Disclosures show how havens such as British Virgin Islands hide links between big business and relatives of top politicians 
 
 The eight members of China’s Communist party elite whose family members used offshore companies are revealed in the Panama Papers. 
 
 The documents show the granddaughter of a powerful Chinese leader became the sole shareholder in two British Virgin Islands companies while still a teenager. Jasmine Li had just begun studying at Stanford University in the US when the companies were registered in her name in December 2010. Her grandfather Jia Qinglin was at that time the fourth-ranked politician in China. 
 
 Other prominent figures who have taken advantage of offshore companies include the brother-in-law of the president, Xi Jinping, and the son-in-law of Zhang Gaoli, another member of China’s top political body, the politburo standing committee. 
 
 
 
 Facebook Twitter Pinterest Jasmine Li (centre) at the Crillon debutante ball for Vanity Fair magazine in Paris, France. Photograph: Jonathan Becker/Contour by Getty Images 
 
 They are part of the “red nobility”, whose influence extends well beyond politics. Others include the daughter of Li Peng, who oversaw the brutal retaliation against Tiananmen Square protesters; and Gu Kailai, wife of Bo Xilai, the ex-politburo member jailed for life for corruption and power abuses. 
 
 The French villa at the heart of a Chinese scandal Read more 
 
 The relatives had companies that were clients of the offshore law firm Mossack Fonseca. There is nothing in the documents to suggest that the politicians in question had any beneficial interest in the companies connected to their family members. 
 
 
 
 Since Monday, China’s censors have been blocking access to the unfolding revelations about its most senior political families. There are now reports of censors deleting hundreds of posts on the social networks Sina Weibo and Wechat, and some media organisations including CNN say parts of their websites have been blocked. 
 
 
 
 The disclosures come amid Xi Jinping’s crackdown on behaviour that could embarrass the Communist party. 
 
 Two more well-connected figures – the brother of former vice-president Zeng Qinghong and the son of former politburo member Tian Jiyun – are directors of a single offshore company. They have previously been linked in a court case that highlighted how some Chinese “princelings” have used political connections for financial gain. 
 
 Facebook Twitter Pinterest Jia Qinglin is Jasmine Li’s grandfather. Photograph: Scott Barbour/Getty Images 
 
 They have emerged from the internal data of the offshore law firm Mossack Fonseca, obtained by the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and shared by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) in Washington with the Guardian, the BBC and other media. 
 
 China and Hong Kong were Mossack Fonseca’s biggest sources of business, with clients from these jurisdictions linked to a total of 40,000 companies past and present. About a quarter of these are thought to be live: in 2015, records show the firm was collecting fees for nearly 10,000 companies linked to Hong Kong and China. The Mossack Fonseca franchise now has offices in eight Chinese cities, according to its website. 
 
 There are many legitimate reasons to use offshore companies. Individuals living in multiple jurisdictions find them convenient, and in China they are often used as a way to attract and safeguard investment from overseas. While there is no indication of any wrongdoing, the leaks draw unwelcome attention to the wealth of leaders’ families. In some cases, they show how secrecy havens are being used to create and hide potentially lucrative connections between big business and politics in the world’s second-largest economy. 
 
 Even as officials advertise their zeal in targeting corruption by hunting assets overseas and checking on the relatives of officials, they remain highly sensitive to the disclosure of the business interests of top leaders’ families. 
 
 In 2014, the websites of the Guardian and several other media outlets were blocked for several months after revealing such offshore holdings. Xi’s brother-in-law Deng Jiagui and Li’s daughter Li Xiaolin were named in those leaks, too. The new documents therefore indicate multiple offshore holdings. 
 
 Facebook Twitter Pinterest Tian Jiyun is a former politburo member whose son is linked to an offshore company. Photograph: Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images 
 
 Xi’s harsh anti-corruption drive has brought down a host of high-ranking figures. In December, he urged politburo members “to strictly educate and supervise their children and other family members as well as subordinates, and to rectify their problems in a timely manner”. He urged members of the 25-strong body to not only have integrity but “stay away from vulgar taste and set good examples for other cadres and the general public”. In other words, avoiding wrongdoing is not enough, impressions count, too. 
 
