Comments on: PWC's blood stained ties

By: Antonio Toro

Antonio Toro — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:24:10 +0000

What a nonsense!!!!

PwC is a SERVICE firm, not an insitiutional investor or mining company.

PwC does not have a balance sheet to carry this (or any other) investment. In fact, would be stupid to invest in any business: PwC would be precluded from doing any work to the business itself and probably would not be welcomed by the business’ competitors!!!!

Do not believe in whatever someone post on the Internet !!!

By: Dennis Howlett

Dennis Howlett — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 23:22:15 +0000

Pantomime horse is how I tend to think of PwC

By: Daniel Daily

Daniel Daily — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 23:16:02 +0000

Being an auditor would actually exclude one from being a shareholder…

Donations to UNHCR being equated to corruption… well that would suppose that the UNHCR could get you leverage which seems like a poor way to go about it.

Also if you look at the donations document referred to there are entries from many, many PwC territories – France, Switzerland, Australia etc. – if you think there is any way that these organizations would be acting in concert for any purpose, not to mention something shady, you have a very naive view of how these companies operate – they keep very strictly to themselves and hardly operate in unison on any matter.

By: Tax Research UK » PWC’s blood stained ties

Tax Research UK » PWC’s blood stained ties — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 07:46:04 +0000

[...] I refer to you Dennis Howlett’s piece under the above title. [...]

By: Dennis Howlett

Dennis Howlett — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:45:35 +0000

There's a distinction between the mining operations to which the author refers and Banro, a Canadian Corp where PwC and BDO are named in the doc at [11] I don't think there is a confusion on the shareholder side as the reference [6][7] is before those references. Having said that, the author is drawing a dotted line between donations and shareholdings. Given what we know about the nature of corruption, that should not be a surprise.

By: Krupo

Krupo — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:43:01 +0000

I'm still confused… upon further review it looks like they equated donations to the UN with mining investments? Uh…. what?

By: Krupo

Krupo — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:41:01 +0000

"PWC is also a shareholder involved in the niobium/tantalum (pyrochlore) mine at Lueshe, North Kivu"

I went to #11, which just shows the the auditors are PWC and BDO.

Seems like a bit of clueless writing if you're mixing up shareholders with investors!

This doesn't take away from the other allegations, but it does make me raise an eyebrow is someone is this careless.