Talk:CumEx-Files

The topic of this article seems to conflate criminal financial activity (a series of cases of dividend stripping in several EU states) with a particular report about it. E.g., by assigning a particular date in 2018, or using a particular news logo. Cum Ex has been widely reported on since at least 2016, and has been known to fiscal authorities since at least 2011. The article should probably focus on the criminal activity, and use that particular news report or network as one of numerous sources; instead of making the report a topic in itself? -- Seelefant (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

CumEx-Files is treated as Lux Leaks or Panama Papers are. I don't see much difference.Skaldis (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Difference from Lux Leaks and Panama Papers is that those journalistic investigations covered particular instances of a widely known problems, while the Cum-Ex files was an impressive collection of documentation for the entirety of a multinational issue, specifically the issue of using "Cum-Ex trading" to double-dip or even fraudulently dip into dividend tax refunds from multiple tax authorities. In the most affected countries, the authorities themselves have published additional documentation both before and after the news reports based on the "Cum-Ex files", and even the articles based on the "Cum-Ex files" often also used official sources . Jbohmdk (talk) 04:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know much at all about this topic, but I landed here, and making a quick assessment of the introductory paragraph, there seem to be some significant issues here:

• Two of the figures quoted in the introduction, $62.9 billion and $36.2 billion, along with $63.2 billion in the side box, are given in dollars (presumably USD). Since this is mostly a European scandal, these should be in euros.
• It's stated that "The five hardest hit countries may have lost at least $62.9 billion". Presumably this is cumulative, and if so then the word 'cumulatively' should be appended to it for clarity.
• Trying to double check whether or not the $62.9 billion figure is indeed cumulative I followed the cited reference which led to a Danish article in which the only figures quoted are '12.7 billion kroner' along with some figures in an image that appear to be in the millions of kroner.
• Following the reference against the $63.2 billion figure in the sidebar (which is strange being ever so slightly larger than the $62.9 billion figure in the intro - surely all other countries must have been hit harder than 300 million collectively?), the referenced article only includes figures of €12 billion in reference to Germany and a €140m claim. So this reference doesn't support the text it's placed against either.
• The reference against the claim that Germany was hit hardest does claim that "The scandal has cost Germany, Denmark, Belgium, France and Italy a total of 519.2 billion Norwegian kroner.", which translates to €43.6B ($51.2B USD), which could be useful, but skimming a translation I couldn't see any other useful figures, including not seeing anything about Germany having lost $36.2 billion.
• The last reference against estimated minimal losses of "€17 billion for France, €4.5 billion in Italy, €1.7 billion in Denmark and €201 million for Belgium" at least does say that. (Whether or not it's a reliable news source I have no idea though).
• The following BBC article from 2021 suggests a total loss of €150B, which matches the figure stated on the linked 'website' in the sidebar: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58984813
• Scrolling down the linked 'website' (presumably an official resource published by the collective set of involved investigative agencies), there's a diagram indicating losses for various countries of: €36B Germany, €33.4B France, €27B Netherlands, €18.9B Spain, €13.3B Italy, €7.5B Belgium, €4.9B USA, €4.8B Switzerland, €2.2B Luxemburg, €1.7B Denmark, and €1.2B Austria (totalling €150.9B).

DiscreetParrot (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2025 (UTC)