The following excerpts are taken from Offshore Crackdown Kicks Off With 30% Penalties for Banks: Taxes:

The Internal Revenue Service is about to get an unprecedented look at bank accounts and investments U.S. citizens hold abroad, through a law that is making it harder to hide assets from the tax collector.

 

[. . .]

 

What led to the 2010 Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or Fatca, was the inability of federal tax authorities to obtain clear information about financial accounts that U.S. citizens have outside the country. That’s especially important for the U.S., because unlike many other countries, it taxes citizens on their worldwide income regardless of where they actually live.

 

[. . .]

 

Even without Fatca in place, the U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG to glean information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

 

Prosecutors have charged more than 70 U.S. taxpayers and three dozen bankers, lawyers and advisers in their crackdown on offshore tax evasion. Those charged include H. Ty Warner, the billionaire creator of Beanie Babies plush toys; Igor Olenicoff, a billionaire real estate developer; and Brad Birkenfeld, a former UBS AG banker who blew the whistle on the bank.

1. . . .the U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG to concealing information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

2. . . .the U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG to for concealing information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

3. . . .the U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG not to conceal information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

4. . . .the U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG to provide information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

The above four examples show different ways I modified the original sentence. I am wondering if these modifications are valid and convey a meaning similar to the original sentence.

To put it another way, I changed the original sentence in such a way that Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG could act as the subject of conceal/provide information. Do these examples grammatically and semantically serve my purpose?

The following excerpts are taken from Offshore Crackdown Kicks Off With 30% Penalties for Banks: Taxes:

The Internal Revenue Service is about to get an unprecedented look at bank accounts and investments U.S. citizens hold abroad, through a law that is making it harder to hide assets from the tax collector.

[. . .]

What led to the 2010 Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or Fatca, was the inability of federal tax authorities to obtain clear information about financial accounts that U.S. citizens have outside the country. That’s especially important for the U.S., because unlike many other countries, it taxes citizens on their worldwide income regardless of where they actually live.

[. . .]

Even without Fatca in place, the U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG to glean information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

Prosecutors have charged more than 70 U.S. taxpayers and three dozen bankers, lawyers and advisers in their crackdown on offshore tax evasion. Those charged include H. Ty Warner, the billionaire creator of Beanie Babies plush toys; Igor Olenicoff, a billionaire real estate developer; and Brad Birkenfeld, a former UBS AG banker who blew the whistle on the bank.

1. . . .the U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG to concealing information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

2. . . .the U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG to for concealing information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

3. . . .the U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG not to conceal information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

4. . . .the U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG to provide information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

The above four examples show different ways I modified the original sentence. I am wondering if these modifications are valid and convey a meaning similar to the original sentence.

To put it another way, I changed the original sentence in such a way that Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG could act as the subject of conceal/provide information. Do these examples grammatically and semantically serve my purpose?

The following excerpts are taken from Offshore Crackdown Kicks Off With 30% Penalties for Banks: Taxes:

The Internal Revenue Service is about to get an unprecedented look at bank accounts and investments U.S. citizens hold abroad, through a law that is making it harder to hide assets from the tax collector.

What led to the 2010 Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or Fatca, was the inability of federal tax authorities to obtain clear information about financial accounts that U.S. citizens have outside the country. That’s especially important for the U.S., because unlike many other countries, it taxes citizens on their worldwide income regardless of where they actually live.

Even without Fatca in place, the U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG to glean information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

Prosecutors have charged more than 70 U.S. taxpayers and three dozen bankers, lawyers and advisers in their crackdown on offshore tax evasion. Those charged include H. Ty Warner, the billionaire creator of Beanie Babies plush toys; Igor Olenicoff, a billionaire real estate developer; and Brad Birkenfeld, a former UBS AG banker who blew the whistle on the bank.

#1. The U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG concealing information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

#2. The U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG for concealing information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

#3. The U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG not to conceal information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

#4. The U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG to provide information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

The above four examples show different ways I modified the original sentence. I was wondering if these modification was valid and conveyed a meaning similar to the original one.

To put it another way, I changed the original one in such a way that Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG could act as the subject of conceal/provide information. Do these examples grammatically and semantically serve my purpose?

