measure to restrict non-EU entities was included and the explanation offered was unconvincing. (1) Instead, Sections 35 and 36 contain provisions that persons with a reason to do so may ask the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland to seek information about the beneficial ownership of companies. It is a meaningless provision since authorities in Jersey, British Virgin Islands and Grand Cayman are under no obligation to provide any answers.


Following a RACCE evidence session on 2 September 2015 with the civil servants responsible for the Bill, the Committee Chair, Rob Gibson MSP, wrote to Trudi Sharp, Deputy Director for Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Reform at the Scottish Government. In his letter, he sought answers to a series of questions including two relating to the EU/offshore provisions. The answers provide further insight into Scottish Government reasoning on why they decided not to proceed with the proposals and are explored below.

Question 2

Question 2 asked for

clarification of why the proposal in the consultation to make it incompetent for non-EU registered entities to register title to land in Scotland is not in the Bill and any analysis that the Scottish Government conducted in this area”.

In its response the Scottish Government provided 6 pages of argument (pages 24-29 in Annex B) which raised a number of issues.

EU still poses problems

Its principal reasoning is that landowners may, instead of incorporating offshore, simple incorporate within the EU but with an opaque shareholding structure involving (possibly) offshore companies. In other words, instead of Hanky Panky properties Ltd. in Grand Cayman, you would have Hanky Panky Properties Ltd. registered in Berlin but, in turn, owned by shareholders in Panama or somewhere. Even taking into account the new registers of beneficial ownership being developed by EU member states, the Scottish Government argue that these will not be fully open to the public and, in any case, do not apply to trusts.

This argument, in essence, suggests that because there remain means of concealing the true ownership of companies, nothing should be done.

But this is not logical.

Currently, we can know nothing about companies registered in tax havens. They have refused to co-operate with efforts to improve transparency. Any company registered in places such as Grand Cayman or the British Virgin Islands is surrounded by an impenetrable veil of secrecy.

A ban may well mean that alternative means of concealment are deployed within the EU. Even so, we will be in a better position that we were before the non-EU ban.

Firstly all such companies will be subject to registers of beneficial ownership. even though the may not be public available in the first instance, the trend is to move steadily to greater transparency and not less. In Scotland and the UK, we have direct influence in the EU and can argue and vote to improve matters. We have no influence over the internal affairs of tax havens.

Secondly, bringing such companies onshore so to speak, means we have access to information on Directors and shareholders as well as annual accounts and returns. Again, such information may be subject to a variety of regimes in terms of openness across the EU but all are better than offshore tax havens.

In other words, if the price of barring of the worst of secrecy jurisdictions is that we may still have residual problems with EU rules and regulations, that is no argument for doing nothing when we are in a position to improve matters within the EU.


The second key argument deployed by the Scottish Government is that barring non-EU entities might increase the use of Trusts as vehicles for owning land. Trusts (the argument goes) can be opaque and thus there is no point in doing anything about offshore entities. Again, this is illogical. Trusts are governed by Scots law and are within the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament. If there is a problem with Trusts (and there is), we can do something about it. Indeed, the Scottish Law Commission drafted a bill as recently as August 2014. The Scottish Parliament has unfettered competence to legislate to make Trusts more transparent.

Further Reasoning

The response to the RACCE concludes on page 29 with three further reasons why the proposal will not increase transparency and accountability of landownership in Scotland (1st, 3rd and 4th bullet points). The 3rd and 4th bullet points relate to the claim that there is no evidence that non-EU incorporation has ever caused any detriment to any individual or community. By contrast (it is claimed), there is plenty evidence of instances where UK registered entries have caused concerns. But the rational for the bar on non-EU entities has nothing to do with any alleged detriment. It is a proposal to improve transparency and, thus, accountability. This blog has highlighted a number of instances where such concerns may have a bearing on potential criminal proceedings (Kildrummy Estate here and North Glenbuchat Estate here). Beyond that, there are widespread generic concerns about money-laundering taxation.

But it is first bullet point that highlights how little serious thought has been given to this area of policy. Here is what the Scottish Government has to say.

