Report about error or idea
YouControl
0 800 309 077
Free call

Register and check 10 companies for free, or get a phone consultation by calling us at 0 800 309 077.

List of offshore zones

Officially recognized globally Recognized in Ukraine
1
EU lists
2
FATF lists
3
OECD lists
4
CMU
State / territory / jurisdiction «Black» «Gray» «Black» «Gray» «Black» «Gray» 1045 of 27 December 2017
Albania
American Samoa
Andorra
Anguilla
Antigua and Barbuda
Armenia
Aruba
Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, the Republic of Serbia
Autonomous Region of Madeira, the Portuguese Republic
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bailiwick of Guernsey
Bailiwick of Jersey
Barbados
Belize
Bermuda
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
British Virgin Islands
Brunei Darussalam
Burundi
Canary Islands
Cape Verde
Cayman Islands
Commonwealth of Dominica
Cook Islands
Cuba
Curaçao
Cyprus
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
Ethiopia
Faroe Islands
Federated States of Micronesia
Fiji
Ghana
Gibraltar
Greenland
Grenada
Guadeloupe
Guam
Guatemala
Hong Kong
Iran
Ireland
Isle of Man
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyz Republic
Labuan (Federal Territory of Malaysia)
Lao People’s Democratic Republic
Lebanon
Liberia
Liechtenstein
Macau
Macedonia
Malaysia
Maldives
Marshall Islands
Martinique
Mauritius
Moldova
Monaco
Mongolia
Montenegro
Montserrat
Morocco
Namibia
Nauru
New Caledonia
Niue
Northern Mariana Islands
Oman
Pakistan
Palau
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
San Marino
São Tomé and Príncipe
Serbia
Seychelles
Singapore
Sint Maarten (Dutch part)
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Swaziland
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan (Republic of China)
Timor-Leste
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Turks and Caicos Islands
United Arab Emirates
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Vietnam
Virgin Islands (U.S.)
Yemen
Offshore jurisdictions are located all over the world, often their status is reduced to the fact that the business taken out to offshores is distanced from the Ukrainian authorities, and the tax expenses are kept to minimum. There are many advantages of "offshores": the use as intermediary companies in withdrawing funds for tax optimization, fast and free disposal of foreign currency without the control of "domestic" supervisory authorities, protection of assets located in Ukraine and contracts concluded by international law, confidentiality of information about real owners, business structuring, etc.
At the same time, respective jurisdictions are often recognized by international organizations and individual states as those that do not meet their defined criteria for transparent taxation, anti-money laundering, terrorist financing and even pose a threat to the international financial system. This lays the appropriate risks of cooperation with entities from these jurisdictions, and in some cases with related parties and their counterparties as well. First of all, it is so from the point of view of national and international restrictive policies that can be applied to such subjects and/or their partners.
1
The overall objective of the EU lists is to improve the proper tax settlement around the world and to ensure that the EU's international partners adhere to the same standards as the EU member states on tax transparency, fair taxation, and implementation of financial security measures. List criteria have been agreed by Member States in 2016. The "black list" includes countries that have not taken sufficient measures to change legislation and to combat tax evasion at the request of the EU. The "grey" list of the EU includes countries that do not yet meet EU requirements, but have shown that they are ready to change and comply with tax transparency and honesty. As for specific sanctions against countries and their residents, no specific EU decisions have been made, but falling into the "black list" itself can bear reputational risks. In addition, both individual EU Member States and other States and entities can introduce their own restrictive policies with respect to the jurisdictions and/or their residents listed.
2
To protect the international financial system from the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing at the international level, the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) has identified a list of jurisdictions whose national anti-money laundering and terrorist financing regimes have strategic weaknesses that threaten the international financial system. This is the so-called "black list". FATF strongly recommends all states to pay special attention to their financial institutions for business relations and transactions with companies and financial institutions with a "black list" jurisdiction, as well as to the need for enhanced verification of clients when carrying out transactions with entities from these jurisdictions and related persons. The United Nations, the EU, the United States and several other countries and international organizations are taking appropriate sanctions against individuals cooperating with residents from the FATF blacklist. Banks and other financial institutions (including Ukraine) block financial transactions of clients with contractors associated with entities from the "black list" of FATF. Cooperation with contractors, whose partners are persons from these jurisdictions, can be the object of increased attention of the state supervision (control) authorities, and also attract the attention of law enforcement bodies and bear reputational risks.

FATF has also identified a list of jurisdictions which national anti-money laundering and terrorist financing regimes have strategic flaws subject to review by FATF in accordance with agreed milestones and deadlines. This is the so-called FATF "grey list". The FATF recommends all states to pay special attention to their financial institutions to business relations and transactions with these jurisdictions, including their companies and financial institutions, and to the need to verify the client when dealing with entities from these jurisdictions and related persons. Banks and other financial institutions (including Ukraine) conduct financial monitoring of transactions with contractors associated with entities from the FATF "grey list" and, depending on monitoring results, may block financial transactions. Cooperation with contractors partnering with persons from the specified jurisdictions may itself bear reputational risks. It is also possible that individual member states of FATF and other states and subjects of the law may impose restrictions on their own entities and/or their partners.
3
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Progress (OECP) has produced internationally agreed standards for the exchange of information on request (EOIR) for tax purposes. OECP carries out a rating of jurisdictions on compliance with these standards and the existence of risks associated with compliance with tax laws. Cooperation with contractors, partnering with persons from jurisdiction, do not meet the specified standards (the so-called "black list" of the OECP") itself can bear reputational risks. It is also possible that individual OECP member states and other states and subjects of law may impose restrictions on their own entities and/or their partners. Sanctions against any entities due to their belonging to the OECP "grey list" (jurisdictions that partially comply with the standards of information exchange for tax purposes) and/or their partners do not exist. At the same time, cooperation with contractors, partnering with persons from jurisdiction, do not fully comply with the standards of transparency of the OECP tax information clearly can not be considered an advantage.
4
In 2017, the Tax Code of Ukraine (Article 39) clarified the calculation of income tax in transfer pricing. On Dec. 27, 2017 the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine adopted a new List of relevant states (territories). This list includes 63 of 65 offshore companies defined by the previous List of Offshore Companies (Order of the Cabinet of Ministers of September 16, 2015, No. 977-r was canceled), as well as a number of other states/territories (85 in total). Some of these states are not "classical offshore companies" in the conventional sense, however, belonging of the non-resident contractor to them is a sign for classifying economic transactions with it as "controlled" and applying the relevant principles of tax adjustment. Initially, Bulgaria, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Malta, and Hungary were included in the List, but subsequently they were excluded by the Cabinet of Ministers Decree No. 108 dated 31.01.2018, dated 11.04.2018 No. 295. In accordance with the procedure for conducting counter-checks by the controlling authorities (Cabinet of Ministers Decree No. 1232 of December 27, 2010), the controlling authorities may conduct the necessary counter-checks to obtain tax information needed when conducting taxpayer audits. In particular, regarding contractors participating in the supply chain of goods (works, services) that are the subject of controlled operations. Information obtained as the result of such checks may be the basis for conducting appropriate unscheduled inspections and/or appealing to law enforcement agencies.