In 2016, we did not know that the strategy had been used after 2010. Today, we know. What I would have said in 2016, I have said to you today. I think I would have made the same argument then.
One thing is certain: the KPMG representatives told us that in 2003 they had learned their lesson and had stopped using this strategy. They implied that they didn't want to do that anymore. They seemed to acknowledge that they were wrong.
Either they decided to acknowledge that it was a crime, in which case criminals should be prosecuted, even 18 years later, or they just got caught red-handed. My theory is that they were caught red-handed and thought it wasn't worth it. So they decided to make amends and distance themselves from this a bit.
The answers they gave to the questions you asked them show that they have no willingness to co‑operate. The behaviour of this accounting firm is in no way indicative of a desire to co‑operate, to be fiscally transparent and to stop tax evasion. On the contrary, it sends you packing and simply tells you that it will not answer questions on the grounds of professional secrecy.
Yet the committee has every power to compel KPMG representatives to answer its questions. This professional secrecy does not protect accountants as they would have us believe.