Solicitor asking for proof of funds

poultrum

We were recently gifted part of our deposit from grandparents, they only had to show 6 months of banks statements, and it did`nt show the money even going into there accounts, we were asked initially how the money was earned and were asked for pay slips ,but when i mentioned to our solicitor neither had worked for 20+ years they did`nt mind at all  . But that was 15k and for our money 6 months savings showed a steady increase in money . If OP is only earning say 30K a year to have 69k in savings ,if the statements don`t show regular savings its going to ring alarm bells . 

Maybe when the OP was moving cash from several accounts its put a mark against them. nationwide staff used to have to inform police, if people were bringing in large sums of cash but i don`t know if anything was done or it was just put on a system somewhere. 

Mickey666

moneysavinghero said:

Mickey666 said:

I wonder if the OP’s income would support a larger mortgage than they actually need?  If so, another possibility might be to borrow an extra, say, £80k and only put up a more ‘reasonable’ deposit that might not attract so much attention.  Then, when the deal is all done and dusted, just use their £80k cash to make a lump sum payment to reduce their mortgage, which won’t attract the attention of their solicitor.

Which just demonstrates how useless the anti-laundering checks are. All they do is inconvenience genuine purchasers. The organised money launderers will always find ways round it and carry on laundering their money with ease.

Quite probably, but then laws are really only for the law-abiding anyway.

Sistergold

Mickey666 said:

I wonder if the OP’s income would support a larger mortgage than they actually need?  If so, another possibility might be to borrow an extra, say, £80k and only put up a more ‘reasonable’ deposit that might not attract so much attention.  Then, when the deal is all done and dusted, just use their £80k cash to make a lump sum payment to reduce their mortgage, which won’t attract the attention of their solicitor.

This will be a very good way to go! 

Scotbot

moneysavinghero said:

Mickey666 said:

I wonder if the OP’s income would support a larger mortgage than they actually need?  If so, another possibility might be to borrow an extra, say, £80k and only put up a more ‘reasonable’ deposit that might not attract so much attention.  Then, when the deal is all done and dusted, just use their £80k cash to make a lump sum payment to reduce their mortgage, which won’t attract the attention of their solicitor.

Which just demonstrates how useless the anti-laundering checks are. All they do is inconvenience genuine purchasers. The organised money launderers will always find ways round it and carry on laundering their money with ease.

I was a cash buyer and used a letter from an overseas solicitor confirming a house sale as proof of funds. Totally legit but it would have be pretty easy to fake.

AskAsk

davidmcn said:

AskAsk said:

Tiglet2 said:

I am wondering if there is more to this than has been disclosed.
OP, do you work in this country and have a national insurance number?  Just wondering if your name is similar to the name of a Politically Exposed Person and has therefore thrown up a query on your ID and the source of funds.  Apologies if I am completely wrong - just thinking out of the box.

i dont think it is a plot for a movie, lol.  105k cash is a lot of money for anyone to have, and if the OP is young and doesn't earn a lot of money, then the solicitors will need to be satisfied this money is legit.  it is expected that he would get interogated.  even 50k could start enquiries.

I would say though it's unusual for solicitors to be asking questions about money which has been sitting in the clients' account for that long. Most money-laundering schemes are relatively fast-moving - if money has been in your account for months, it's almost certainly yours. You need to draw the line somewhere, otherwise you'd be trying to trace the source of funds back to the invention of money.

It's not clear that the OP has simply said to their solicitor "sorry, I don't have that evidence, what do you want instead?" - I get the impression they've come straight here and started fretting about it.

i don't think it is unusual for a solicitor to ask for proof irrespective of the time the money has been in the account.  one thing that HMRC wants to find is people doing tax evasion or making money from proceeds of crime.  so if someone comes into the lime light, which they would do when they try to buy a property with cash, or a large amount of cash is used for the purchase, then the solicitors is obliged to make enquiries.

if it is savings and the OP doesn't earn much to explain where that savings come from, then this will flag up a potential problem.  the solicitors are obliged to look out for fraud, tax evasion and crime as well as money laundering.  i have no doubt they are obliged to alert HMRC as well if they believe there are suspicious activities that are brought to their attention.

AskAsk

Tiglet2 said:

AskAsk said:

Tiglet2 said:

I am wondering if there is more to this than has been disclosed.
OP, do you work in this country and have a national insurance number?  Just wondering if your name is similar to the name of a Politically Exposed Person and has therefore thrown up a query on your ID and the source of funds.  Apologies if I am completely wrong - just thinking out of the box.

i dont think it is a plot for a movie, lol.  105k cash is a lot of money for anyone to have, and if the OP is young and doesn't earn a lot of money, then the solicitors will need to be satisfied this money is legit.  it is expected that he would get interogated.  even 50k could start enquiries.

