All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >  Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on t... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Group Question
Answer the questions based on the passage given below.
The US Treasury Department recently announced that it would start demanding details of the shell companies that rich foreigners use to buy real estate in Manhattan and Miami-Dade County. This is a good step that should help law enforcement agencies crack down on money laundering, tax evasion and other crimes. The program should be broadened to cover the whole country, and must be forcefully carried out.
In recent years, there have been certain sections of people that have stashed billions of dollars of wealth in the United States by buying property and other costly assets. These purchases are generally made through limited liability corporations that are not required to disclose their wealthy owners or beneficiaries. While limited liability corporations have many legitimate purposes, there is no justification for allowing owners to shield their identities even from law enforcement and regulators. The secrecy is so complete that law enforcement officials say they are often unable to identify the true owners. All efforts by lawmakers have been thwarted by lobbying from the financial and real estate industries and state governments.
The department currently requires mortgage lenders to know the identities of the true owners of shell companies in transactions that involve loans. Under the new policy, the department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network will require details of limited liability companies that buy properties without loans. However, the order applies only to Manhattan and Miami-Dade County, and will be effective for only 180 days, starting in March.
The department should also adopt pending regulations that would require financial firms to know who owns the limited liability companies whose accounts they manage. It is absurd that regulators would not require such basic transparency as a matter of course. The current system practically lays out the welcome mat for some foreigners hiding assets from their governments, making United States one of the world’s biggest tax havens.
Supporters of the current system may argue that requiring more transparency would burden financial institutions without ending money laundering and tax evasion, since determined criminals will find ways to thwart the law. But that doesn’t justify doing nothing about this hole in financial regulations.
 
Q. From the context, a ‘shell company’ can be inferred to be:
  • a)
    a company with hidden owners that is used to raise loans in the market
  • b)
    a company in which foreigners stash money.
  • c)
    a company that exists for ulterior future financial manoeuvres.
  • d)
    a company created to buy and hold the shares of other companies, which it then controls.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Verified Answer
Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.Th...
From the first sentence of the paragraph, it can be inferred that a shell company is used by some foreigners for the ulterior motive of buying real estate. Though the first part of option 1 is true, the purpose of a shell company does not seem to be to raise loans according to the paragraph. Option 2 is also not true as foreigners don't stash money in the company per se; they use it to buy assets in which they stash their money. There is no information in the paragraph that warrants 4.
Hence, the correct answer is option 3.
View all questions of this test
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

The US Treasury Department recently announced that it would start demanding details of the shell companies that rich foreigners use to buy real estate in Manhattan and Miami-Dade County. This is a good step that should help law enforcement agencies crack down on money laundering, tax evasion and other crimes. The program should be broadened to cover the whole country, and must be forcefully carried out.In recent years, there have been certain sections of people that have stashed billions of dollars of wealth in the United States by buying property and other costly assets. These purchases are generally made through limited liability corporations that are not required to disclose their wealthy owners or beneficiaries. While limited liability corporations have many legitimate purposes, there is no justification for allowing owners to shield their identities even from law enforcement and regulators. The secrecy is so complete that law enforcement officials say they are often unable to identify the true owners. All efforts by lawmakers have been thwarted by lobbying from the financial and real estate industries and state governments.The department currently requires mortgage lenders to know the identities of the true owners of shell companies in transactions that involve loans. Under the new policy, the departments Financial Crimes Enforcement Network will require details of limited liability companies that buy properties without loans. However, the order applies only to Manhattan and Miami-Dade County, and will be effective for only 180 days, starting in March.The department should also adopt pending regulations that would require financial firms to know who owns the limited liability companies whose accounts they manage. It is absurd that regulators would not require such basic transparency as a matter of course. The current system practically lays out the welcome mat for some foreigners hiding assets from their governments, making United States one of the worlds biggest tax havens.Supporters of the current system may argue that requiring more transparency would burden financial institutions without ending money laundering and tax evasion, since determined criminals will find ways to thwart the law. But that doesnt justify doing nothing about this hole in financial regulations.Q.Paragraph 2 talks about sections of people who have invested in various assets in the US for tax evasion. In the context of this passage, choose the group of people who are most likely to partake in this overall activity.

