How Long Back do you have to provide evidence for the Money Laundering Checks?

SiliconChip

I hope this doesn't turn out to be a rerun of this 21 page thread!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6636113/proof-of-funds-old-savings-is-pof-a-system-that-martin-needs-to-look-at/p1

grumpy_codger

GixerKate said:

...

Is this right or are the solicitors being a bit over-zealous?

It depends on the solicitor's degree of paranoia. 
Recently, when buying a new house (small mortgage, 20% LTV, 80% cash) and choosing a solicitor, my first question was how deep in the past they normally want to do the checks. And I selected the one that said 3 (6?) months. This was after my bad experience in the past when one solicitor wanted 3 years.
I also believe that even a very small mortgage makes your life easier. Are your parents too old for applying for a small mortgage?

user1977

mills112 said:

they always have to check the original source of the funds, irrespective on how long ago it was.  as it is inherited money, you need to prove that it was inherited.

So like I said, they'd also need to check where gran got her money from, wouldn't they? And so on...

Albermarle

I made a gift to a family member buying a house, and part of the gift was from Premium Bonds.
The solicitor was happy with proof that the funds had been in my PB account for the last couple of years.
They never asked where the money originally came from.
Plus it is worth saying that they were very competent conveyancers.

mills112

user1977 said:

mills112 said:

they always have to check the original source of the funds, irrespective on how long ago it was.  as it is inherited money, you need to prove that it was inherited.

So like I said, they'd also need to check where gran got her money from, wouldn't they? And so on...

i don't think so, as long as they can check its last source, that is the gran's estate, that will suffice as it wouldn't be easy to get access to a deceased person's details but the distribution of the assets should still be stored somewhere, especially if it is significant, which it sounds to be as it is going to be used to buy a property for cash with.

the solicitors will need to satisfy the regulators that they did what they thought was sufficient to prove where the funds come from and as the claim is that they came from inheritance, that inheritance needs to be proved.

user1977

mills112 said:

user1977 said:

mills112 said:

they always have to check the original source of the funds, irrespective on how long ago it was.  as it is inherited money, you need to prove that it was inherited.

So like I said, they'd also need to check where gran got her money from, wouldn't they? And so on...

i don't think so, as long as they can check its last source, that is the gran's estate, that will suffice 

No, merely checking the "last source" is not necessarily sufficient - it could e.g. have recently been passed around several parties in an effort to conceal where it actually came from. But going back 16 years is absurd - if it's obviously been in the clients' hands for years, you can safely assume it's really their money.

sheramber

Did they not get paperwork from the executor showing how much they had inherited. 

I still have the letter the executor sent me when I inherited from my aunt in2005. 

mills112

user1977 said:

mills112 said:

user1977 said:

mills112 said:

they always have to check the original source of the funds, irrespective on how long ago it was.  as it is inherited money, you need to prove that it was inherited.

So like I said, they'd also need to check where gran got her money from, wouldn't they? And so on...

i don't think so, as long as they can check its last source, that is the gran's estate, that will suffice 

No, merely checking the "last source" is not necessarily sufficient - it could e.g. have recently been passed around several parties in an effort to conceal where it actually came from. But going back 16 years is absurd - if it's obviously been in the clients' hands for years, you can safely assume it's really their money.

it is about demonstrating whether they have taken the neccesary steps to verify the money so the minimum that they must do is at least check the last source, so in this case the inheritance.  i would have thought that when you inherit a large amount of money, there would be a paper trail no?  like reporting to probate or hmrc of some sort?

16 years is not that long really when you are talking about papers lodged with the authority.  would the OP not be able to get this information from the probate office?

just because you have had the money for 16 years doesn't necessarily mean you got it legit.  you just haven't been found out yet, lol

user1977

mills112 said:

user1977 said:

mills112 said:

user1977 said:

mills112 said:

they always have to check the original source of the funds, irrespective on how long ago it was.  as it is inherited money, you need to prove that it was inherited.

So like I said, they'd also need to check where gran got her money from, wouldn't they? And so on...

i don't think so, as long as they can check its last source, that is the gran's estate, that will suffice 

No, merely checking the "last source" is not necessarily sufficient - it could e.g. have recently been passed around several parties in an effort to conceal where it actually came from. But going back 16 years is absurd - if it's obviously been in the clients' hands for years, you can safely assume it's really their money.

it is about demonstrating whether they have taken the neccesary steps to verify the money so the minimum that they must do is at least check the last source

Where are you getting this from? There is no such minimum mandatory requirement. If the inheritance was 60 years ago rather than 16, would you still consider it essential to go back that far?

i would have thought that when you inherit a large amount of money, there would be a paper trail no?

Usually there'll be some records which might help with plausibility that there was an inheritance, but there is unlikely to be a carefully-filed paper trail of the actual transfers of the estate to the beneficiaries. They could have inherited granny's cash from under her mattress - totally legit but there won't be records to evidence it.

just because you have had the money for 16 years doesn't necessarily mean you got it legit.

It doesn't mean gran got it legit either! But the solicitors aren't expected to delve that deeply.

mills112

user1977 said:

mills112 said:

user1977 said:

mills112 said:

user1977 said:

mills112 said:

they always have to check the original source of the funds, irrespective on how long ago it was.  as it is inherited money, you need to prove that it was inherited.

So like I said, they'd also need to check where gran got her money from, wouldn't they? And so on...

i don't think so, as long as they can check its last source, that is the gran's estate, that will suffice 

No, merely checking the "last source" is not necessarily sufficient - it could e.g. have recently been passed around several parties in an effort to conceal where it actually came from. But going back 16 years is absurd - if it's obviously been in the clients' hands for years, you can safely assume it's really their money.

it is about demonstrating whether they have taken the neccesary steps to verify the money so the minimum that they must do is at least check the last source

Where are you getting this from? There is no such minimum mandatory requirement. If the inheritance was 60 years ago rather than 16, would you still consider it essential to go back that far?

i would have thought that when you inherit a large amount of money, there would be a paper trail no?

Usually there'll be some records which might help with plausibility that there was an inheritance, but there is unlikely to be a carefully-filed paper trail of the actual transfers of the estate to the beneficiaries. They could have inherited granny's cash from under her mattress - totally legit but there won't be records to evidence it.

just because you have had the money for 16 years doesn't necessarily mean you got it legit.

It doesn't mean gran got it legit either! But the solicitors aren't expected to delve that deeply.

they need to check source of funds and the minimum must be the last source, so i can't see how they wouldn't ask for details of the inheritance as a minimum.  they can certainly ask for more but then i would say it would be unreasonable.  asking for the details of the inheritance, i would think is reasonable.

if the inheritance was 60 years ago, then i would say that is nigh impossible and so would not be considered reasonable and i am sure the authorites could accept that the solicitors could not ask to see details of that.

i think the solicitors need to satisfy themselves that the inheritance is not a made up story, so if the OP doesn't have the estate value, they could explain why not and show evidence that there was a will showing they inherited the money, or correspondence showing the inheritance.  if it was cash under the mattress that was inherited, then the OP will have a problem as there is no trace of where that come from and the solicitors won't be able accept cash without documentation.  in which case, the OP can't buy the house with cash.

as someone had said, the OP can try another solicitor who may be more lenient, but to be honest, from my experience, unless you have used the solicitors before and they know you, solicitors will be asking for the proof of the inheritance.  they may not ask to see the gran's estate but they will need to see some proof that it came from the gran, as otherwise it could be a lie and they wouldn't be to proceed.