 A world of hidden wealth: why we are shining a light offshore Read more 
 
 Xi’s daughter, Xi Mingze, studied at Harvard but kept a low profile, living under an assumed name. In contrast, Jasmine Li came to public attention when Vogue featured her in a floor-length Carolina Herrera gown at the Hotel de Crillon’s annual debutante ball in Paris in 2009. She was presented alongside Lady Kitty Spencer, niece of Diana, Princess of Wales, and the daughter of Clint Eastwood. 
 
 The following year, shortly after beginning a course in international relations at Stanford, she was recorded as the sole shareholder of two entities registered in the British Virgin Islands, Harvest Sun Trading Limited and Xin Sheng Investments Limited. These companies established at least two businesses in Beijing, with a combined registered capital of £200,000, described on the register as specialising in “investment and consulting”. 
 
 The leaked data reveals Harvest Sun was incorporated in July 2009 and that its first shareholder was someone apparently unconnected to Li: a 57-year-old Hong Kong entrepreneur known as the King of Watches. 
 
 Cheung Yu Ping’s firm, Hengdeli, is valued at $470m on the Hong Kong stock exchange and is one of the world’s biggest sellers of Swiss watches by volume. It supplies pieces by Cartier and TAG Heuer to China’s new rich. 
 
 Facebook Twitter Pinterest Li Peng, the father of Li Xiaolin. Photograph: Sportsphoto/Allstar 
 
 In December 2010, Cheung passed his shares in Harvest Sun to Li for just $1. A lawyer for Cheung said the company had contained no assets at the time of transfer. He explained: “Our client had no relationship with Ms Li, who was introduced to our client by some business partners for taking up the company without the need to set up another shell company herself. Our client considered the consideration of the transfer reasonable as the company was only a shell company with no assets inside.” 
 
 Li did not respond to requests for comment. 
 
 Politically exposed persons – or PEPs, public officials, their families and known associates – are considered high risk clients by those providing offshore services. Mossack Fonseca said: “We have duly established policies and procedures to identify and handle those cases where individuals either qualify as PEPs or are related to them … Enhanced due diligence procedures apply in these cases.” 
 
 The president’s brother-in-law 
 
 Facebook Twitter Pinterest Xi Jinping attends a meeting with foreign experts at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. Photograph: Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images 
 
 Xi Jinping’s brother-in-law Deng Jiagui was a shareholder in two BVI companies, Wealth Ming International and Best Effect Enterprises. 
 
 Deng appeared on the shareholder registers of both companies in September 2009. They both existed for roughly 18 months before being closed in April 2011 and October 2010 respectively. 
 
 The previous leak of offshore documents revealed Deng owned a 50% stake in the BVI-incorporated Excellence Effort Property Development. Ownership of the remainder of the company has been traced back to two Chinese property tycoons. 
 
 Deng is married to Xi’s older sister, and together they built a fortune through investments in property and natural resources. In 2012, they were reported to hold stakes in companies with total assets of $376m, and an indirect 18% share in a minerals company worth $2bn. Since Xi became president, they have pulled out of many of their investments. 
 
 Thanks to his close connection to the centre of Chinese power, Deng qualifies as a PEP. Banks, registered agents and professionals such as lawyers are obliged to carry out detailed checks on the source of funds when managing money for politicians, public officials, their families and close associates. 
 
 Deng was the named shareholder and had given the firm his Hong Kong identity papers. But Mossack Fonseca’s files did not list him as a PEP, raising questions about whether detailed checks were made on what his offshore vehicles were used for. Deng did not respond to requests for comment. 
 
 The power queen 
 
 Facebook Twitter Pinterest Li Xiaolin in March 2011 in Beijing. Photograph: Feng Li/Getty Images 
 
 Former premier Li Peng is known by his detractors as the “butcher of Beijing” for his part in the bloody crackdown on the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. In 1994, a BVI company called Cofic Investments Limited, ultimately owned by his daughter Li Xiaolin, was incorporated. 
 
 Her fortune has been estimated at $550m, and she has made a name as China’s “power queen” after a career spent running electricity-generating businesses. She is vice-president of state-owned power group China Datang Corporation. 
 
