Foreign criminals driving up UK house prices.

chewmylegoff

kabayiri wrote: »

C4 despatches did a show on this topic a few weeks back
They had a dubious pretend Russian government official and his trophy girlfriend
Despite him freely admitting his dodgy money source to the sales guy a blind eye was turned in every single case
These sales intermediaries are bound by the regulations. They should all have filled a SAR , but hey ho , commission was on the line

I didn't see the programme, but how do you know that a SAR was not filed by the agent. It is a criminal offence for someone who has filed a SAR to disclose the fact that they have filed a SAR to a third party including a TV production company...

antrobus

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I didn't see the programme, but how do you know that a SAR was not filed by the agent. It is a criminal offence for someone who has filed a SAR to disclose the fact that they have filed a SAR to a third party including a TV production company...

Exactly.

Not to mention the fact that, of course, that AML checks are only needed on buyers that make an offer, and therefore actually might buy the property. After all, it's not as if it was unheard of for people to arrange viewings on properties that they have no intention of buying.

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

Exactly.

Not to mention the fact that, of course, that AML checks are only needed on buyers that make an offer, and therefore actually might buy the property. After all, it's not as if it was unheard of for people to arrange viewings on properties that they have no intention of buying.

Perhaps the law has changed but when I was in the UK if you came under the AML rules and suspected someone of attempting to launder money then a failure to report was a crime.

That wasn't in Estate Agency and was the best part of a decade ago so mightn't apply in this instance.

I would think that viewing a house and knowing that any purchase would be paid for with stolen money would be grounds to suspect that someone was attempting to launder money.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

Perhaps the law has changed but when I was in the UK if you came under the AML rules and suspected someone of attempting to launder money then a failure to report was a crime.

That wasn't in Estate Agency and was the best part of a decade ago so mightn't apply in this instance...

“Had a formal offer to purchase the property been made, the company’s anti-money laundering checks and procedures would have followed.”

Or

“Whilst all our vendors are subjected to money laundering checks prior to marketing, we do not conduct any due diligence on our buyers until there is a reasonable chance of a transaction. In this instance no formal offer was made so there was no requirement for our process to begin.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/07/london-estate-agents-caught-on-camera-russian-buyer

Indeed, one of EAs featured in the programme went so far as to note;

“Our agent who attended the single viewing informed us that he strongly believed it to be a hoax. We recorded the viewing on our AML log, despite not having any ID information for the fake buyer, and requested that an offer was made through solicitors registered in England and Wales. No offer was made and therefore no transaction was in prospect. We therefore acted entirely appropriately and in accordance with AML regulations and our own internal procedures.”

Generali wrote: »

...I would think that viewing a house and knowing that any purchase would be paid for with stolen money would be grounds to suspect that someone was attempting to launder money.

I think the point is that there would have to be a purchase in prospect. EAs are quite used to time-waters who make a hobby of trundling around houses just to satisfy their curiousity about current trends in interior design. It's only when prospective buyers are actually going to put some money on the table that it becomes necessary to run AML checks.

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

“Had a formal offer to purchase the property been made, the company’s anti-money laundering checks and procedures would have followed.”

Or

“Whilst all our vendors are subjected to money laundering checks prior to marketing, we do not conduct any due diligence on our buyers until there is a reasonable chance of a transaction. In this instance no formal offer was made so there was no requirement for our process to begin.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/07/london-estate-agents-caught-on-camera-russian-buyer

Indeed, one of EAs featured in the programme went so far as to note;

“Our agent who attended the single viewing informed us that he strongly believed it to be a hoax. We recorded the viewing on our AML log, despite not having any ID information for the fake buyer, and requested that an offer was made through solicitors registered in England and Wales. No offer was made and therefore no transaction was in prospect. We therefore acted entirely appropriately and in accordance with AML regulations and our own internal procedures.”



I think the point is that there would have to be a purchase in prospect. EAs are quite used to time-waters who make a hobby of trundling around houses just to satisfy their curiousity about current trends in interior design. It's only when prospective buyers are actually going to put some money on the table that it becomes necessary to run AML checks.

Yup. There are two different things here:

1. Reporting someone that you think might be trying to launder money
2. Running AML checks on your customers.

If you suspect someone is trying to launder money then, AIUI, you must report them or face up to 14 years in Sing Sing and/or an unlimited fine. It doesn't matter if the person is a customer or not.