5 Description of the "tax affair" in the period from 1 January 2008 to 
31 March 2008 and its framing within the period of November 1999 
to June 2008 
5.1 Preceding phase "Time of reforms" (November 1999 — December 2007) 
5.1.1 New structures and framework conditions for the financial center 
Liechtenstein yet again 
The Zumwinkel case and the events surrounding 14 February immediately invoked memories 
in Liechtenstein of the CD of Liechtenstein trustee Herbert Batliner and the subsequent 
accusations made against the Liechtenstein financial center, culminating in the publication of 
an — in part factually inaccurate — report of the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) in 
the German news magazine SPIEGEL in November 1999 (issue 45/1999 of 8.11.1999, 202) 
and the inclusion of Liechtenstein on the OECD list of non-cooperative countries in the fight 
against money laundering and organized crime in 2000. Not only in Liechtenstein did 
memories surface, however, but also in Germany: Already on the day after the search of the 
home of postal chief Klaus Zumwinkel, Financial Times Deutschland printed the headline: 
"Liechtenstein yet again" (FTD, 15.2.2008, 3). 
DIE WELT on 16.2.2008 (p. 2) recalled that affair in considerable detail. In 1997, Batliner's 
data had initially been obtained by the German news magazine SPIEGEL and subsequently 
by the Bochum public prosecutor. As in the current case, the BND had been involved. The 
present paper wants to frame the examined case within the greater time period since 
November 1999, in order to make the context more readily understandable. The years 
between the Batliner case, which is inseparably linked to the German CDU donations scandal, 
and the examined case of the German tax affair and Liechtenstein are therefore appropriate as 
a timeframe. Two fields have advanced considerably in Liechtenstein in those years and 
brought about associated changes in the financial center: various structural changes, on the 
one hand the legal framework and implementation thereof in the financial center, and on the 
other hand developments in external communication. 
Some accusations against Liechtenstein were justified, such as the fact that Liechtenstein did 
not answer foreign requests for mutual legal assistance (because the competent judge was 
completely overwhelmed) and the lacking implementing of anti-money-laundering laws. The 
image crisis already entailed certain financial losses and decline in business for the 
Liechtenstein financial services center, quite apart from the associated damage to reputation. 
In terms of content, these accusations were countered with tightened legislation, massive 
increases in human and financial resources at the courts and the Office of the Public 
Prosecutor, and the creation of an Economic Crimes Police and a Financial Intelligence Unit 
(FIU, reporting office for suspicions of money laundering). With the total revision of the 
Mutual Legal Assistance Act in 2000, the deficit relating to timely provision of mutual legal 
assistance was remedied. 
21