 Li is noted in China for conspicuous consumption – her appearance in a pink Pucci trouser suit at the annual meeting of a top government advisory body prompted a widely shared social media post that suggested the 12,000 yuan (£1,300) price tag was equivalent to warm clothes for 200 poor children. 
 
 All mention of Panama Papers banned from Chinese websites Read more 
 
 Previous ICIJ investigations have linked her to two other BVI companies, and to Swiss bank accounts. Li and her husband, Liu Zhiyuan, were revealed as the beneficiaries of five bank accounts that together held as much as $2.48m in 2006-07. 
 
 Li’s identity became known to Mossack Fonseca when BVI regulators asked for information about Cofic in 2015, and inquiries were made with the Geneva law firm that represented it. Cofic’s directors at this time were two partners in the firm, Charles-André Junod and Alain Bruno Lévy. Its shareholder, however, was a secretive Liechtenstein entity called Fondation Silo, whose beneficial owners were named by Junod as Li and her husband. 
 
 When asked about his clients, Junod sent their passports to Mossack Fonseca with the following explanation: “Regarding the source of funds, it is business profits: my clients have provided, through Cofic, services to other clients of my office who were exporting heavy industrial equipment from Europe to China.” 
 
 Cofic held a Swiss bank account at UBS and another with the asset manager Mirelis InvesTrust, the files show. Junod said: “In our activity, we have always been acting in full compliance with laws and regulations governing our profession.” 
 
 Li did not respond to requests for comment. 
 
 The Hong Kong lobbyists 
 
 Facebook Twitter Pinterest Zeng Qinghong, whose younger brother has been linked to tax havens. Photograph: Reuters/CORBIS 
 
 Zeng Qinghong was China’s vice-president until 2008. His younger brother, Zeng Qinghuai, is well known in Hong Kong, having worked there as an envoy for the ministry of culture. He was a consultant to Beginning of the Great Revival, a state-produced propaganda movie which, according to the New York Times, “exemplified the hand-in-glove relationship between business and politics”. Government offices and schools were ordered to buy tickets and any criticism was censored. State support ensured it was one of 2011’s top grossing films. 
 
 The Panama Papers reveal that Zeng Qinghuai is a director of a company called Chinese Cultural Exchange Association Ltd, registered first in the tiny South Pacific island of Niue, then in Samoa. He sits on the board alongside another princeling, Tian Chenggang, son of the former vice-premier and politburo member Tian Jiyun. 
 
 A 2012 court case, in which Tian Chenggang unsuccessfully sued a developer called Beijing Henderson Properties, shed new light on the business dealings of the red nobility. The court in Hong Kong heard that Tian and a company linked to Zeng had been separately engaged to lobby regulators on behalf of Henderson when it was under investigation for breaching foreign exchange regulations in 2006. An exchange of letters disclosed in court suggested Tian’s father had written to the regulators to plead leniency. In the event, the fine imposed was smaller than expected. 
 
 Companies linked to Zeng received fees of $2.1m and $650,000. Henderson rejected Tian’s demand for $5.5m, so Tian sued for the money but lost. The judge’s summing up said of him: “He tried to project an air of superiority … His attitude was contemptuous and disrespectful.” 
 
 Zeng and Tian did not respond to requests for comment. 
 
 
 
 The others 
 
 Facebook Twitter Pinterest Zhang Gaoli is one of China’s seven most powerful politicians. Photograph: How Hwee Young/EPA 
 
 Also in the data are Hu Dehua, the businessman son of Hu Yaobang, the Communist party’s general secretary ousted in 1987 because he was seen as too liberal – and, some sympathisers say, for his attempts to root out corruption among leaders’ families. Hu has interests in technology and energy, and is registered as sole shareholder of a BVI entity called Fortalent International Holdings. Hu did not respond to requests for comment. 
 
 The Hong Kong businessman Lee Shing Put is married to the adoptive daughter of Zhang Gaoli, who is China’s senior vice-premier. As a member of the politburo standing committee, he is one of the seven most powerful politicians in China. 
 