“There is no clear evidence to suggest that having land owned by a company or legal entity incorporated in a Member State will increase transparency and accountability of land ownership in Scotland. To illustrate, the Tax Justice Network began publishing in 2013 a Financial Secrecy Index that ranks jurisdictions according to their secrecy and scale of their activities. The results from 2013 show that Luxembourg ranks second on the index, Germany eighth and Austria 18th. It is also worth noting that the United Kingdom ranks 21st (just behind the British Virgin Islands (20th) and somewhat higher than some of countries that are sometime perceived to be tax havens; Liechtenstein 33, Isle of Man 34, Turks and Caicos Islands 63).” 

The problem with this analysis (which seems to suggest that EU countries such as Germany and the UK are little different in terms of secrecy that the British Virgin Islands or the Turks and Caicos Islands) is that it relies on a composite index. As the Tax Justice Network explains,

The Financial Secrecy Index is a ranking of jurisdictions based on combining a qualitative measure (a secrecy score, based on 15 secrecy indicators) with a quantitative measure (the global weighting to give a sense of how large the offshore financial centre is). The secrecy score and the weighting are arithmetically combined with a special formula – the cube of a jurisdiction’s secrecy score is multiplied by the cube root of its global scale weight – to create the final score, which is then used for the FSI ranking.”

The secrecy score is base purely on the level of secrecy. The FSI ranking is derived by talking this secrecy ranking and weighting it by the volume of financial transactions that flow through each country. In other words, the most secretive jurisdiction in the world is Samoa. But because it is so small and handles very little financial flows, it ranks 76th out of 82 on the main FSI index. Germany, on the other hand is 58th out of 82 on the secrecy ranking but jumps to 8th place on the FSI index due to the sheer volume of financial flows through Frankfurt and other financial centres in Germany.

For the purposes of assessing the secrecy of any jurisdiction (the rational for barring non-EU entities), it is the secrecy ranking which matters and it is listed here.

The highest ranking EU member state is (not surprisingly) Luxembourg in 52nd place out of 82. Austria is at 52, Germany at 58, Cyprus at 65 and Latvia and other EU member states at 67 onward. In other words, EU member states are considerably more open that the virtually all other jurisdictions on the secrecy index. It is only the volume of transactions  that flow through London and Frankfurt that elevate Germany and the UK higher up in the FSI index.

Question 2

The second question RACCE asked was,

How much land the Scottish Government understands is held in tax havens, and whether it accepts the figure of 750,000 acres as reported by Private Eye magazine.”

The Scottish Government replied that it could not verify the accuracy of this figure because of the limited information available from the Register of Sasines and the fact that the term “tax haven” has no officially agreed definition. The latter statement is not strictly true as the OECD has identified a number of jurisdictions as tax havens

As for the limited information within the Register of Sasines, I have been interrogating this over the past 20 years. The jurisdiction within which any corporate entity is registered is always narrated in full on the title deed. This research led me to conclude in Table 15 in my book, “The Poor Had No Lawyers”, that 727,634 acres of land were owned by companies registered in offshore tax havens in 2012. Land sales since then has increased the total extent to over 740,000 acres.


The rational for not having included any provision for the restriction of legal persons owning land to those registered within the EU remains unconvincing. I understand from informal discussions, however, that there is no technical impediment to doing so. Any such amendment would involve amending Section 22 of the Land Registration etc. (Scotland) Act 2012 such that no deed would be accepted where the applicant was a legal person registered in any jurisdiction that was no at the time of recording a member state of the EU. In order to maintain such a condition, there would have to be provision for future action to be taken in circumstances where membership of the EU changes.

A further question remains in relation to retrospective application. Such a condition would require landowners who currently own land held by offshore entities to transfer ownership to a compliant entity. This could be done by requiring all existing owners registered outside the EU to transfer title to a compliant entity within, say, 5 years of a date to be set. (2)

I await further developments with interest.


(1) See Briefing 8 on Bill, pages 4-6 and my written evidence for further detail.

(2) See Briefing 7 on December consultation for further details.