An Australian Judge Orders Media Outlets to Pay Economist Peter Schiff for Defamation
An Australian judge has ruled that two media outlets must pay American economist Peter Schiff over half a million dollars for defaming him. This decision is the latest development in a bizarre scandal involving the IRS and five other governments, who collaborated to target Schiff, a frequent guest on conservative media, in what has been called the “biggest tax evasion investigation in the world.”
The investigation focused on a bank in Puerto Rico that Schiff ran, but despite exhaustive scrutiny, authorities failed to find any evidence of wrongdoing. However, the existence of the investigation was leaked to the New York Times and Australian media outlets The Age and 60 Minutes, both owned by Australian media giant Nine. These journalists interpreted Schiff’s advocacy for low-tax policies as proof that he was breaking the law.
The media coverage of the baseless investigation had disastrous consequences for Schiff’s bank, ultimately leading to its closure by a Puerto Rican regulator. The IRS falsely claimed credit for the closure, alleging money laundering and tax evasion, even though their investigation found no evidence to support these charges.
It appears that tax agents collaborated closely with the media during a press conference. The New York Times learned about the bank’s closure before Schiff did. There are suspicions that officials may have violated the law by disclosing the existence of a grand jury to reporters. Faced with limited options for recourse against the U.S. government, Schiff decided to sue the journalists in an Australian court.
In his lawsuit, Schiff named The Age, 60 Minutes, and two reporters, Charlotte Grieve and Nick McKenzie, who were involved in producing a defamatory video segment and article. The judge ruled that the television segment was defamatory, but the article was not.
The Australian journalists strongly implied that Schiff was guilty of money laundering and tax evasion, using the case to argue for increased financial regulation. This narrative conveniently aligned with some Australian politicians’ efforts to pass a law granting the government more power to monitor people’s finances, making Schiff the scapegoat.
During the discovery process of the lawsuit, evidence emerged revealing the inner workings of major media outlets and their determination to portray Schiff’s bank, Euro Pacific, in a negative light. Interview notes and transcripts showed that sources often confirmed the bank’s compliance, but the journalists used deceptive editing techniques to create a false impression.
The 60 Minutes segment suggested that Euro Pacific Bank facilitated money laundering, tax evasion, and criminal activities, claiming that the bank had lax client vetting procedures. However, one confidential source, a former customer, revealed that opening an account with the bank took extensive time and scrutiny. Other sources, including former employees, attested to the bank’s strong anti-money laundering measures.
Furthermore, the journalists attempted to open an account with a financial services company owned by Schiff but were rejected due to the bank’s adherence to regulations. They also secured an interview with Schiff under false pretenses and used the existence of the investigation as evidence of guilt.
Despite the weak attempts to link Schiff’s bank to criminals, the journalists even targeted an individual who had only been questioned by police in Thailand but was never charged with any crime. This individual had later used an account with Euro Pacific Bank for ordinary expenses. The customer informed the journalists that the bank had thoroughly vetted him and had no reason to be aware of his brief interaction with the police.
After the judge issued the defamation damages order, the media outlets sought an emergency injunction to prevent the public from seeing the full interviews with their sources. However, they withdrew the request when the judge indicated that it would reflect poorly on their journalistic ethics.
Following the ruling, McKenzie received a prestigious journalism award, and the Walkley Foundation named a new investigative journalism award after him. Grieve also won a journalism award for her coverage of Schiff’s bank.
In response to the ruling, Nine Media, the parent company of The Age and 60 Minutes, remained unapologetic. They acknowledged that the court found their program conveyed unintended meanings but cited the limitations of defamation law in Australia and defended their reporting on the Euro Pacific Bank, which they claimed was the target of a massive tax evasion probe and had suffered regulatory failures.
The Puerto Rican regulator, who initially claimed that the bank was “critically insolvent” and seized it from Schiff, later admitted that the bank had enough cash to cover all deposits. The regulator clarified that the action was not based on allegations of money laundering or other financial crimes.
During a press conference, the IRS’ Chief of Criminal Investigation, Jim Lee, attempted to take credit for the investigation, but when asked if Schiff was being investigated, he refused to disclose any information. Schiff believes that Lee’s confirmation of the investigation at the press conference supports the theory that the IRS illegally leaked the probe to the media.
Schiff argues that the government, in collaboration with compliant media outlets, targeted him to destroy his reputation and his bank. He emphasizes that the IRS failed to find any evidence of wrongdoing but still used the media to inflict significant damage. Schiff also highlights the lack of accountability from both the IRS and the media, warning that if they can do this to someone with his resources, they can do it to anyone.
While Schiff sees the media outlets’ accountability as a positive step, he urges people to be critical of what they see on TV and to recognize the behind-the-scenes manipulation that occurs.
Ultimately, this case sheds light on the dangerous collusion between government agencies and the media, highlighting the need for transparency and accountability in both sectors.
What are the potential limitations of defamation laws highlighted in this case and what measures may be necessary to ensure fair and accurate reporting in the future
As the reason they were held responsible. They expressed disappointment with the verdict but stated that they respect the court’s decision.
Schiff, on the other hand, sees the ruling as a significant victory. He believes that it exposes the collusion between the media and government agencies in targeting him, thus vindicating his reputation. He hopes that this case serves as a deterrent to future instances of media defamation, particularly those driven by political agendas.
This case raises important questions about the role of the media in facilitating or perpetuating false narratives. It highlights the potential for media bias and the dangers of journalists overstepping their boundaries in the pursuit of sensationalism. The media’s responsibility to report objectively and ethically should be paramount, and instances of defamation should be treated seriously.
While this ruling is a step in the right direction for holding the media accountable, it is essential to acknowledge the potential limitations of defamation laws. In this case, the judge ruled that the television segment was defamatory, but the article wasn’t. This discrepancy highlights the complexities and subjectivity involved in determining defamation. Stricter regulations and clearer guidelines may be necessary to ensure fair and accurate reporting.
Ultimately, this case serves as a cautionary tale for media outlets and journalists. It underscores the importance of responsible journalism and the potential consequences of disseminating false or defamatory information. It also emphasizes the need for thorough investigations, fact-checking, and unbiased reporting to maintain credibility and uphold the principles of ethical journalism.
As for Peter Schiff, this victory brings some measure of vindication and validation to his reputation, which was unjustly tarnished by baseless allegations. It serves as a reminder that standing up against defamation, no matter how powerful the entities involved, can lead to justice.
In conclusion, the Australian judge’s decision to hold media outlets accountable for defaming economist Peter Schiff is a significant development in a case that exposed collusion and false narratives perpetuated by both the media and government agencies. This ruling highlights the importance of responsible and accurate reporting and the potential consequences of defamation. It also serves as a reminder of the need for stricter regulations and clearer guidelines to uphold ethical journalism. Ultimately, this case brings some measure of vindication to Peter Schiff and underscores the importance of standing up against defamation to preserve one’s reputation.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."