 
 
 His son-in-law Lee worked for Xinyi, a glass, plastics and solar power manufacturer founded by Lee’s father, but resigned in 2008, according to the company. He is listed as a shareholder in Sino Reliance Networks Corporation, now closed, Glory Top Investments and Zennon Capital Management. 
 
 At the time of his father-in-law’s elevation to the politburo, Lee, who did not respond to requests for comment, was a director of 17 Hong Kong companies, the South China Morning Post reported. 
 
 Panama Papers reporting team: Juliette Garside, Luke Harding, Holly Watt, David Pegg, Helena Bengtsson, Simon Bowers, Owen Gibson and Nick Hopkins ||||| Understanding this may help resolve the cognitive dissonance that arises from reading about the Panama Papers against the insistence by Mossack Fonseca that their hands are clean. When the firm writes that “we have a strong compliance record” and “we are responsible members of the global financial and business community,” they are not lying through their teeth, as some might suspect. Keeping clients out of legal trouble is a core element of their business model: that is how they earn their money. If they, or firms like them, were to lose their reputations for keeping clients on the right side of the law, the clients would take their business elsewhere. 
 
 Some of the activity uncovered in the Panama Papers will turn out to be illegal. But if past is prologue, then the majority of what we learn from the leak will merely be embarrassing for those exposed—showing them to be opportunistic and perhaps unethical, but not criminal. And that is why many of the people named in the documents are unlikely to see the inside of a courtroom concerning the services that Mossack Fonseca provided to them: not because they have the power now to quash prosecutions (with some notable exceptions!), but because some time ago they had the power to hire expert advisers who carefully designed their tax-avoidance (or law-avoidance) strategies. 
 
 This kind of expertise is expensive, and can run into hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, depending on which laws one wants to avoid. But paying for secrecy is typically worth it: If it weren’t for leaks like the Panama Papers, most people would have no idea that so much law avoidance is possible, let alone legally permitted. Many governments know about it, and as the Panama Papers reveal, many public officials take advantage of the benefits these firms provide. 
 
 That is one reason so many of their names appear in the leak: 140 politicians and officials from more than 50 countries. While some of those countries are known to have problems with fraud and crime by individuals in government, others are not. Iceland, France, Chile, and Botswana—all of which have officials listed as clients of Mossack Fonseca—are ranked highly on anti-corruption indexes such as the one from Transparency International. Use of offshore services by officials from those countries is unlikely to be connected to illegal activity, although it may well become a political liability for them. 
 
 That is how things shaped up for Icelandic Prime Minister Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson, who resigned following revelations that he was once part-owner of an offshore company incorporated with the help of Mossack Fonseca. Although the firm has been wholly owned by his wife since 2009, it stands to reap millions from the deal Gunnlaugsson negotiated for claimants on Iceland’s bankrupt financial institutions. Although reports show “no evidence to suggest tax avoidance, evasion, or any dishonest financial gain on the part of Gunnlaugsson,” his mere association with Mossack Fonseca and an offshore firm was enough to cost him his job, and possibly his career. ||||| The provocative revelations coming out of the so-called Panama Papers are just a glimpse into the murky global network that's keeping "absolutely astonishing" amounts of money out of public coffers. 
 
 The 11.5 million files taken from Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca show how the financial elite exploit a secretive system to manoeuvre wealth anonymously and ensure the taxman doesn't take his cut. 
 
 The firm is "the world's fourth biggest provider of offshore services," according to the Guardian, with about $42 million in yearly revenue. The documents contain information about more than 214,000 shell companies, trusts and foundations — usually used to hold or transfer financial assets while obfuscating the identity of their real owner — that were registered with the firm. 
 
 "That gives a sense of the tremendous scope of this in terms of the flows of money into these largely mysterious companies, and this is only one firm," says Nicholas Shaxson, an investigative journalist and author of Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men who Stole the World. 
 
 It's difficult to delineate what constitutes a tax haven but it's generally agreed that, depending on the criteria, there are between 70 and 92 of them worldwide. And there's an estimated two million shell companies registered with offshore firms in these states. 
 
 (CBC) 
 
 "For a long time, people thought of tax havens as an exotic sideshow of the world economy. Now it's clear they are absolutely central to it. We're talking about absolutely astonishing, mind-boggling amounts of money," Shaxson says. 
 
