We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Money Laundering Regulations, Police State?

Options
12467

Comments

  • dunstonh
    dunstonh Posts: 116,830 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
    Options
    Yes I suppose it’s the inevitable consequence of the “suspicion-based regime”. You cannot trust anyone else to do their job properly.

    If your job, your financial position and potential imprisonment were on the table, would you want to trust that someone else you have never met has complied with your own company compliance requirements?
    So what happens if the receiving bank’s ML retest fails? The client must then be reported and service denied. But what about the source bank? Will it be reported as well? Will the receiving bank have to block all transfers from the source bank while a real policeman investigates to see if there is a plant i.e. a money laundering accomplice in the source bank?

    That is up to the relevant crime agency and the regulator.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
  • spinbuster
    spinbuster Posts: 50 Forumite
    Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    Options
    Retesting/rechecking of bank account money for cleanliness?
    Given what must be billions of electronic inter-account transfers worldwide each year, surely checking and denying even a small proportion of these would severely impair the banking system? In my opinion, the only way that the system can work, which I believe is the current way, is to work on an exception only basis i.e. the majority of transactions are deemed in practice to be clean until shown to be dirty i.e. “innocent until proven guilty”.
    Of course this is in direct conflict with anti-money laundering (AML) legislation which requires transactions to be tested for dirtiness using an exhaustive list of ML warning signs. Banks at corporate level, however, do not need to worry about criminal sanctions only financial misconduct.
  • spinbuster
    spinbuster Posts: 50 Forumite
    Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    Options
    dunstonh wrote: »
    If your job, your financial position and potential imprisonment were on the table, would you want to trust that someone else you have never met has complied with your own company compliance requirements?

    This is a significant point.
    Is it a crime to be unaware or insufficiently suspicious that someone with whom you are doing business is committing a crime and consequently face a prison sentence of up to 5 years? Does the same principle apply to a real policeman/woman? e.g. if they are unaware or insufficiently suspicious that someone they have questioned is committing a crime and do not report it?
  • BillJones
    BillJones Posts: 2,187 Forumite
    Options
    spinbuster wrote: »
    This is a significant point.
    Is it a crime to be unaware or insufficiently suspicious that someone with whom you are doing business is committing a crime and consequently face a prison sentence of up to 5 years? Does the same principle apply to a real policeman/woman? e.g. if they are unaware or insufficiently suspicious that someone they have questioned is committing a crime and do not report it?

    You really do need to understand your subject before getting on your high-horse about it. You should have answered these questions before you started your little crusade, not after.

    Yes, it is a crime to miss evidence of money laundering, if a reasonable person could have been expected to have spotted it.

    Despite what you may believe, financial laws in the UK are very strict, and the penalties are draconian.
  • Totton
    Totton Posts: 981 Forumite
    Options
    Tiglath wrote: »
    The NCA (National Crime Agency) - replaced SOCA last October.

    SAR's become readable by a host of agencies/investigators
  • robatwork
    robatwork Posts: 7,131 Forumite
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    Your erratic font usage is counting against you.
  • bigadaj
    bigadaj Posts: 11,531 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    BillJones wrote: »
    You really do need to understand your subject before getting on your high-horse about it. You should have answered these questions before you started your little crusade, not after.

    Yes, it is a crime to miss evidence of money laundering, if a reasonable person could have been expected to have spotted it.

    Despite what you may believe, financial laws in the UK are very strict, and the penalties are draconian.

    How many examples of the use of these draconian penalties are there?
  • grey_gym_sock
    grey_gym_sock Posts: 4,508 Forumite
    Options
    bigadaj wrote: »
    How many examples of the use of these draconian penalties are there?

    i guess not many ... here is 1, from 2006 - http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/45316.article - a solicitor jailed for making insufficient money laundering checks, for a conveyancing job for which he only received his usual £399 fee ... but solicitors are not stupid, and surely just this case will be enough to make most of them (and some other professions) incredibly careful about this.
  • bigadaj
    bigadaj Posts: 11,531 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    i guess not many ... here is 1, from 2006 - http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/45316.article - a solicitor jailed for making insufficient money laundering checks, for a conveyancing job for which he only received his usual £399 fee ... but solicitors are not stupid, and surely just this case will be enough to make most of them (and some other professions) incredibly careful about this.

    Fair enough. My point was more about the inability of the sfo or similar bodies to be able to progress cases of financial fraud rather than money laundering cases per se. I suppose the lack of checks makes this an easy crime to progress to prosecution with rather than complicated cases like fixing libor.
  • BillJones
    BillJones Posts: 2,187 Forumite
    Options
    bigadaj wrote: »
    How many examples of the use of these draconian penalties are there?

    I don't monitor the numbers, I just make damned sure that I'm not among them. We all do, with repeated training in the area.

    If you want an example, though, look at HSBC.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 12 Election 2024: The MSE Leaders' Debate
  • 344.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 450.1K Spending & Discounts
  • 236.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 609.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.6K Life & Family
  • 248.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards