A/HRC/31/61 individual financial institutions received specific declared penalties and assessments for a host of infractions, the most widespread of which was helping wealthy clients and corporations engage in tax fraud. Moreover, it was found that a small handful of banks were responsible for a majority of those infractions: looking at the top 14 kinds of infractions, the top 22 banks were penalized a combined 655 times and the top 10 offenders account for more than half of these. 49 55. The study calculated that the banks had paid a combined $11 billion in fines for facilitating tax evasion. However, those penalties, and those for other financial crimes, were only a modest share of their total assets. Moreover, of the cases reviewed, in only one — a tax evasion case — did a major bank ever plead guilty to a corporate felony. Even so, the bank in question did not have its license revoked; indeed, the plea deal was arranged so that this would not happen. There is furthermore a sense of impunity in relation to the conduct of senior bankers with respect to the financial crimes of their institutions. 56. Financial institutions that facilitate tax evasion and transnational corporations that employ aggressive tax planning strategies must recognize that their actions may have negative human rights impacts. They can demonstrate respect for human rights through appropriate policies and due diligence procedures, through country-by-country reporting, including publishing information about the taxes they pay to each country in which they operate. Similarly, the professionals that make up the tax planning industry, such as lawyers, accountants, bankers and wealth managers, must take responsibility for their contributions to the harms caused by tax abuse. 57. While businesses have human rights responsibilities and must follow domestic law, States have the duty to ensure that businesses operating in their territory do not abuse human rights. According to the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, States (a) must protect against human rights abuse within their territory and/or jurisdiction by third parties, including business enterprises; this requires taking appropriate steps to prevent, investigate, punish and redress such abuse through effective policies, legislation, regulations and adjudication; and (b) should set out clearly the expectation that all business enterprises domiciled in their territory and/or jurisdiction respect human rights throughout their operations. A similar obligation can be found in principles 24 and 27 of the Maastricht Principles. 58. These requirements are relevant for addressing tax evasion facilitated by financial institutions and tax avoidance by transnational corporations. Governments must ensure that such organizations cease to be involved in those activities, which are detrimental to the full realization of human rights. Imposing sanctions and penalties on businesses for tax abuse might thus also form part to ensure human rights compliance. Furthermore, human rights impacts related to corporate tax abuse should also be considered in national action plans on business and human rights. V. Recent international initiatives to curb illicit financial flows 59. In his interim study, the Independent Expert reviews a number of international initiatives to curb illicit financial flows. The Independent Expert wishes to draw attention here to a number of recent developments, updating the information contained in the interim study. 49 See Henry, “Let’s tax anonymous wealth!” (footnote 8). 15