The following excerpts are taken from Offshore Crackdown Kicks Off With 30% Penalties for Banks: Taxes:

The Internal Revenue Service is about to get an unprecedented look at bank accounts and investments U.S. citizens hold abroad, through a law that is making it harder to hide assets from the tax collector.

[. . .]

What led to the 2010 Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or Fatca, was the inability of federal tax authorities to obtain clear information about financial accounts that U.S. citizens have outside the country. That’s especially important for the U.S., because unlike many other countries, it taxes citizens on their worldwide income regardless of where they actually live.

[. . .]

Even without Fatca in place, the U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG to glean information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

Prosecutors have charged more than 70 U.S. taxpayers and three dozen bankers, lawyers and advisers in their crackdown on offshore tax evasion. Those charged include H. Ty Warner, the billionaire creator of Beanie Babies plush toys; Igor Olenicoff, a billionaire real estate developer; and Brad Birkenfeld, a former UBS AG banker who blew the whistle on the bank.

1. . . .the U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG to concealing information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

2. . . .the U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG to for concealing information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

3. . . .the U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG not to conceal information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

4. . . .the U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG to provide information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

The above four examples show different ways I modified the original sentence. I am wondering if these modifications are valid and convey a meaning similar to the original sentence.

To put it another way, I changed the original sentence in such a way that Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG could act as the subject of conceal/provide information. Do these examples grammatically and semantically serve my purpose?

The following excerpts are taken from Offshore Crackdown Kicks Off With 30% Penalties for Banks: Taxes:

The Internal Revenue Service is about to get an unprecedented look at bank accounts and investments U.S. citizens hold abroad, through a law that is making it harder to hide assets from the tax collector.

What led to the 2010 Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or Fatca, was the inability of federal tax authorities to obtain clear information about financial accounts that U.S. citizens have outside the country. That’s especially important for the U.S., because unlike many other countries, it taxes citizens on their worldwide income regardless of where they actually live.

Even without Fatca in place, the U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG to glean information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

Prosecutors have charged more than 70 U.S. taxpayers and three dozen bankers, lawyers and advisers in their crackdown on offshore tax evasion. Those charged include H. Ty Warner, the billionaire creator of Beanie Babies plush toys; Igor Olenicoff, a billionaire real estate developer; and Brad Birkenfeld, a former UBS AG banker who blew the whistle on the bank.

#1. The U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG concealing information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

#2. The U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG for concealing information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

#3. The U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG not to conceal information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

#4. The U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG to provide information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

The above four examples show different ways I modified the original sentence. I was wondering if these modification was valid and conveyed a meaning similar to the original one.

To put it another way, I changed the original one in such a way that Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG could act as the subject of conceal/provide information. Are these examples grammatically and semantically valid?

The following excerpts are taken from Offshore Crackdown Kicks Off With 30% Penalties for Banks: Taxes:

The Internal Revenue Service is about to get an unprecedented look at bank accounts and investments U.S. citizens hold abroad, through a law that is making it harder to hide assets from the tax collector.

What led to the 2010 Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or Fatca, was the inability of federal tax authorities to obtain clear information about financial accounts that U.S. citizens have outside the country. That’s especially important for the U.S., because unlike many other countries, it taxes citizens on their worldwide income regardless of where they actually live.

Even without Fatca in place, the U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG to glean information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

Prosecutors have charged more than 70 U.S. taxpayers and three dozen bankers, lawyers and advisers in their crackdown on offshore tax evasion. Those charged include H. Ty Warner, the billionaire creator of Beanie Babies plush toys; Igor Olenicoff, a billionaire real estate developer; and Brad Birkenfeld, a former UBS AG banker who blew the whistle on the bank.

#1. The U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG concealing information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

#2. The U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG for concealing information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

#3. The U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG not to conceal information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

#4. The U.S. has used prosecutions against Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG to provide information on Americans hiding overseas accounts.

The above four examples show different ways I modified the original sentence. I was wondering if these modification was valid and conveyed a meaning similar to the original one.

To put it another way, I changed the original one in such a way that Credit Suisse AG and UBS AG could act as the subject of conceal/provide information. Do these examples grammatically and semantically serve my purpose?