The US Treasury Department recently announced that it would start demanding details of the shell companies that rich foreigners use to buy real estate in Manhattan and Miami-Dade County. This is a good step that should help law enforcement agencies crack down on money laundering, tax evasion and other crimes. The program should be broadened to cover the whole country, and must be forcefully carried out.In recent years, there have been certain sections of people that have stashed billions of dollars of wealth in the United States by buying property and other costly assets. These purchases are generally made through limited liability corporations that are not required to disclose their wealthy owners or beneficiaries. While limited liability corporations have many legitimate purposes, there is no justification for allowing owners to shield their identities even from law enforcement and regulators. The secrecy is so complete that law enforcement officials say they are often unable to identify the true owners. All efforts by lawmakers have been thwarted by lobbying from the financial and real estate industries and state governments.The department currently requires mortgage lenders to know the identities of the true owners of shell companies in transactions that involve loans. Under the new policy, the departments Financial Crimes Enforcement Network will require details of limited liability companies that buy properties without loans. However, the order applies only to Manhattan and Miami-Dade County, and will be effective for only 180 days, starting in March.The department should also adopt pending regulations that would require financial firms to know who owns the limited liability companies whose accounts they manage. It is absurd that regulators would not require such basic transparency as a matter of course. The current system practically lays out the welcome mat for some foreigners hiding assets from their governments, making United States one of the worlds biggest tax havens.Supporters of the current system may argue that requiring more transparency would burden financial institutions without ending money laundering and tax evasion, since determined criminals will find ways to thwart the law. But that doesnt justify doing nothing about this hole in financial regulations.Q.What is the primary purpose of the author?A. To emphasize the importance of identity disclosure in business transactionsB. To educate us on the ill effects of money laundering and tax evasionC. To highlight the efforts being taken by the US government to control money launderingD. To show why the US is the biggest tax haven

DIRECTIONS for the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Citizens of the United States are quite taken with the vocabulary of liberal democracy, with words such as ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, which conjure key democratic values and distance the nation from the Old World taint of oligarchy and aristocracy. It is much less clear, however, that Americans are guided by democratic ideals. Or that ideology and propaganda play a crucial role in concealing the large gap between rhetoric and reality.In truth, the Old World systems have proved extremely difficult to shrug off. In their 2014 paper, Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page argue that, as in an oligarchy, ordinary US citizens have no ‘substantial power over policy decisions [and] little or no independent influence on policy at all’.Moreover, the US regularly subscribes to a form of managerial aristocracy. In the current presidential race, Hillary Clinton advertises her managerial expertise via the language of policy, while Donald Trump parades his via the language of business. Neither language is democratic. Neither invites self-governance.Why is there no outcry about these oligarchical and aristocratic methods? Is it because plutocrats have power over the mechanisms of representation and repression? Is it, in short, about power? In my view, power can’t explain why voters are so enthusiastically voting for the very people who promise the least democratic outcomes. Nor are Americans knowingly rejecting democratic ideals. Instead, I see an anti-democratic ideology at work, inverting the meaning of democratic vocabulary and transforming it into propaganda.Consider the example of mass incarceration in the US. Black Americans make up around 13 per cent of the population, but around 40 per cent of country’s ballooning prison population. Even if we assume, falsely, that black American crime rates justify this disparity, why is the state so punitive? Shouldn’t citizens instead be motivated to address the underlying socio-economic conditions that lead to such dramatic differences in behaviour between equals?In The New Jim Crow (2010), Michelle Alexander argues that a national rhetoric of law and order has long justified mass incarceration. President Richard Nixon used it to crack down on black Americans under the cover of an epidemic of heroin use; this continued in the 1980s, as a merciless ‘war on drugs’ whose victims were all too often black men. In the US, the ideology of anti-black racism takes the view that blacks are violent and lazy, thereby masking the misapplication of the ideals of law and order.Compare the ‘war on drugs’ to the current heroin crisis among middle-class white Americans, which has led to a national discussion of the socio-economic distress facing this class. Law and order doesn’t come into it. ‘The new face of heroin’ is new because, unlike the old face, it calls out for an empathetic response, rather than