The primary abusers of the offshore financial system are onshore individuals and entities. Therefore, the problem lies onshore and it is the onshore regulators’ responsibility to monitor and hold their citizens and companies accountable — they are the perpetrators of the illegal acts, whether it be compliance with tax laws, reporting assets to stakeholders, including soon-to-be former wives, and refraining from dealing with prohibited people and organisations to ensure that their transactions do not benefit terrorism and the like.

Of course, this particular behemoth of a law firm fell woefully short on its basic KYC requirements and that laxity opened the floodgates for a thriving culture of greed and graft that attracted the criminal element in droves from all corners of the world. While only a small percentage of offshore entities are used for money laundering, tax evasion and asset concealment, it seems they all flock to many of the same jurisdictions, use the same professional services firms and the same financial institutions.

Few argue with the need for beefed-up regulation offshore, indeed worldwide, but laws and rules can only do so much without crippling the very industry they regulate. The problem is one cannot regulate character — there will always be criminals and those who will seek to game any system.

The issue is that Mossack Fonseca has been operating with impunity under its own set of rules and generated a niche expertise that has facilitated and likely encouraged financial crime. And it has done it being partnered with some of the world’s largest financial institutions that are all headquartered and ultimately subject to onshore regulations and control.

So it really makes no sense when the beneficial owners of these secret accounts are onshore “fat cats” and they have been advised by specialist law firms to move assets to branches of onshore banks from Switzerland, England and Luxembourg, etc, using an entity that happens to be incorporated in one or more of the island jurisdictions that all the attention, the finger pointing, the reputation hits seem to fall only on the small-island domiciles that have the least amount of control or decision making in the entire transaction.

But we island domiciles have been the whipping boys every time it’s discovered that they have been involved (used) in a criminal or suspect matter. But in reality “cut bono?” — who has the most to benefit from a fraudulent asset transfer besides the owners?

Without doubt, the legal advisers and financial institutions generate far more significant fees than the registered office of the entity that’s usually just a shell company on a register.

However, the reading public and politicians attempting a stab at relevance, such as to cast blame on Bermuda and its ilk because of our location and climate; our exclusivity and, let’s face it, we are considered to be high-end vacation places where many of the original sinner fat cats can be seen visiting on yachts and private planes.

For years Bermuda was one of the only targets for political haymaking because of its success and political ignorance, but we have not been identified in the Panama Papers’ top 21 tax havens — yet our island is still referred to in soundbites.

As for Jeremy Corbyn, the real outrage he should be expressing is on how badly he’s been advised — insisting that Britain ought to assume some sort of direct rule over certain territories is risible as is; it’s the UK, and other nations that need to get their houses in order.

The individuals and entities abusing the offshore financial system are under these larger nations’ rule, as are the financial institutions, without which the assets could not be hidden.

And what’s never mentioned is that these large nations are now competing using the same product offerings as the much smaller island jurisdictions. They are providing offshore incorporations and have been for some time.

The American state of Delaware is, from a legal standpoint, more of an information black hole, as it does not gather the information the offshore islands do on ownership and control, and Nevada has quickly followed suit.

Across the pond, where the pontificating emanates from, Scotland has joined in and actually advertises its advantage as a zero tax rate jurisdiction that does not have the image of a “tax haven” — because the world has been and continues to be hammered with the island-paradise image as the only one attached to the tax-haven moniker.

So now we have the larger nations lining up to throw stones at the island jurisdictions while slipping into the game themselves and conveniently forgetting that it’s their leaders, politicians and moguls that are the culprits, moving/hiding assets to evade taxation, defraud a spouse or business partner, launder the proceeds of criminal activities and other nefarious activities aided and abetted by their own banks.

Won’t anybody open some windows in all these surrounding glass houses?

• Nicolette Reiss is a qualified and licensed certified public accountant and chartered property casualty underwriter with operational and technical experience in reinsurance/insurance and financial services