>>>>1. An attempt to soak the rich (especially the Russians) - but to give it a whiff of respectability they decided they had to soak everybody
>>>
>>>Too little to be gained.
>>
>>I got the impression from various articles I read about this, that Russian deposits were a large fraction of the total deposits in play - something like 60% (?)
>
>But some of the accounts were by companies. Uncertain if those were planned to be included, as they might be considered "investments". Also pretty certain that the russian angle is inflated in press over here as is describing tax shelters nearly always as money laundring - which probably occurs as well.

Dunno about the "investment" angle - investments imply risk, one could argue that those should not receive the same protections (FW they're worth) that ordinary savings "enjoy". But I see your point - if the "assets" could receive some legal name not subject to the levy, lawyers will be working overtime to achieve that.

But that just tempts the authorities to cast their net wider. Governments are addicted to other people's money. It's a source of immense frustration that they see these rivers of cash flowing by and they can't tap in. So from time to time, they try ...