a punitive one.But what is the flawed ideology masking the misapplication of democratic ideals? Let’s bring it out by exploring the most cherished US democratic ideal, the ideal of freedom – popularly embodied in attacks on ‘big government’. Voters are repeatedly told that ‘big government’ is the primary source of coercion that limits freedom, which it certainly sometimes does, as the Patriot Act reminds us. But corporations also limit civic freedom in significant ways.For example, corporations are leading direct attacks on the freedom to collectively bargain. Via outsourcing, free trade agreements allow corporations to move jobs to countries where labour is cheap; meanwhile, as a result of pressure from the conservative non-profit Citizens United, corporations can fund political candidates, thereby increasing corporate control of government. The weaker a government is, the more power corporations have over it.Voters concerned about government – as opposed to corporate – constraints on freedom are under the grip of what I will call a free market ideology. According to that ideology, the world of capital is by its nature free. All other substantial freedoms, including political freedom and personal freedom, are made possible by the freedom of markets.Why do citizens who cherish freedom as an ideal vote to constrain their own freedoms by increasing the power of corporations? It’s because free market ideology masks the ways in which corporations deploy undemocratic modes of coercion. When a corporation bans employees from expressing, outside of work, opinions it disapproves of, this is seen as a legitimate protection of its economic interests. If workers have to sign non-disclosure contracts that silence them after they are employed elsewhere, it’s accepted as the cost of doing business.The contradictions here are telling. If our most basic freedoms are self-expression and choiceful action, then corporations frequently limit our most basic freedoms. In liberal democratic theory, it is government that is regarded as the protector of such rights. But it’s precisely because government is attacked in the name of freedom that corporations have vastly greater power to constrain and shape it.Q.The author of the passage, at some point or the other in the passage, has been critical of:I. GovernmentsII. CorporationsIII. Political leaders

DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Citizens of the United States are quite taken with the vocabulary of liberal democracy, with words such as ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, which conjure key democratic values and distance the nation from the Old World taint of oligarchy and aristocracy. It is much less clear, however, that Americans are guided by democratic ideals. Or that ideology and propaganda play a crucial role in concealing the large gap between rhetoric and reality.In truth, the Old World systems have proved extremely difficult to shrug off. In their 2014 paper, Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page argue that, as in an oligarchy, ordinary US citizens have no ‘substantial power over policy decisions [and] little or no independent influence on policy at all’.Moreover, the US regularly subscribes to a form of managerial aristocracy. In the current presidential race, Hillary Clinton advertises her managerial expertise via the language of policy, while Donald Trump parades his via the language of business. Neither language is democratic. Neither invites self-governance.Why is there no outcry about these oligarchical and aristocratic methods? Is it because plutocrats have power over the mechanisms of representation and repression? Is it, in short, about power? In my view, power can’t explain why voters are so enthusiastically voting for the very people who promise the least democratic outcomes. Nor are Americans knowingly rejecting democratic ideals. Instead, I see an anti-democratic ideology at work, inverting the meaning of democratic vocabulary and transforming it into propaganda.Consider the example of mass incarceration in the US. Black Americans make up around 13 per cent of the population, but around 40 per cent of country’s ballooning prison population. Even if we assume, falsely, that black American crime rates justify this disparity, why is the state so punitive? Shouldn’t citizens instead be motivated to address the underlying socio-economic conditions that lead to such dramatic differences in behaviour between equals?In The New Jim Crow (2010), Michelle Alexander argues that a national rhetoric of law and order has long justified mass incarceration. President Richard Nixon used it to crack down on black Americans under the cover of an epidemic of heroin use; this continued in the 1980s, as a merciless ‘war on drugs’ whose victims were all too often black men. In the US, the ideology of anti-black racism takes the view that blacks are violent and lazy, thereby masking the misapplication of the ideals of law and order.Compare the ‘war on drugs’ to the current heroin crisis among middle-class white Americans, which has led to a national discussion of the socio-economic distress facing this class. Law and order doesn’t come into it. ‘The new face of heroin’ is new because, unlike the old face, it calls out for an empathetic response, rather than a punitive one.But what is the flawed ideology masking the misapplication of democratic ideals? Let’s bring it out by exploring the most cherished US democratic ideal, the ideal of freedom – popularly embodied in attacks on ‘big government’. Voters are repeatedly told that ‘big government’ is