 Estimates of how much wealth is currently stashed offshore vary considerably, a reflection of the opacity of an industry that some economists contend has grown exponentially in recent decades. 
 
 Gabriel Zucman, author of The Hidden Wealth of Nations and a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, puts the figure at least $7.6 trillion. 
 
 But the Tax Justice Network, an international research and advocacy organization, says the number is far greater. The group estimates that as of 2010, there was between $21 and $32 trillion kept in offshore holdings. That would represent between eight and 13 per cent of total global wealth. 
 
 Resource drain 
 
 Perhaps most troubling, according to one economist, is that somewhere in the ballpark of $1 trillion is illegally funneled out of developing nations each year into mysterious shell companies. 
 
 It's a system that bolsters kleptocracy and corruption, says Matt Salomon, chief economist with Global Financial Integrity. 
 
 "It's a real resource drain in countries where the money is needed most. At the same time, wealthier nations are standing by as this is happening, insisting that they support development in these places," he says. 
 
 "It's possible that the $1-trillion figure only represents a drop in the bucket since the data is so murky." 
 
 Many of the dealings facilitated by offshore firms are entirely legal and are encouraged by major financial institutions the world over. Canada's biggest lender, RBC, was named in the Panama Papers, having used Mossack Fonseca to set up at least 370 shell companies for clients. 
 
 It's estimated that about $1 trillion is funnelled out of developing countries each year. Money generated from major natural resource extraction projects, for example, can be siphoned off and hidden in offshore accounts. (Thierry Gouegnon/Reuters) 
 
 There's a searing public anger over a system that so blatantly favours the wealthy and operates with near impunity, says Shaxson. It's putting pressure on governments to finally crack down on tax dodgers that cost countries billions each year. 
 
 Canada alone loses between $6 and $7.8 billion annually to offshore tax havens, according to a report in the Toronto Star. In response, the federal government dedicated $440 million over four years in the 2016 budget to probe tax evasion and what the Canada Revenue Agency called "aggressive tax avoidance." 
 
 Even before the Panama Papers prompted public outrage though, more than 100 countries since 2014 had committed to increasing transparency around the financial holdings of foreign customers. 
 
 The U.S. is among the countries resisting these changes. States like Delaware, Nevada and South Dakota allow for levels of anonymity and secrecy that "rival any of the countries we usually think of as tax havens," says James Henry, former chief economist at the consulting firm McKinsey. 
 
 'The level of anger is higher than ever' 
 
 "It's insufficient to just say 'offshore tax havens' because the industry has expanded so aggressively to countries around the globe," adds Henry, now a fellow at Columbia and Yale. 
 
 Despite big promises from governments, real reform will not come easily. Tax havens and all the perks that come with them "are the projects of some of the world's wealthiest people," says Shaxson. 
 
 'People are beginning to realize how extensive the offshore system is, and there is a rapidly rising public anger over that,' says Nicholas Shaxson. Protesters in Iceland called for the resignation of the country's prime minister after the Panama Papers revealed he had offshore accounts that he allegedly never disclosed. (Stigtryggur Johannsson/Reuters) 
 
 There's a lot of money to be made by interests with considerable political clout, Henry notes, and the very nature of the business makes it difficult for so-called crackdowns to be effective. Financial institutions rarely face any significant consequences, and past investigations have ended up completely toothless. 
 
 "Look, for decades, governments have known about this, law enforcement have known about this and the response has been pretty pathetic. I think the reasons for that are pretty clear at this point," Henry says. 
 
 "But the level of anger is higher than ever, and it will probably only intensify as more stories come out of the leak." ||||| Image copyright AFP Image caption President Juan Carlos Varela is determined to ensure Panama's reputation is not besmirched by the scandal 
 
 Panama is creating an international panel to help improve transparency in its offshore financial industry. 
 
 The move follows the leak of millions of documents from law firm Mossack Fonseca, showing it helped some clients evade tax and avoid sanctions. 
 
 Several countries are probing possible financial crimes by the rich and powerful in the aftermath of the leak. 
 
 President Juan Carlos Varela said Panama would work with other countries over the revelations. 
 
