Seigneur is challenged over 114 directorships in Panama

SARK seigneur Michael Beaumont has denied holding 114 directorships, details of which were published in the Sark Newsletter.

SARK seigneur Michael Beaumont has denied holding 114 directorships, details of which were published in the Sark Newsletter.

Newsletter editor Kevin Delaney accused Mr Beaumont of being ‘economical with the truth’ when he denied holding a large number of directorships when questioned by the Guernsey Press last month – following a Panorama programme focusing on the Sark Lark.

The publication printed a list of 114 companies, following a law firm’s search of the Register of Companies of Panama, and alleged Mr Beaumont held positions as director, president and treasurer.

But Mr Beaumont, pictured, said he did not hold any current directorships.

‘It’s only because Panama doesn’t take names off the records,’ he said.

Comments for: "Seigneur is challenged over 114 directorships in Panama"

Sark Resident

Regardless, it's a hell of a lot more than he has admitted to holding when pressed on the subject by the media. Therefore, he is indeed economical with the truth. There is nothing new in that though.

When are all the Island trusts and accounts going to be made available for public viewing is what I would like to know? I have made many requests in the past and those have been met with silence. Nothing new about that either.

A good reliable friend has informed me other areas on how things are done are currently being investigated by the media. Revelations will be forthcoming in due course.

The establishment run to the media in the hope that will help them in their plight to protect feudalism for their own self-serving interests. The media are not stupid. They know there are numerous other areas that don't add up and require further investigation. That is happening now.

I wonder if Colin Knivedon is pressed on the nondisclosure issue he would hold enough clout to present the people with details of what they are supposed to be beneficiaries of? I will try my luck and see whether my request bears any fruit.

Claire M

"A good reliable friend has informed me "

Dear God how I am tired of the endless innuendo.

eva song

Hi there Kevin, I mean Sark Resident! The language you use in this response is all too reminiscent of the Sark "news"letter.....


Kevin while you're at it perhaps you could also look into your employers affairs too I'm sure that would throw up a few interesting revelations.

Claire M

If I published a news letter and described the Barclays in the same terms that Delaney discusses Sark residents, would you repeat those insinuations here as well, please?

Poor Sark is under siege.

It is a "modern siege" conducted with world-class hypocrisy, malice, spin, innuendo and most of all, endless cash. Cash which is at least in part derived from sophisticated offshore legal tax avoidance. It certainly isn't coming from paying guests.

** Can you please confirm that Sark Estate Management is itself a BVI company..?

Now - we all saw John Sweeney's Panorama recording of Kevin Delaney's alleged hysterical "shouting" at his office staff. Who do you believe?


Yes where is Sark Estate Managerment registered ? Does not appear to be Guernsey or Sark so where? And who is tax liable to!


I am pretty certain it is the BVI.

Does anyone disagree? (Kevin?) Sadly, the BVI registry does not appear to have a public online lookup:

And who said anything about paying tax? They cannot possibly make a profit!


It looks to me that Mr (?) Delaney is busy learning how to troll...for shame sir, you haven't passed your "real local news, reporting thereof" exam yet...stay behind afterwards.


Oh dear!

Delaney really is scraping the bottom of the barrel now in trying to discredit Mr Beaumont in this manner. It's common knowledge that in the days of the "Sark lark", everybody who could become a director, became a director of offshore companies. It wasn't illegal and it brought in, sometimes, a good income. Sark wasn't the only place, Guernsey and probably Jersey and Alderney were up to their necks in it. As fiscal reforms tightened up, the "Sark Lark" became a thing of the past and I am sure that if Mr Beaumont says he is no longer a director on these companies, he is not. It is just Kevin Delaney digging around for dirt and not getting his facts right, that the companies were long in the past, which gives a clear indication of the rubbish that the SNL turns out.


The snl may be rubbish, but if you were a business considering setting up on Sark and you did some research - and you found the newsletter website - would you be even faintly interested in looking further?

Delaney's diatribe is so much more than just dangerous rubbish - as others point out - it is either a deliberate and concerted effort to keep Sark poor and dependant on the SEM - or an act of supreme stupidity.

God Help Sark if the Ministry of Injustice can't wake up and sort it out.


Paddy is right - anyone thinking of coming to Sark who saw the newsletter would go no further. It's hard to believe that anyone who understands Sark could fall for the nonsense idea that Delaney and Co actually care about anyone but themselves - or that the economy is stalled because of a micro brewery, shipping or land tenure.

