Wages!!

opinions4u

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Biggles why do you think this is right? - what you are referring to is to put it bluntly money laundering and you could be investigated by the authorities or your account closed if found out.

If money laundering is suspected, it will be investigated. But I can't see for a second that this is money laundering (defined below), so any investigation will close fairly quickly.

"taking any action with property of any form which is either wholly or in part the proceeds of a crime that will disguise the fact that that property is the proceeds of a crime or obscure the beneficial ownership of said property."

It's not illegal to earn a wage and give it to your partner. And it's not illegal for a partner to then give the proceeds of that wage back to you.

There must be a reason why OP wants this - probably credit problems stopping him opening an account - but of course basic accounts are available to all bar bankrupts and fraud cases.

I would agree that a basic bank account or card based savings account may be a more appropriate solution for the situation originally posted.

Tailuna, while I'm sure your other half could give your account details and say the account is in his name, no problem, please could you clarify why he couldn't open his own account somewhere.

never-in-doubt

opinions4u wrote: »

Tailuna, while I'm sure your other half could give your account details and say the account is in his name, no problem. Please could you clarify why he couldn't open his own account somewhere though.

Say for instance one party is hiding (from either debt or whatever) then this would be done to avoid leaving any link.

Scenario: I am debt free, meet a bird and she owes thousands. I don't want to be burdoned with her debt so we move away and decide to ignore the debt 'it'll go away'.....

Obviously the moment the new g/f applies for credit this old debt will haunt her, so she sits dormant for say 4 years and then slowly comes back into the marker by applying for the odd account. Obviously no link to old address, as been at new one for 4yrs which satisfies the lenders criteria for previous address declaration.

Bottom line, it's usually a method of debt avoidance - not implying this to the OP - but that's how I see it.

omen666

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

I take it then that Barclays would take no action against a customer if this was found to be happening?
How would Barclays accurately internally score a customer for their products (eg loans or cards) when the money going into that account is not theirs?

What action could they take? How would they know? and you dont say anything to substantiate your comments on Money Laundeing above?

Fvcking hate it when clueless peeps post something they know nothing about.

opinions4u

omen666 wrote: »

What action could they take? How would they know? and you dont say anything to substantiate your comments on Money Laundeing above?

Fvcking hate it when clueless peeps post something they know nothing about.

jonesMUFCforever isn't clueless. Other posts he/she has made make complete sense and I'd suggest the post in question here came from an uneasiness about why such an arrangement would be necessary.

never-in-doubt

opinions4u wrote: »

jonesMUFCforever isn't clueless. Other posts he/she has made make complete sense and I'd suggest the post in question here came from an uneasiness about why such an arrangement would be necessary.

Omen has a habit of speaking like that to other users......

You're wasting your time! However, I agree, jonesMUFCforever Has very valid points - maybe blunt but that's what makes him stand out! On that note, wonder how he'll be feeling with the news that the 'crock' Owen is now a Red Devil? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

omen666

opinions4u wrote: »

jonesMUFCforever isn't clueless. Other posts he/she has made make complete sense and I'd suggest the post in question here came from an uneasiness about why such an arrangement would be necessary.

I said post, not the plural. There is also no uneasiness of why such an arrangement would be necessary.

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Omen has a habit of speaking like that to other users......

You're wasting your time! However, I agree, jonesMUFCforever Has very valid points - maybe blunt but that's what makes him stand out! On that note, wonder how he'll be feeling with the news that the 'crock' Owen is now a Red Devil? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

No I do not have a habit of speaking like that to other users. Just get fvcked off when others make statements that they cannot back up or substantiate..

I cannot see any valid points here, it is pretty standard practice by many people and nothing wrong with it, either ethically nor against FSA/Banking code of conduct rules.

Money Laundering is highlighted to the authorities ina number of ways as dictated by the policies and procedures, this is not one of them.

never-in-doubt

omen666 wrote: »

I said post, not the plural. There is also no uneasiness of why such an arrangement would be necessary.

No I do not have a habit of speaking like that to other users. Just get fvcked off when others make statements that they cannot back up or substantiate..

I cannot see any valid points here, it is pretty standard practice by many people and nothing wrong with it, either ethically nor against FSA/Banking code of conduct rules.

Money Laundering is highlighted to the authorities ina number of ways as dictated by the policies and procedures, this is not one of them.

Ok, fair points but come on - we know its not directly AML - it is too easily traceable, namely right back to the HR dept! So yea, deffo wouldn't affect AML that we know.

My wife gets her wage paid into my HSBC account in fact...... never been asked anything about it or quizzed by staff or anyone....

Extant

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

I take it then that Barclays would take no action against a customer if this was found to be happening?

No, we would not. Many of our customers do this, as I'm sure you'd find with any bank.

How would Barclays accurately internally score a customer for their products (eg loans or cards) when the money going into that account is not theirs?

It is theirs once it's in the account. The person sending the money has no signing rights on the account, they can't access it. The only way this could be disputed was through the sending bank/company.

omen666

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Ok, fair points but come on - we know its not directly AML - it is too easily traceable, namely right back to the HR dept! So yea, deffo wouldn't affect AML that we know.

My wife gets her wage paid into my HSBC account in fact...... never been asked anything about it or quizzed by staff or anyone....

Same as, had my sisters paid in when her ex boyfriend had mentally conditioned her over some time and had full control over her account even after he left. Was the only way at the time to get it diverted until she was in a position with a new account. Some HR departments do frown at it and say they will not allow it, if you give them your name and someone elses sort code/acc no then it will get paid into that account anyway.

I work in IT as network Analyst and get paid offshore, when I ask agencies they will not pay it offshore, I now use a umbrella company based in Dubai that have a registered office and now get it paid offshore that way, somewhat similar

peachyprice

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

I take it then that Barclays would take no action against a customer if this was found to be happening?

Correct, I used my OH's Barclays account for 2 years before we changed it to a joint account, paying my salary in and my own DD's out.