 "The Panamanian government, via our foreign ministry, will create an independent commission of domestic and international experts," he said in a televised address. 
 
 Image copyright Reuters Image caption The leaks from Mossack Fonseca's offices in Panama have created a worldwide media storm 
 
 The panel, he said, would examine working practices and propose measures that could be shared to strengthen the transparency of the financial and legal systems. 
 
 Correspondents say the president is eager to defend his country against a "media attack" by wealthy countries that he says are unfairly stigmatising him following the leak. 
 
 Are you in Panama? What is your reaction to the Panama Papers scandal? Send us your views and reaction. Email haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk 
 
 Mossack Fonseca, for its part, says that it has been the victim of a hack. 
 
 Mossack Fonseca partner Ramon Fonseca insisted the leak was not an "inside job" - the company had been hacked by servers based abroad. 
 
 It has now filed a complaint with the Panamanian attorney general's office. 
 
 Mr Fonseca served as a minister in the government of current President Juan Carlos Varela but stepped aside earlier this year after separate allegations linked the firm to the corruption scandal engulfing the Brazilian state oil company Petrobras. 
 
 Mossack Fonseca's Brazilian arm was accused of helping several of those accused in the Petrobras case of opening offshore companies in Panama in order to launder money through property transactions. 
 
 Mr Fonseca said he had stepped aside "to defend my honour and my firm" and denies any wrongdoing on the part of his firm in the Petrobras case. 
 
 Mr Varela has been quoted in Panamanian media as saying that he is still in touch with Mr Fonseca, calling him a "friend". 
 
 "At difficult times friends do not run away, they are there," Mr Varela said. 
 
 Mossack Fonseca has accused media organisations reporting the leak of having "unauthorised access to proprietary documents and information taken from our company" and of presenting this information out of context. 
 
 Image copyright Reuters Image caption Mossack Fonseca says it has never been charged with any wrong-doing 
 
 Image copyright Reuters Image caption Mr Fonseca said the "only crime" that had been committed was the hack of his firm's servers 
 
 The revelations have already sparked political reaction in several countries where high-profile figures have been implicated. 
 
 On Tuesday Iceland's Prime Minister Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson stepped down after the documents showed he owned an offshore company with his wife but had not declared it when he entered parliament. 
 
 The ruling coalition has named Sigurdur Ingi Johannsson as the new prime minister, with early elections to be held in the autumn. 
 
 Mr Gunnlaugsson says he sold his shares to his wife and denies any wrongdoing. 
 
 More on the Panama Papers 
 
 Panama Papers - tax havens of the rich and powerful exposed 
 
 Eleven million documents held by the Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca have been passed to German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung, which then shared them with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. BBC Panorama and UK newspaper The Guardian are among 107 media organisations in 76 countries which have been analysing the documents. The BBC does not know the identity of the source 
 
 They show how the company has helped clients launder money, dodge sanctions and evade tax 
 
 Mossack Fonseca says it has operated beyond reproach for 40 years and never been accused or charged with criminal wrongdoing 
 
 Tricks of the trade: How assets are hidden and taxes evaded 
 
 Panama Papers: Full coverage; follow reaction on Twitter using #PanamaPapers; in the BBC News app, follow the tag "Panama Papers" 
 
 Watch Panorama on the BBC iPlayer (UK viewers only) 
 
 Are you in Panama? What is your reaction to the Panama Papers scandal? Send us your views and reaction. Email haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk. 
 
 Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a BBC journalist. You can also contact us in the following ways: ||||| A man holds a banner which reads,"Panama Leaks, People Racketeer Enough"during a gathering on the Place de la Republique in Paris, France, Wednesday, April 6, 2016. A few hundred protesters have been... (Associated Press) 
 
 A man holds a banner which reads,"Panama Leaks, People Racketeer Enough"during a gathering on the Place de la Republique in Paris, France, Wednesday, April 6, 2016. A few hundred protesters have been camping out, holding night-time demonstrations since last week at a symbolic rallying point on the Place... (Associated Press) 
 
 BERLIN (AP) — The German newspaper that first obtained the so-called Panama Papers, a vast trove of documents on offshore companies, said Thursday that it won't publish all the files, arguing that not all are of public interest. 
 
