November 30, 2008
How Much Fraud Counts as a "Limited Number"?
Posted by Neil H. Buchanan
In "UBS Finds Limited Tax Fraud Involving Wealthy Americans," Julia Werdigier of The New York Times reports that "UBS has discovered only a small number of tax-fraud cases as part of an investigation into whether the Swiss bank helped clients dodge American taxes, the bank’s chairman, Peter Kurer, said Thursday." The actual quote from Mr. Kurer, however, says only that "[o]ur investigations have uncovered a limited number of cases of tax fraud under both U.S. and Swiss law." Later in the article, Ms Wedigier writes:
A bank chairman describes his internal investigation's results in vague terms that could mean anything, and this is translated by the reporter as "only a small number of tax-fraud cases" and put on the first page of the Business section. Cynicism, sloppiness, or naivete?
November 30, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference How Much Fraud Counts as a "Limited Number"?:
Clearly, at least in this context, "limited" means "not infinite." And who can argue with that?
Posted by: Sarah L. | Nov 30, 2008 10:48:27 AM
"You cannot hope to bribe or twist
A New York business journalist.
And seeing what the Times will do
Unbribed, there is no reason to."
(w/ apol. to H. Wolfe)
Posted by: Gwailo | Nov 30, 2008 5:14:02 PM