the primary source of coercion that limits freedom, which it certainly sometimes does, as the Patriot Act reminds us. But corporations also limit civic freedom in significant ways.For example, corporations are leading direct attacks on the freedom to collectively bargain. Via outsourcing, free trade agreements allow corporations to move jobs to countries where labour is cheap; meanwhile, as a result of pressure from the conservative non-profit Citizens United, corporations can fund political candidates, thereby increasing corporate control of government. The weaker a government is, the more power corporations have over it.Voters concerned about government – as opposed to corporate – constraints on freedom are under the grip of what I will call a free market ideology. According to that ideology, the world of capital is by its nature free. All other substantial freedoms, including political freedom and personal freedom, are made possible by the freedom of markets.Why do citizens who cherish freedom as an ideal vote to constrain their own freedoms by increasing the power of corporations? It’s because free market ideology masks the ways in which corporations deploy undemocratic modes of coercion. When a corporation bans employees from expressing, outside of work, opinions it disapproves of, this is seen as a legitimate protection of its economic interests. If workers have to sign non-disclosure contracts that silence them after they are employed elsewhere, it’s accepted as the cost of doing business.The contradictions here are telling. If our most basic freedoms are self-expression and choiceful action, then corporations frequently limit our most basic freedoms. In liberal democratic theory, it is government that is regarded as the protector of such rights. But it’s precisely because government is attacked in the name of freedom that corporations have vastly greater power to constrain and shape it.Q.According to the author of the passage, the relationship between the strength of corporations and governments is

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the given question:Corporate governance suffers in companies where the allegiance of independent directors is to the officers of the company rather than to its shareholders. To make the shareholder-board relationship more effective, we need better shareholder surveillance. Shareholders must actively step up as owners, and engage directors on corporate issues. Independent directors in general, and chairmen of all companies in particular, must participate more actively in annual general meetings by owning up to their board decisions and answering shareholder queries.The abuse of corporate power results from incentives within firms that encourage a culture of corruption. For example, former employees within a now-demised corporation described a 'yes man' culture in which only those employees who did everything to please their bosses prospered. 'Corporate culture is what determines how people behave when they are not being watched,' remarked a former managing partner of a consultancy firm. Unethical companies have typified corporate cultures that voiced their commitment to one value system while their processes and incentives reflected an entirely different value system in practice. The responsibility to change this lies with the top management.Clearly, good governance requires a mindset within the corporation which integrates the corporate code of ethics into the day-to-day activities of its managers and workers. As the sociologists opine, companies must move from the 'reactive and compliance mode' of corporate ethics to the 'integrity mode', where the functions of the entire organisation are completely aligned with its value system. To achieve this, we must address the system of incentives that exists within corporations.Corporations must integrate their value systems into their recruitment programmes. They must mandate compliance with their values as a key requirement from each potential employee. They must ensure that every employee owns responsibility for accountability and ethics in every transaction. Corporations must also publicly recognise internal role models for ethical behaviour. They must reinforce exemplary ethical conduct among employees through reward and recognition programmes. Ethical standards and best practices must be applied fairly and uniformly across all levels of the organisation. Any non-compliance must be swiftly dealt with and publicised. Additionally, there should be strong whistle-blower mechanisms within the corporation for exposing unethical or illegal activities.The need of the hour is for all voices in a corporation to unanimously extol the values of decency, honesty and transparency. In other words, every employee has to appreciate that the future of the corporation is safe only if he/she does the right thing in every transaction. Corporates have to create systems, structures and incentives to promote transparency, since transparency brings accountability. In an ideal organisation every employee remembers and follows the adage, 'when in doubt, disclose'.None of this can happen unless corporate leaders believe in the values of the company, and walk the talk. Corporate leaders are powerful role models. Every employee watches them carefully and imitates them. For example, many corporations talk about cutting costs as a way to improve profitability. Such cost consciousness has to come from the top. If leaders want employees to spend carefully, they have to show the way.Which of the following can be said about the current state of corporate ethics?

