I think this is just conjecture on your part. The concept of jurisdiction would preclude any of these statements.
Man, I'm not inventing anything, just
read about the subject, and you'll see it yourself. Since when does the USG care about the concept of jurisdiction BTW?
Can you substantiate any of this or show me the provisions?
More? Okay, let's try.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance_Acthttps://www.internationalman.com/78-global-perspectives/1009-fatca-a-tool-of-the-electronic-surveillance-statehttp://www.repealfatca.com/https://www.internationalman.com/78-global-perspectives/995-the-worst-law-most-americans-have-never-heard-ofhttp://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Corporations/Foreign-Account-Tax-Compliance-Act-%28FATCA%29It requires foreign financial institutions, such as banks, to enter into an agreement with the IRS to identify their U.S. account holders and to disclose the account holders' names, TINs, addresses, and the accounts' balances, receipts, and withdrawals.[12] U.S. payors making payments to non-compliant foreign financial institutions are required to withhold 30% of the gross payments.[13][14][15] Foreign financial institutions which are themselves the beneficial owners of such payments are not permitted a credit or refund on withheld taxes absent a treaty override.[16]