With all the talk of the bank bonus tax, global financial institutions' reassessment of their commitment to London and UK politicians other than Boris Johnson queuing up to bash the City, you might question what place London will have in the financial new world order in 2010. But before you pack your skis and head to Switzerland, the changes since the London G20 Summit and the unstoppable move towards global transparency should make you think again.

As we recently discovered in negotiating the UK/Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility and in advising certain other governments and financial institutions on the exchange of information in tax matters and tax amnesties, the era of clients being able to 'hide' their money (whether for legitimate or illegitimate reasons) is over – as is the era of countries or financial institutions being willing to let them do it. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) campaign for the effective exchange of information in tax matters and the eradication of banking secrecy continues to gain impetus, with consideration of amendments to 'banking secrecy' laws in Switzerland and Austria and OECD and EU regulations under review.

The UK's most recent and last tax amnesty for individuals with undeclared tax liabilities connected to offshore assets closed on 4 January with regrettably only some 10,000 individuals choosing to disclose. A mistake that clients who received letters from banks highlighting the benefit of tax amnesties and did nothing will soon discover. The banks, too, are in an uncomfortable position. Non-compliant clients can only bring financial and reputational damage. It is far better to help a client become compliant and sell them expert financial services (which an institution can charge significant fees for) than to just provide a non-disclosed bank account.

HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has made it clear that it will use any means available to fight tax evasion and we have seen several instances where banks have been caught out when clients have been disclosed or 'highlighted' to HMRC, and the financial institutions serving them have been blissfully unaware, only to receive an unfriendly approach from HMRC later.

Financial institutions must be able to demonstrate that they have appropriate policies and training in place to ensure tax compliance both for themselves and their customers. Financial institutions operating in offshore financial centres will have to go that bit further – HMRC practice has long made it clear that in the Revenue's view, "offshore often equals evasion".

This is highlighted by measures introduced in the December 2009 Pre-Budget Report to impose higher penalties where there is offshore non-compliance and to require UK taxpayers with offshore bank accounts in certain jurisdictions to notify HMRC of those accounts. Under the new measures offshore non-compliance will be treated as equivalent to tax evasion, regardless of the state of mind of the relevant taxpayer.

The UK is not alone in seeking to maximise tax revenues and protect its tax base from non-compliance. Governments around the world are using exchange of information and tax amnesties as a cost effective way of bringing non-compliant taxpayers in from the cold – Italy is on its third amnesty in eight years.

So before departing the UK in search of friendlier territories, it may be useful to reflect that many of the advantages of offshore centres are disappearing, and that may have a significant effect on where business will be done.

Ashley Crossley is a partner and Alison Cartin a senior associate at Baker & McKenzie.