Artful Deception

In my role I try to keep abreast of various regulatory developments that would be of little interest to many readers. Occasionally I come across an idea that leaves me speechless or nearly so. This happened today reading about proposed taxation changes in Switzerland.

The article I read reported objections from the Swiss Private Bankers Association to the proposed changes. I won't cover it all as you can read it here , but one part raised my eyebrows. That was the following paragraph

The SPBA opposes plans to extend the concept of tax fraud. Currently, this infraction arises from the use of false or falsified documentation. The Federal Council intends to unnecessarily extend the definition to include cases of "artful deception," the SPBA notes. Given that this concept is "very vague," applying the measure will pose unsolvable practical problems for the banks, the association argues, making clear that banks simply do not have the means with which to detect such indications, in particular in the case of foreign clients.

It seems to suggest that while crude deception is wrong, artful deception is OK. Well the fact that it is hard to detect means it should not be looked for. This seems rather bizarre to me as surely the bigger deceptions are most likely "artful" and warrant greater effort to prevent, not less.

I also wonder where the line would be drawn that could distinguish between artful and crude deceptions? Anyone fancy defining this. Would crude deception be only that which the average person (IQ=100?) would only think was a good idea after drinking two bottles of wine? Or maybe  one where the fees paid to advisors to effect the deception are less than £100,000?

Of course I may have the wrong end of this stick or something may have been lost in translation, but defending deception in the financial world would seem to be a brave stance these days.