Darker cells mean a higher score for this topic on that metric.
LessMore
Last reviewed Sources & creditsMedia creditsMethodology
Quick answers
What are the Panama Papers?
A 2016 journalistic publication of 11.5 million files from the Panamanian firm Mossack Fonseca, coordinated by ICIJ and more than a hundred outlets after Süddeutsche Zeitung received the cache from a source called John Doe. Stories began on 3 April 2016.
Was every name in the files a criminal?
No. Many offshore companies are legal. The leak showed who used Mossack Fonseca's services. Some later faced tax or corruption cases; many did not. Appearance in the files is not, by itself, a conviction.
Who is John Doe?
The still-anonymous source who delivered the files to Süddeutsche Zeitung. A later manifesto argued that inequality justified the leak. ICIJ has not publicly identified the person. Mystery in this atlas is about that identity, not about whether the files existed.
Which leaders fell?
Iceland's Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson resigned in April 2016. Pakistan's Nawaz Sharif was disqualified by the Supreme Court in 2017 in a case that grew from the leak. Other countries saw ministers questioned or audits opened without a uniform result.
What happened to Mossack Fonseca?
The firm announced it would shut down in 2018 after the reputational and legal shock. Founders denied criminality. Closure of a firm is not the same as a single global judgment against every client.
Did the leak change the law?
It sped beneficial-ownership and tax-transparency projects already underway at the EU and OECD. National statutes vary. LegalImpact in this atlas is high because registers and inquiries moved, not because one treaty was named 'Panama'.
There are two investigations: a journalistic consortium before 3 April 2016, and state inquiries after.
Neither is a manual for hiding money. Both are after-the-fact readings of a leaked archive.
Agencies
- Süddeutsche Zeitung + ICIJ partners — Received the cache, built the shared archive and published under embargo on 3 April 2016.
- National tax authorities — Opened audits and some criminal tax files after names appeared; results varied by country.
- Pakistan Supreme Court / NAB — The sharpest large-democracy court track, ending in Sharif's 2017 disqualification.
- Panamanian and European prosecutors — Examined the firm and some intermediaries; no single world verdict followed.
What followed
- Receive and secure the cache
Süddeutsche authenticated a sample and decided the store was too large and too global for one newsroom.
- Build a consortium
ICIJ invited partners, set an embargo and let local desks read local names against public records.
- Publish on one clock
3 April 2016 put governments in the position of responding to the same facts on the same morning.
- Open national files
Tax agencies and prosecutors decided, country by country, whether a name was a lead or a legal structure.
- Litigate the hardest cases
Pakistan's court track and assorted European files produced the mixed dock. Many names never entered a courtroom.
- Watch the firm close
Mossack Fonseca's 2018 shutdown ended a corporate chapter without ending every client inquiry.
Turning points
- Choosing a consortium — A shared archive made the leak a world story instead of a German exclusive.
- Iceland's resignation week — A prime minister's fall proved the files could move a government, not only a Sunday paper.
- Sharif's disqualification — A Supreme Court result showed that some aftershocks would be judicial, not only journalistic.
After the fact, reporters mapped a firm and states picked at the map. The world did not sit as one jury.
Public-record encyclopedia. Not legal advice. Not a how-to. Graphic detail is withheld. Wars belong in a separate atlas.