Emails show Peter Mandelson discussing Panama tax structure with Jeffrey Epstein

Previously unreported emails – first identified by Tax Policy Associates – show Peter Mandelson discussing with his “chief life adviser”, Jeffrey Epstein, a tax avoidance structure for the purchase of a £2m¹ Rio apartment, involving a Panama company.

Mr Mandelson told us that he has no recollection of the proposal, or knowledge as to the authenticity of the documents. He added that neither he nor his husband have ever owned property in Brazil, and that he has no association with any company in Panama, and holds no funds offshore.

After receiving that response, we identified a company, incorporated in Rio de Janeiro for the purpose of holding real estate, of which Mr Mandelson and his husband were the directors. Mr Mandelson has denied to us that he held Brazilian property through the company.

The emails

The email chain starts in October 2010, with Peter Mandelson deciding to buy an apartment in Rio, and sending emails asking for advice from his “chief life adviser”, Jeffrey Epstein:

The purchase price of R$5.35 million was equivalent to about £2m.

About three weeks later, the documents show Mr Mandelson receiving approval from HSBC Private Bank for a loan of £1.68m to acquire the Rio apartment, secured on Mr Mandelson’s £2.4m London home.

Things progressed slowly, which is not unusual in Brazilian property transactions. In March 2011, Mr Mandelson wrote to Mr Epstein describing a highly unusual tax structure:

The email appears to be cut-off at the bottom, and we’ve been unable to locate anything further on this matter in the Epstein files.

“Reinaldo” was Mr Mandelson’s then partner, now husband, Reinaldo Avila da Silva.

What was the proposal?

The proposed structure was:

• Incorporate a Brazilian company (Sociedade Limitada.²
• The owners would be Mr Mandelson and Mr Avila da Silva, plus a newly incorporated Panama company, owned by Mr Mandelson.
• Mr Mandelson would pay for his shares in the Brazilian company with US$50,000, which might also have facilitated a residence permit.
• The Panama company would lend money from its London account to the Brazilian company.

The email doesn’t state how the Panama company obtains its money; presumably it was to be from Mr Mandelson, funded in part from the loan from HSBC Private Bank. There is no evidence HSBC was aware of the Panama structure.

In our view, and that of the Brazilian advisers we spoke to, the arrangement looks like a highly artificial tax avoidance scheme. The effect of the structure was to hide the true nature of the arrangement – a gift from Mr Mandelson to Mr Avila da Silva. The Brazilian advisers believed the Brazilian tax authorities would have challenged the structure, if they had become aware of it.

It’s important to stress that Mr Mandelson has denied that he implemented the structure, and indeed said he cannot recall it (but see below).

What was the purpose of the structure?

The stated concern in the email was potential tax exposure in both Brazil and the UK.

There has never been a UK tax on buying foreign property. There is UK tax if a UK resident sells foreign property, or receives foreign rental income, and UK inheritance tax applies to foreign property. But whilst the Panama structure might disguise the income/gains, it likely wouldn’t prevent it being technically taxed in the UK.

Two Brazilian taxes are mentioned. If Mr Mandelson and Mr Avila da Silva bought the property jointly, then this would probably be treated as a gift to Mr Avila da Silva, subject to the 4% Rio de Janeiro state tax on gifts and inheritances (Imposto sobre Transmissão Causa Mortis e Doação).³ The proposed arrangement meant that there was still a gift in substance (as Mr Avila da Silva would own shares in the company holding the apartment) but it was disguised as a commercial loan.

The Brazilian advisers we spoke to couldn’t identify what the 6% tax in the email was referring to. ⁴ It’s possible this was a miscommunication and referring to a different issue.

It is quite possible that Mr Mandelson was misdescribing, oversimplifying, or misunderstanding the precise tax issues he was concerned about. Brazilian tax is notoriously complex, and the email was Mr Mandelson’s own summary of what sounds like a preliminary discussion with a Brazilian adviser. We would therefore caution against reading the tax content too literally.

What matters, however, is not whether the analysis was correct, but what the proposed response was. Mr Mandelson appeared very comfortable with using an artificial Panama structure to avoid tax in Brazil and, possibly, the UK.

Mr Mandelson’s response

We wrote to Mr Mandelson asking for comment:

After this exchange, we identified a company🔒 incorporated in Rio de Janeiro in May 2011 for the purpose of purchasing and selling real estate. Its shareholders were Mr Mandelson and Mr Avila da Silva. The company was liquidated in April 2014:⁵

We asked Mr Mandelson. He denied owning Brazilian real estate through the company:

We subsequently located the notarised incorporation documents, which include Mr Mandelson’s signature:

At this point we don’t know what the Brazilian company actually did, and whether it held any property. However the company records are inconsistent with the Panama structure described in the email (because the Brazilian company doesn’t have a Panama company as a shareholder).

There are probably three possibilities.

• The emails are fake, created by an unknown third party, Jeffrey Epstein, or someone in the Epstein investigation. The company is either fake or unrelated. This seems very unlikely given the notarised incorporation documents.
• The emails are authentic, but the Rio purchase never progressed, and the company was incorporated but never used. It is, however, surprising that Mr Mandelson cannot recall that he came close to spending £2m on an apartment in Rio.
• The emails are authentic, the Rio purchase happened, but the Panama structure was not used.

Many thanks to B and P for providing, at very short notice, their Brazilian tax insight and expertise. Amazing work from G finding the Brazilian company, and from J and L locating the incorporation document.

Further reading

Mandelson and the Epstein emails: could he be prosecuted?

As has been widely reported, Peter Mandelson forwarded confidential Government documents to Jeffrey Epstein, and advised the CEO of JPMorgan to “mildly threaten” the…

Epstein files: Mandelson email search

The official US Department of Justice “Epstein Library” search facility is slow and cumbersome. We can’t duplicate a multimillion-document search on our website, but…

Mandelson leaked No 10 documents to Epstein – who then helped him pursue multi-million dollar jobs

Multiple documents in the Epstein files show Peter Mandelson forwarding confidential Government emails to Jeffrey Epstein in 2009 and 2010. The leaked material concerned…

Epstein emails reveal Mandelson advising JPMorgan to threaten Chancellor over post-crisis banker bonus tax

On 9 December 2009, Chancellor Alistair Darling unveiled a one-off 50% tax on bankers’ bonuses. New documents from the Epstein Files reveal that a…

Tax barristers and fraud: how the Bar responded to our allegations

Last week we published a report on how a small number of tax barristers facilitate tax avoidance schemes that are, in our view, more…

Rogue barristers are enabling a billion pound tax fraud – and the Bar won’t act

A small number of KCs and junior barristers are enabling large-scale tax fraud. They do it by providing tax opinions backing schemes designed to…