 Sueddeutsche Zeitung received the documents from an unidentified source more than a year ago and shared at least parts of them with dozens of other media outlets around the world. Since the first reports were published Sunday, prominent politicians, celebrities and businesspeople have had their offshore business dealings dragged into the spotlight, prompting a flurry of public outrage, official investigations and fierce denials from some of those named. 
 
 Sueddeutsche Zeitung said the complete set of 11.5 million documents "won't be made available to the public or to law enforcement agencies. That's because the SZ isn't the extended arm of prosecutors or the tax investigators." 
 
 Authorities have legal powers to obtain such documents from those suspected of wrongdoing, and in many cases there's no public interest in revealing companies' or individuals' offshore business dealings, the Munich-based paper said. 
 
 The documents relate to Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca, which helps create shell companies for the world's rich and famous. The firm said it has filed a criminal complaint alleging that the data was stolen in a hacking attack. 
 
 Sueddeutsche Zeitung said it didn't know how the anonymous source obtained the data, but that he or she had expressed "a very strong moral impulse" and wanted to make "these crimes public." 
 
 Panama's government on Wednesday accused wealthy nations of unfairly attacking the Central American country while ignoring their own failings. 
 
 President Juan Carlos Varela said an international committee of experts would be created to recommend ways to boost transparency in the Central American country's offshore financial industry. Experts say that while offshore companies can be used for tax evasion and money laundering, there are also legitimate and legal grounds for creating them. 
 
 German lawmakers said Thursday they plan to hold an urgent debate on the offshore leaks next week. 
 
 "The revelations in the Panama Papers have triggered a broad discussion among politicians and the public about necessary consequences," said Christine Lambrecht, a lawmaker for the Social Democratic Party that is part of Chancellor Angela Merkel's governing coalition. 
 
 Responding to readers' queries about the absence of prominent German or American politicians in the reports, Sueddeutsche Zeitung said such names haven't yet been found in the documents. 
 
 It said the documents include copies of the passports of 200 Americans, and about 3,500 shareholders in offshore companies listed addresses in the United States. 
 
 "One possible reason why comparatively few Americans appear in the documents could be that U.S. citizens have no reason to contact a law firm in Panama," the paper said. "That's because offshore companies can easily be created in U.S. states such as Wyoming, Delaware or Nevada."
– The newspaper that first received the Panama Papers says it isn't going to release all 11.5 million files it received from a whistleblower to the public or to law enforcement—because it "isn't the extended arm of prosecutors or the tax investigators." Sueddeutsche Zeitung has shared files relating to celebrities and politicians, but the German paper doesn't believe there's public interest in exposing all of the individuals and companies involved, the AP reports. The paper says it was contacted by a source at Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca who felt a "very strong moral impulse" to expose the tax evasion and money laundering the firm facilitated with its creation of thousands of offshore shell companies. In other coverage: Panama's President Juan Carlos Varela, apparently unhappy with his country's name appearing in headlines about financial crimes all over the world, has promised to boost transparency and clean up the industry, the BBC reports. He says the country will bring in international experts to recommend changes. The Guardian looks at how the scandal has exposed China's "red nobility"—wealthy families connected to the Communist Party. Prominent figures named in the papers include the brother-in-law of President Xi Jinping. Unsurprisingly, the scandal is not being reported in China, and censors have been trying to scrub every mention of it from social media. The CBC looks at how the wealth revealed in the leak is just a fraction of what an analyst calls "absolutely astonishing, mind-boggling amounts of money" tied up in offshore funds. Estimates run as high as $31 trillion, or 13% of global wealth, much of which is being kept in offshore funds to cheat governments out of tax revenue—or to hide the plunder of national resources. The New York Times looks at the history of the Mossack Fonseca firm and its role in Panama's economy. Co-founder Ramon Fonseca had been trying to expand his role in the country's government, claiming he wanted to improve the nation's human rights record. At the Atlantic, Brooke Harrington examines the legal issues involved and concludes that the real scandal isn't the law-breaking—it's that so much of what Mossack Fonseca did was perfectly legal.