Top Courses for CATView all

Top Courses for CAT

Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.The US Treasury Department recently announced that it would start demanding details of the shell companies that rich foreigners use to buy real estate in Manhattan and Miami-Dade County. This is a good step that should help law enforcement agencies crack down on money laundering, tax evasion and other crimes. The program should be broadened to cover the whole country, and must be forcefully carried out.In recent years, there have been certain sections of people that have stashed billions of dollars of wealth in the United States by buying property and other costly assets. These purchases are generally made through limited liability corporations that are not required to disclose their wealthy owners or beneficiaries. While limited liability corporations have many legitimate purposes, there is no justification for allowing owners to shield their identities even from law enforcement and regulators. The secrecy is so complete that law enforcement officials say they are often unable to identify the true owners. All efforts by lawmakers have been thwarted by lobbying from the financial and real estate industries and state governments.The department currently requires mortgage lenders to know the identities of the true owners of shell companies in transactions that involve loans. Under the new policy, the departments Financial Crimes Enforcement Network will require details of limited liability companies that buy properties without loans. However, the order applies only to Manhattan and Miami-Dade County, and will be effective for only 180 days, starting in March.The department should also adopt pending regulations that would require financial firms to know who owns the limited liability companies whose accounts they manage. It is absurd that regulators would not require such basic transparency as a matter of course. The current system practically lays out the welcome mat for some foreigners hiding assets from their governments, making United States one of the worlds biggest tax havens.Supporters of the current system may argue that requiring more transparency would burden financial institutions without ending money laundering and tax evasion, since determined criminals will find ways to thwart the law. But that doesnt justify doing nothing about this hole in financial regulations.Q.From the context, a shell company can be inferred to be:a)a company with hidden owners that is used to raise loans in the marketb)a company in which foreigners stash money.c)a company that exists for ulterior future financial manoeuvres.d)a company created to buy and hold the shares of other companies, which it then controls.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.The US Treasury Department recently announced that it would start demanding details of the shell companies that rich foreigners use to buy real estate in Manhattan and Miami-Dade County. This is a good step that should help law enforcement agencies crack down on money laundering, tax evasion and other crimes. The program should be broadened to cover the whole country, and must be forcefully carried out.In recent years, there have been certain sections of people that have stashed billions of dollars of wealth in the United States by buying property and other costly assets. These purchases are generally made through limited liability corporations that are not required to disclose their wealthy owners or beneficiaries. While limited liability corporations have many legitimate purposes, there is no justification for allowing owners to shield their identities even from law enforcement and regulators. The secrecy is so complete that law enforcement officials say they are often unable to identify the true owners. All efforts by lawmakers have been thwarted by lobbying from the financial and real estate industries and state governments.The department currently requires mortgage lenders to know the identities of the true owners of shell companies in transactions that involve loans. Under the new policy, the departments Financial Crimes Enforcement Network will require details of limited liability companies that buy properties without loans. However, the order applies only to Manhattan and Miami-Dade County, and will be effective for only 180 days, starting in March.The department should also adopt pending regulations that would require financial firms to know who owns the limited liability companies whose accounts they manage. It is absurd that regulators would not require such basic transparency as a matter of course. The current system practically lays out the welcome mat for some foreigners hiding assets from their governments, making United States one of the worlds biggest tax havens.Supporters of the current system may argue that requiring more transparency would burden financial institutions without ending money laundering and tax evasion, since determined criminals will find ways to thwart the law. But that doesnt justify doing nothing about this hole in financial regulations.Q.From the context, a shell company can be inferred to be:a)a company with hidden owners that is used to raise loans in the marketb)a company in which foreigners stash money.c)a company that exists for ulterior future financial manoeuvres.d)a company created to buy and hold the shares of other companies, which it then controls.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.The US Treasury Department recently announced that it would start demanding details of the shell companies that rich foreigners use to buy real estate in Manhattan and Miami-Dade County. This is a good step that should help law enforcement agencies crack down on money laundering, tax evasion and other crimes. The program should be broadened to cover the whole country, and must be forcefully carried out.In recent years, there have been certain sections of people that have stashed billions of dollars of wealth in the United States by buying property and other costly assets. These purchases are generally made through limited liability corporations that are not required to disclose their wealthy owners or beneficiaries. While limited liability corporations have many legitimate purposes, there is no justification for allowing owners to shield their identities even from law enforcement and regulators. The secrecy is so complete that law enforcement officials say they are often unable to identify the true owners. All efforts by lawmakers have been thwarted by lobbying from the financial and real estate industries and state governments.The department currently requires mortgage lenders to know the identities of the true owners of shell companies in transactions that involve