Why are you laughing?  It is an aspect of money laundering and ID checks that solicitors have to do and is a serious matter.  I'm not suggesting that the OP's ID has suggested this at all, but the wider checks that his solicitor is asking for suggests that they need further information regarding the source of funds.  Either that or the OP has brought attention to himself by not complying with their requests or is panicking unnecessarily.  OP's other thread suggests he is trying to tell the seller's solicitor how to do his job and wants to complain to the ombudsman that replies are taking too long to answer.

i am laughing at the comment that the OP is being investigated because he may have a name associated with a 'politically exposed person'!  that is bringing us into the realm of a movie plot.

solicitors should do rigorous checks on the source of the money and in this case the amount of money that the OP has probably does not tie in with his income, which would suggest to the solicitors that it is not legit and that the OP did not accrue it through standard means.  they therefore want to see evidence of where it came from and until they are satisfied with the answers, they will not allow the process to complete.

i think the OP will find it the same with other solicitors as they all need to do their due dilligence and something is obviously worrying them, which will worry the next solicitor if the OP uses someone else.

AskAsk

Scotbot said:

moneysavinghero said:

Mickey666 said:

I wonder if the OP’s income would support a larger mortgage than they actually need?  If so, another possibility might be to borrow an extra, say, £80k and only put up a more ‘reasonable’ deposit that might not attract so much attention.  Then, when the deal is all done and dusted, just use their £80k cash to make a lump sum payment to reduce their mortgage, which won’t attract the attention of their solicitor.

Which just demonstrates how useless the anti-laundering checks are. All they do is inconvenience genuine purchasers. The organised money launderers will always find ways round it and carry on laundering their money with ease.

I was a cash buyer and used a letter from an overseas solicitor confirming a house sale as proof of funds. Totally legit but it would have be pretty easy to fake.

it is easy to fake foreign documents, but the solicitors have covered themselves if they are questioned by HMRC as to what due dilligence have they carried out.  they are not expected to investigate overseas fraud, but they can show that they have been given the documentation and that means that they are off the hook.

i would be interested to know if they shop people to HMRC, so if they see a large overseas transaction, whether they report them to HMRC to investigate for other activities.

davidmcn

AskAsk said:

Scotbot said:

moneysavinghero said:

Mickey666 said:

I wonder if the OP’s income would support a larger mortgage than they actually need?  If so, another possibility might be to borrow an extra, say, £80k and only put up a more ‘reasonable’ deposit that might not attract so much attention.  Then, when the deal is all done and dusted, just use their £80k cash to make a lump sum payment to reduce their mortgage, which won’t attract the attention of their solicitor.

Which just demonstrates how useless the anti-laundering checks are. All they do is inconvenience genuine purchasers. The organised money launderers will always find ways round it and carry on laundering their money with ease.

I was a cash buyer and used a letter from an overseas solicitor confirming a house sale as proof of funds. Totally legit but it would have be pretty easy to fake.

it is easy to fake foreign documents, but the solicitors have covered themselves if they are questioned by HMRC as to what due dilligence have they carried out.  they are not expected to investigate overseas fraud, but they can show that they have been given the documentation and that means that they are off the hook.

i would be interested to know if they shop people to HMRC, so if they see a large overseas transaction, whether they report them to HMRC to investigate for other activities.

No, they don't, because there's no obligation on solicitors to do so. We generally have no idea about our clients' tax affairs, and aren't going to around accusing them of tax evasion just because they happen to have a lot of money.

If there is suspicion about money-laundering, the report goes to the National Crime Agency.

Exodi

I'm not sure why people are vilifying the solicitor for quering this - I'd expect most solicitors would.

You have someone who finished university 5 years ago (likely putting them in their early 20's) with over £69,000 in their current account. Most peoples life savings wouldn't get close to that figure.

If the 8 months or so of bank statements shows that the OP is able to save £200 a month or something, then the solicitor is undoubtedly going to be questioning how someone who has been working for 5 years has accrued £69,000 - the maths wouldn't work, there would obviously be other sources.

AskAsk

davidmcn said:

AskAsk said:

Scotbot said:

moneysavinghero said:

Mickey666 said:

I wonder if the OP’s income would support a larger mortgage than they actually need?  If so, another possibility might be to borrow an extra, say, £80k and only put up a more ‘reasonable’ deposit that might not attract so much attention.  Then, when the deal is all done and dusted, just use their £80k cash to make a lump sum payment to reduce their mortgage, which won’t attract the attention of their solicitor.

Which just demonstrates how useless the anti-laundering checks are. All they do is inconvenience genuine purchasers. The organised money launderers will always find ways round it and carry on laundering their money with ease.

I was a cash buyer and used a letter from an overseas solicitor confirming a house sale as proof of funds. Totally legit but it would have be pretty easy to fake.

it is easy to fake foreign documents, but the solicitors have covered themselves if they are questioned by HMRC as to what due dilligence have they carried out.  they are not expected to investigate overseas fraud, but they can show that they have been given the documentation and that means that they are off the hook.

i would be interested to know if they shop people to HMRC, so if they see a large overseas transaction, whether they report them to HMRC to investigate for other activities.

No, they don't, because there's no obligation on solicitors to do so. We generally have no idea about our clients' tax affairs, and aren't going to around accusing them of tax evasion just because they happen to have a lot of money.

If there is suspicion about money-laundering, the report goes to the National Crime Agency.

so they do shop them, all be it to the National Crime Agency. 

when i was working, we had to shop clients to the fraud body through our internal channels if we found suspicious financial activities and if we didn't there would be financially penalty levied as well as criminal proceedings.