Having John Donnelly comment on Sir Norman Browse's involvement is like asking a fox to count the chickens - and the more the snl endorses the Crowe report, the less I like it.

I hope Sir Norman put everyone's mind at rest at the Ministry with his report on Sark obviously fair elections.


Delaney has been doing it so much for so long he is now scraping the bottom of the barrel from the outside ....


‘It’s only because Panama doesn’t take names off the records,’ he (Mr Beaumont) said.

How admirable to admit to having been a director of companies registered in Panama.



He can hardly deny it as its a matter of public record.

I suspect that his total number of directorships way exceeded that figure in the late 80s and early 90s. I knew one Sarkee who had over 1200 global directorships at one point.


Are you jealous you missed out..?

But as MB said already, it was fun while it lasted, but it's all over now. All a frantic Delaney can do is exhume old news and spin it like a top.

It's good to note he is happy to rank himself alongside Scientology in terms of his relationship with John Sweeney; and speaking of religious nutters, during Sark's lifetime, it was once legal to execute Catholics in the UK. It was probably even compulsory...



Not jealous at all. Unlike them, I understood the risks. There is no such thing as a "nominee director". They are still on the hook today for activities of companies that they are blissfully unaware of. The knock on the door could come at any time. Unfortunately a defence of "but I was only a nominee" will get them nowhere.

Back in those days they were charging £200 per company per annum. Although it was known as The Sark Lark it was no "lark" at all. It was an out and out sham and the GFSC were absolutely right to close it down in Sark. As Panorama showed, it simply drove these idiots to poorly regulated jurisdictions elsewhere.


From time to time, someone here posts a suggestion not to take an SNL broadside seriously - along the lines of "ignore it and it will go away".

I can only imagine these remarks come from MoJ insiders doing their best to try and stave off the consequences of admitting the awkward probability that a rampant SNL is costing the Sark economy real jobs and hard-to-establish credibility.

There is only ONE organisation on Sark that doesn't need to care what potential incoming business investors think, because it already owns and controls an effectively monopoly of the Island's commercial life.

Even if we divide Delaney's preposterous viewing statistics by 100, that's 20,000 people who might now think that Sark is a cross between Dodge City and Buchenwald.

And for those who are in conflict with the SEM/SNL - such efforts to play down the SNL's effects and significance are like describing the Black Plague as a "mere sniffle".

Let's get real in 2013.


Mr. Delaney look no further than your own sub-editor for directorships signed off by the thousands literally over the years. 114 pales into insignificance in comparison.


Bee - if anyone needs evidence of the SNL's capacity to be defiant and shameless - and simply laugh and blow raspberries at anyone that wishes to engage in a grown-up discussion, the matter you raise is a shining beacon of prime confrontational hypocrisy.

Sark Watcher

Happy Christmas everyone ... and gird your loins for 2013.

Bored now

No ones interested.

Sark's only reason for visiting was smoking in pubs and cheap booze. Time our most easterly Parish mans up or shuts up.


Wrong, Bored now, you must be pretty boring yourself if that's all you visit Sark for.

There is a great deal of interest in Sark's future as many of us do not want to see Sark ruined by by a couple of multi millionaires and their lackey. They have the capability of doing so much good, but that will never work if it always has to be on their terms. Let Sark move at it's own pace, it has done for hundreds of years.

Sarc Astec

Bored Now, I think you have a point. I find it impossible to take the Sark government seriously as each time they make the news my mind drifts to that wonderful T.V. programme, the Vicar of Dibley. As the village Council argue around the table I can't help seeing Chief Pleas in full flow! If true Sarkees want to keep the very special things that, in their opinion, make Sark what it is today then they must bite their tongues and keep their heads below the parapet. Trying to publicly take on those with immensly deep pockets who wish to drag the island into the 21st century will only result in giving them what they want.


Sarc Astec

For a moment there I thought you were talking about Guernsey's Government.

guern abroad

I don't think it is quite that simple, it all looks like trying to gain manipulative control for own means and badly disguised at that.

Sark resident

If brecqhou is a sark tenement did they go to the dcc to get permission to build the castle, the harbour, the helipad and bunker, the chapel and the numerous other buildings. Why can't we moor in the harbour and have a beer in the pub.


I understand it is called appeasement Sark resident - I seem to remember a similar attitude did not work in the 1930's, as indeed it didn't work for Sark when faced with a similar take over bid.