loans. Under the new policy, the departments Financial Crimes Enforcement Network will require details of limited liability companies that buy properties without loans. However, the order applies only to Manhattan and Miami-Dade County, and will be effective for only 180 days, starting in March.The department should also adopt pending regulations that would require financial firms to know who owns the limited liability companies whose accounts they manage. It is absurd that regulators would not require such basic transparency as a matter of course. The current system practically lays out the welcome mat for some foreigners hiding assets from their governments, making United States one of the worlds biggest tax havens.Supporters of the current system may argue that requiring more transparency would burden financial institutions without ending money laundering and tax evasion, since determined criminals will find ways to thwart the law. But that doesnt justify doing nothing about this hole in financial regulations.Q.From the context, a shell company can be inferred to be:a)a company with hidden owners that is used to raise loans in the marketb)a company in which foreigners stash money.c)a company that exists for ulterior future financial manoeuvres.d)a company created to buy and hold the shares of other companies, which it then controls.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.The US Treasury Department recently announced that it would start demanding details of the shell companies that rich foreigners use to buy real estate in Manhattan and Miami-Dade County. This is a good step that should help law enforcement agencies crack down on money laundering, tax evasion and other crimes. The program should be broadened to cover the whole country, and must be forcefully carried out.In recent years, there have been certain sections of people that have stashed billions of dollars of wealth in the United States by buying property and other costly assets. These purchases are generally made through limited liability corporations that are not required to disclose their wealthy owners or beneficiaries. While limited liability corporations have many legitimate purposes, there is no justification for allowing owners to shield their identities even from law enforcement and regulators. The secrecy is so complete that law enforcement officials say they are often unable to identify the true owners. All efforts by lawmakers have been thwarted by lobbying from the financial and real estate industries and state governments.The department currently requires mortgage lenders to know the identities of the true owners of shell companies in transactions that involve loans. Under the new policy, the departments Financial Crimes Enforcement Network will require details of limited liability companies that buy properties without loans. However, the order applies only to Manhattan and Miami-Dade County, and will be effective for only 180 days, starting in March.The department should also adopt pending regulations that would require financial firms to know who owns the limited liability companies whose accounts they manage. It is absurd that regulators would not require such basic transparency as a matter of course. The current system practically lays out the welcome mat for some foreigners hiding assets from their governments, making United States one of the worlds biggest tax havens.Supporters of the current system may argue that requiring more transparency would burden financial institutions without ending money laundering and tax evasion, since determined criminals will find ways to thwart the law. But that doesnt justify doing nothing about this hole in financial regulations.Q.From the context, a shell company can be inferred to be:a)a company with hidden owners that is used to raise loans in the marketb)a company in which foreigners stash money.c)a company that exists for ulterior future financial manoeuvres.d)a company created to buy and hold the shares of other companies, which it then controls.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.The US Treasury Department recently announced that it would start demanding details of the shell companies that rich foreigners use to buy real estate in Manhattan and Miami-Dade County. This is a good step that should help law enforcement agencies crack down on money laundering, tax evasion and other crimes. The program should be broadened to cover the whole country, and must be forcefully carried out.In recent years, there have been certain sections of people that have stashed billions of dollars of wealth in the United States by buying property and other costly assets. These purchases are generally made through limited liability corporations that are not required to disclose their wealthy owners or beneficiaries. While limited liability corporations have many legitimate purposes, there is no justification for allowing owners to shield their identities even from law enforcement and regulators. The secrecy is so complete that law enforcement officials say they are often unable to identify the true owners. All efforts by lawmakers have been thwarted by lobbying from the financial and real estate industries and state governments.The department currently requires mortgage lenders to know the identities of the true owners of shell companies in transactions that involve loans. Under the new policy, the departments Financial Crimes Enforcement Network will require details of limited liability companies that buy properties without loans. However, the order applies only to Manhattan and Miami-Dade County, and will be effective for only 180 days, starting in March.The department should also adopt pending regulations that would require financial firms to know who owns the limited liability companies whose accounts they manage. It is absurd that regulators would not require such basic transparency as a matter of course. The current system practically lays out the welcome mat for some foreigners hiding assets from their governments, making United States one of the worlds biggest tax havens.Supporters of the current system may argue that requiring more transparency would burden financial institutions without ending money laundering and tax evasion, since determined criminals will find ways to thwart the law. But that doesnt justify doing nothing about this hole in financial regulations.Q.From the context, a shell company can be inferred to be:a)a company with hidden owners that is used to raise loans in the marketb)a company in which foreigners stash money.c)a company that exists for ulterior future financial manoeuvres.d)a company created to buy and hold the shares of other companies, which it then controls.