Jim Armitage: A James Bond mystery – Scott’s of Mayfair’s Panama connection

Over vodka martinis at Scott’s of Mayfair, James Bond might raise a quizzical eyebrow.

The lease on 14-25 Mount Street — home of Ian Fleming’s favourite London haunt — has been put on the market by its wealthy owners at a rumoured £110 million. But the puzzle is, who are these owners?

Two businessmen, Freddy and Moussa Salem, are named as directors of the UK company that owns the lease. But the shares in that business appear to be held by an opaque brass plate firm in the Caribbean. Who owns those shares — and stands to bank the £110 million — is unclear.

It’s a typical tale from the world of upmarket London property. Some 36,342 sites in the capital are owned in offshore anonymity.

Most of the time this is for legitimate privacy reasons — and there’s no cause to believe that the true owners of Scott’s don’t have their own perfectly legal rationale. It should be stated that their UK business pays its taxes here.

But in many cases, according to the Met, money laundering and tax evasion are the reason for the use of overseas secrecy havens.

Faced with the public clamour against tax avoidance, the government has moved to discourage, tax and stigmatise offshore UK property ownership.

Of course not all offshore havens are equal: the rule of law in the British Virgin Islands may be of less concern than, say, Belize or Panama.

So it’s surprising to see that the Salems’ location of choice for such a high profile building as Scott’s is Panama. And that no less a blue-blooded bank than Rothschilds is aiding the Panama business, providing three Rothschild Guernsey entities to act as directors.

The bank said it always “adheres to the legal, regulatory and tax rules” and that “we take significant care to ensure that our clients’ assets are properly declared”.

Private bankers say prestigious firms like Rothschilds wouldn’t put customers into Panama in these days of extra scrutiny. Indeed, the Scott’s leaseholding company looks to have been set up there in the nineties.

But surely it should be up to banks with lofty reputations like Rothschilds to take a more proactive approach and actively encourage their clients to adopt the current best practice.

Rothschilds should have moved the company somewhere more reputable years ago.

In this case, it’s not just about such fluffy stuff as “reputation” (the avoidance of articles like this one).

Real money is at stake: at least one potential buyer of the Scott’s building has walked away citing concerns over Britain’s know-your-customer rules.

A salutary tale for others who think they’re being clever with their offshore dealings.