Should I declare this before exchange?

RockPaperScissors

NewBe wrote: »

To be honest, I am sure I can come up with multiple tales of how the money came from legitimate sources, but the fact remains I had a large sum of cash at home, which I decided to bank.

This sounds pretty dodgy to me..

Why would you need to "come up with multiple tales" - lies shouldn't be necessary if the money is legit?

That being said, sometimes paranoia can get the better of us all.

GeekDom

AKA..NewBE

holly_hobby

The bank may not question/ML alarm triggered, if the capital was deposited in several small sums over an extended period.

The OP has also confirmed he drip fed the 12k into his account, in small individual 2/3k sums, over a prolonged period of apx 8 weeks.

With regards to how far the Solicitor may go back in respect of the deposit and ML regs, he can go back as far as he wants in order to satisfy ML regs, with a duty to report any irregularities.

I have to agree that the coming up with stories (to reason an acceptable source of cash), but still not divulging the real source, either to us here (where assistance has been asked) or the Solicitor, with what seems to be deliberately staggered deposits, etc, is certainly starting to tinker the bell !

As we all know, ML regs are in place to stop the laundering of money from illegal or illicit sources into legitimate ones ...... if your 12k deposit and their source, are totally above board then you have nothing to worry about in disclosing, if requested, where it originated.

For example if I sell a car on ebay for 5k cash, deposit 1k a week over 5 weeks, although its cash I've deposited myself, if reqd I COULD actually prove where the 5k orginiated. So, you can see what I am personally puzzled why a source of cash can absolutely not be truthfully proven (as it appears), IF from legitimate sources.

Now of course the Sol may not pick up on this/go too deep, but we're answering the question the OP posed, on how to explain 12k going into an account, where they are unable to divulge/prove its legitimate source.

Anyhoo, hope this helps ....

Holly

neverdespairgirl

holly_hobby wrote: »

For example if I sell a car on ebay for 5k cash, deposit 1k a week over 5 weeks, although its cash I've deposited myself, if reqd I COULD actually prove where the 5k orginiated. So, you can see what I am personally puzzled why a source of cash can absolutely not be truthfully proven (as it appears), IF from legitimate sources.

From what the OP says, he is from one of the various Asian communities who keep a lot of liquid cash floating about for a long time, perhaps lending it to / borrowing it from friends and family, transferring abroad or into the UK via less formal institutions, etc.

I've had several Asian clients (the ones I've dealt with have mostly been of Pakistani origin) who run their lives mostly on cash, and bank accounts are an add-on, rather than the foundation, of their financial arrangements.

It doesn't mean it's iffy money, but it can cause a lot of trouble. In my clients' cases, because I do some criminal law, it's tended to be criminal trouble to explain it.

So it is quite possible to have large sums of cash which have been washing around the house, friends and family, without easily-accessible receipts or slips, but which is quite kosher.

Trouble is, that banks, the police, HMRC and solicitors in the UK don't like it.

holly_hobby

Yes of course ...

Indeed any SE peeps/set ups, whom are paid largely in cash (market traders, taxis, take aways, etc .. ), are notorious for not giving receipts nor regular banking - but then it is generally accepted that a large portion of their income may be from cash sources (ie not bank deposits/cheque/debit/credit card transactions etc - which all provide a clear audit trail). By the same token, they holding large amounts of cash would not be unusual for their profession - and from a mge point of veiw it would be their declared HMRC income that would the basis of finance in any event.

However, this is all about ML regs.

Here we have an employed person, whom admits that if asked, is unable to prove or divulge the true source of the 12k deposit - which is the issue to hand. Not that he has it (and its a birthday gift from Uncle Bob, or personal loans he's made and had recd back, etc - as thats all proveable), its about the fact HE says he can't prove its source .... and that neither he, nor anyone else, can substantiate its legitimacy - that will be the issue re satisfying ML regs the Solicitor may raise.

Anyhoo, be interesting how this pans out .. and if the Solicitor jumps on it (which they may not do if not already challenged).

Holly x

GeekDom

AKA..NewBE

JimmyTheWig

NewBe wrote: »

Hi all, just wanting some advice

GeekDom wrote: »

I think he/she means...

GeekDom wrote: »

As I said in the start...

I understand that you can't explain where all this cash came from.
But can you explain where all these user IDs came from?

holly_hobby

Yep .... if your Sol has requested statements which you've provided, and concluded his ML checks without issue, then you'll be ok.

Whilst I would have something ready if questioned, I personally wouldn't actively raise the issue - you've provided the 6 mths statements he requested,he's happy with them .... job done.

Hope this helps

Holly x

GeekDom

AKA..NewBE

holly_hobby

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I understand that you can't explain where all this cash came from.
But can you explain where all these user IDs came from?

Well spotted Jimbo .... posting supporting comments on your own thread, in disguise, you gotta love it !!

I'll have to have a go at that .... !

Holly xx