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.The US Treasury Department recently announced that it would start demanding details of the shell companies that rich foreigners use to buy real estate in Manhattan and Miami-Dade County. This is a good step that should help law enforcement agencies crack down on money laundering, tax evasion and other crimes. The program should be broadened to cover the whole country, and must be forcefully carried out.In recent years, there have been certain sections of people that have stashed billions of dollars of wealth in the United States by buying property and other costly assets. These purchases are generally made through limited liability corporations that are not required to disclose their wealthy owners or beneficiaries. While limited liability corporations have many legitimate purposes, there is no justification for allowing owners to shield their identities even from law enforcement and regulators. The secrecy is so complete that law enforcement officials say they are often unable to identify the true owners. All efforts by lawmakers have been thwarted by lobbying from the financial and real estate industries and state governments.The department currently requires mortgage lenders to know the identities of the true owners of shell companies in transactions that involve loans. Under the new policy, the departments Financial Crimes Enforcement Network will require details of limited liability companies that buy properties without loans. However, the order applies only to Manhattan and Miami-Dade County, and will be effective for only 180 days, starting in March.The department should also adopt pending regulations that would require financial firms to know who owns the limited liability companies whose accounts they manage. It is absurd that regulators would not require such basic transparency as a matter of course. The current system practically lays out the welcome mat for some foreigners hiding assets from their governments, making United States one of the worlds biggest tax havens.Supporters of the current system may argue that requiring more transparency would burden financial institutions without ending money laundering and tax evasion, since determined criminals will find ways to thwart the law. But that doesnt justify doing nothing about this hole in financial regulations.Q.From the context, a shell company can be inferred to be:a)a company with hidden owners that is used to raise loans in the marketb)a company in which foreigners stash money.c)a company that exists for ulterior future financial manoeuvres.d)a company created to buy and hold the shares of other companies, which it then controls.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.The US Treasury Department recently announced that it would start demanding details of the shell companies that rich foreigners use to buy real estate in Manhattan and Miami-Dade County. This is a good step that should help law enforcement agencies crack down on money laundering, tax evasion and other crimes. The program should be broadened to cover the whole country, and must be forcefully carried out.In recent years, there have been certain sections of people that have stashed billions of dollars of wealth in the United States by buying property and other costly assets. These purchases are generally made through limited liability corporations that are not required to disclose their wealthy owners or beneficiaries. While limited liability corporations have many legitimate purposes, there is no justification for allowing owners to shield their identities even from law enforcement and regulators. The secrecy is so complete that law enforcement officials say they are often unable to identify the true owners. All efforts by lawmakers have been thwarted by lobbying from the financial and real estate industries and state governments.The department currently requires mortgage lenders to know the identities of the true owners of shell companies in transactions that involve loans. Under the new policy, the departments Financial Crimes Enforcement Network will require details of limited liability companies that buy properties without loans. However, the order applies only to Manhattan and Miami-Dade County, and will be effective for only 180 days, starting in March.The department should also adopt pending regulations that would require financial firms to know who owns the limited liability companies whose accounts they manage. It is absurd that regulators would not require such basic transparency as a matter of course. The current system practically lays out the welcome mat for some foreigners hiding assets from their governments, making United States one of the worlds biggest tax havens.Supporters of the current system may argue that requiring more transparency would burden financial institutions without ending money laundering and tax evasion, since determined criminals will find ways to thwart the law. But that doesnt justify doing nothing about this hole in financial regulations.Q.From the context, a shell company can be inferred to be:a)a company with hidden owners that is used to raise loans in the marketb)a company in which foreigners stash money.c)a company that exists for ulterior future financial manoeuvres.d)a company created to buy and hold the shares of other companies, which it then controls.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.The US Treasury Department recently announced that it would start demanding details of the shell companies that rich foreigners use to buy real estate in Manhattan and Miami-Dade County. This is a good step that should help law enforcement agencies crack down on money laundering, tax evasion and other crimes. The program should be broadened to cover the whole country, and must be forcefully carried out.In recent years, there have been certain sections of people that have stashed billions of dollars of wealth in the United States by buying property and other costly assets. These purchases are generally made through limited liability corporations that are not required to disclose their wealthy owners or beneficiaries. While limited liability corporations have many legitimate purposes, there is no justification for allowing owners to shield their identities even from law enforcement and regulators. The secrecy is so complete that law enforcement officials say they are often unable to identify the true owners. All efforts by lawmakers have been thwarted by lobbying from the financial and real estate industries and state governments.The department currently requires mortgage lenders to know the identities of the true owners of shell companies in transactions that involve loans. Under the new policy, the departments Financial Crimes Enforcement Network will