Ron Johnson

I am no lawyer, so can you talk to me a little bit about what types of criminal charges would you try to bring, and what are the impediments?

When I asked a question earlier about how were you able to determine compliance, you talked about clients were signing waivers, they were filling out W-9s. What prevents you from having every client sign those waivers?

I just want to state the obvious.

I mean, what is the primary problem with that treaty?

It really has to be around the ability to offer services and returns that are competitive.

I am just trying to get to the obvious point to why people put money into Switzerland.

So if U.S. investors have invested about $12 billion into Swiss banks, I mean, obviously that is a pretty small portion of the Swiss banking assets held, right?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Well, I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So then what complicates that? Now we start talking about shell corporations.

I agree, and that makes an awful lot of sense.

Historically, let us go back. People around the world have deposited money into Swiss banks as a real safe haven.

I want to understand a little bit about what is so different about the 230 accounts where we actually received the names versus the other 22,000.

OK. I may be going to the Foreign Relations hearing on treaties later on.

I think you mentioned that some clients and some Swiss bankers were involved in some of these fraudulent transactions.

So the 238 accounts were determined fraudulent.

Why do people take money out of their countries of origin and invest in Switzerland?

So you determine compliance because they basically sign waivers and a W-9, which gets reported back to the IRS.

Why would a U.S. investor invest into a Swiss bank? What are the motivations?

I think it is very important we send the right market signals for climate change preparedness as well.

OK. And, again, that is not a good thing in terms of reduction of that moral hazard of----

Now, when society subsidizes private individuals taking those types of risks, that increases that type of behavior, correct?

Does that reduce their incentive to mitigate risk

Wouldn't the insurance industry itself have a vested interest to develop these standards?

I am afraid that if we have an overreliance on the Federal Government's help, is that restraining the mitigation.