Possibly because EK is not Dubai and it is not actually all one entity - in short, the information being demanded of EK is not actually EKs to disclose?

Of course, for the curious, it would be nice to see it, but we don't demand it of all the other companies in the world that have related parties and subsidiaries - we take them at their word that they are being honest, even though they might be from similarly dodgy jurisdictions than Dubai.

What do I mean by dodgy? Well a poster did link to Transparency International's latest 2014 Corruption Perceptions Index, which is quite a credible NGO, which places the UAE at 25/174 countries. with a score of 70 - which is just about in the middle of the EU average and with similar scores to the US and Austria (low 70s) or France (69), or Spain (60). Germany is up at 78.

It's good to see compliance finally catching up with companies - after all, some activities have been illegal since the 70s or even earlier in the 1910s.

But once again it just shows that the jurisdiction's compliance laws are really no deterrent to behaviour, so we can't base insinuating arguments against a company because of a perception of corruption (justified or not) in its corporate base. Where is the evidence that it is "business as usual" to commit fraud in Dubai?

Also to reiterate, the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" argument is simply weak (and debunked endlessly when used in privacy/surveillance debate).

It opens EK up to all sorts of guilt-by-association fallacies and once again shows the unreasonable and unfair demands put on EK compared to others (why don't other companies publish all of this information as a matter of course and their bank statements, commercial contracts etc.)

I don't think I need to requote Richelieu's position that he can find something in the statements of even the most honest to "hang them".