Maya Forstater

Also @MKSolicitors is not impressed with @fichtner_jan @javiergb_com 's 'Sinks and Conduits' paper http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2017/9/19/martin-kenney-academics-skew-picture-of-bvi-and-other-offsho.html … (lesson: researchers should talk to practitioners more)

This is worth reading http://blog.arachnys.com/panamas-labyrinth?utm_content=63147624&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter …

He seems to equate 'layers' of holding companies, use of intermediaries etc.. with the money laundering concept of layering (converting dirty money into assets which look clean). (this is a bad idea to confuse/conflate)

I think you're misrepresenting my argument here, as well as misdefining 'layering'. Here, you've given the textbook definition of 'laundering'

"The practice of layering, in anti-money laundering parlance..." & your link suggests you are referring to the 2nd stage in money laundering as in "placement, layering and integration"

You go on to say - A cursory survey of the papers indicates that large MNCs, PEPs & HNWIs are leveraging intermediaries and offshore firms to mediate their interest and make investments which minimize their tax obligations....seems to suggest this = 'layering"? (but it doesn't)

By 'you go on to say' you mean 'make a separate statement in an another paragraph about another issue'. Just because two sentences occur in the same article doesn't make them a discussion of the same concept. It's a misrepresentation of the argument.