require details of limited liability companies that buy properties without loans. However, the order applies only to Manhattan and Miami-Dade County, and will be effective for only 180 days, starting in March.The department should also adopt pending regulations that would require financial firms to know who owns the limited liability companies whose accounts they manage. It is absurd that regulators would not require such basic transparency as a matter of course. The current system practically lays out the welcome mat for some foreigners hiding assets from their governments, making United States one of the worlds biggest tax havens.Supporters of the current system may argue that requiring more transparency would burden financial institutions without ending money laundering and tax evasion, since determined criminals will find ways to thwart the law. But that doesnt justify doing nothing about this hole in financial regulations.Q.From the context, a shell company can be inferred to be:a)a company with hidden owners that is used to raise loans in the marketb)a company in which foreigners stash money.c)a company that exists for ulterior future financial manoeuvres.d)a company created to buy and hold the shares of other companies, which it then controls.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.The US Treasury Department recently announced that it would start demanding details of the shell companies that rich foreigners use to buy real estate in Manhattan and Miami-Dade County. This is a good step that should help law enforcement agencies crack down on money laundering, tax evasion and other crimes. The program should be broadened to cover the whole country, and must be forcefully carried out.In recent years, there have been certain sections of people that have stashed billions of dollars of wealth in the United States by buying property and other costly assets. These purchases are generally made through limited liability corporations that are not required to disclose their wealthy owners or beneficiaries. While limited liability corporations have many legitimate purposes, there is no justification for allowing owners to shield their identities even from law enforcement and regulators. The secrecy is so complete that law enforcement officials say they are often unable to identify the true owners. All efforts by lawmakers have been thwarted by lobbying from the financial and real estate industries and state governments.The department currently requires mortgage lenders to know the identities of the true owners of shell companies in transactions that involve loans. Under the new policy, the departments Financial Crimes Enforcement Network will require details of limited liability companies that buy properties without loans. However, the order applies only to Manhattan and Miami-Dade County, and will be effective for only 180 days, starting in March.The department should also adopt pending regulations that would require financial firms to know who owns the limited liability companies whose accounts they manage. It is absurd that regulators would not require such basic transparency as a matter of course. The current system practically lays out the welcome mat for some foreigners hiding assets from their governments, making United States one of the worlds biggest tax havens.Supporters of the current system may argue that requiring more transparency would burden financial institutions without ending money laundering and tax evasion, since determined criminals will find ways to thwart the law. But that doesnt justify doing nothing about this hole in financial regulations.Q.From the context, a shell company can be inferred to be:a)a company with hidden owners that is used to raise loans in the marketb)a company in which foreigners stash money.c)a company that exists for ulterior future financial manoeuvres.d)a company created to buy and hold the shares of other companies, which it then controls.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.The US Treasury Department recently announced that it would start demanding details of the shell companies that rich foreigners use to buy real estate in Manhattan and Miami-Dade County. This is a good step that should help law enforcement agencies crack down on money laundering, tax evasion and other crimes. The program should be broadened to cover the whole country, and must be forcefully carried out.In recent years, there have been certain sections of people that have stashed billions of dollars of wealth in the United States by buying property and other costly assets. These purchases are generally made through limited liability corporations that are not required to disclose their wealthy owners or beneficiaries. While limited liability corporations have many legitimate purposes, there is no justification for allowing owners to shield their identities even from law enforcement and regulators. The secrecy is so complete that law enforcement officials say they are often unable to identify the true owners. All efforts by lawmakers have been thwarted by lobbying from the financial and real estate industries and state governments.The department currently requires mortgage lenders to know the identities of the true owners of shell companies in transactions that involve loans. Under the new policy, the departments Financial Crimes Enforcement Network will require details of limited liability companies that buy properties without loans. However, the order applies only to Manhattan and Miami-Dade County, and will be effective for only 180 days, starting in March.The department should also adopt pending regulations that would require financial firms to know who owns the limited liability companies whose accounts they manage. It is absurd that regulators would not require such basic transparency as a matter of course. The current system practically lays out the welcome mat for some foreigners hiding assets from their governments, making United States one of the worlds biggest tax havens.Supporters of the current system may argue that requiring more transparency would burden financial institutions without ending money laundering and tax evasion, since determined criminals will find ways to thwart the law. But that doesnt justify doing nothing about this hole in financial regulations.Q.From the context, a shell company can be inferred to be:a)a company with hidden owners that is used to raise loans in the marketb)a company in which foreigners stash money.c)a company that exists for ulterior future financial manoeuvres.d)a company created to buy and hold the shares of other companies, which it then controls.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Top Courses for CAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup