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

UnsureAboutthis

Go to someone else, I've never hear anything like it
based on the scenrio you have given.

user1977

mills112 said:

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 

But you just said the minimum must be the last source? Are you now agreeing that you can draw a line somewhere, you're just debating where that is?

fistfulofsteel

Is it worth me trying to use a conveyancer if I don't have any documentation going back far enough to prove my source of funds? I've been saving since the 1980s but always thrown out bank statements / opted for paperless and moved my ISA every year for better interest rates so no access to old records as accounts closed. I'm currently earning less than I spend, although I could download tax summaries from HMRC showing self employment income of up to around 20K some years. I'm buying in cash from a relative for 100K so DIY is an option. Would working out how to do the land registry forms be less of a headache than the AML checks? I don't want to pay a conveyancer a big fee and then hit a brick wall and have to walk away and find someone else / do it ourselves.

silvercar

On our last purchase involvement, we just said an accumulation of savings over many decades, provided bank statements that showed an excess of income over expenditure for the last 6 months and a statement from a savings account that showed an amount greater than the deposit had been sitting in that account for over 6 years. They were satisfied with that and then only required that the money transferred to them should come from an account in our name, it didn’t need to be from that particular savings account. 

Then we helped our other child buy, with a similar deposit and the procedure was broadly similar with an different solicitor. So I don’t think that all solicitors are so pedantic.

user1977

fistfulofsteel said:

I'm buying in cash from a relative for 100K so DIY is an option.

Is your relative using a solicitor? If so then they're likely to be even more paranoid about where your money has come from if you're doing your side DIY.

But generally solicitors are only looking back a number of months, not years or decades.

And if necessary, you can ask the banks for copies of statements for closed accounts. Generally it's advised to keep records for seven years for tax purposes, if nothing else.

grumpy_codger

silvercar said:

....and a statement from a savings account that showed an amount greater than the deposit had been sitting in that account for over 6 years. ....So I don’t think that all solicitors are so pedantic.

6 years and you think that your solicitor wasn't pedantic?! Big amount sitting in the same account for over 6 years?! 

I think very few people here neglect their money this way*. And as I posted above my solicitor was happy with 6 months if not less.

*ATM my family has £70K in various regular savings accounts.

BungalowBel

Albermarle said:

Sometimes it can be an over zealous junior member of staff. If they object it might get kicked up to someone more senior who would be more sensible.

I also had to provide proof of funds from an inheritance.  I had moved the money around and it was sitting in separate bank accounts.  

I showed the receptionist a copy of  the will, and the solicitor's letter telling me the amount of the inheritance, and a bank account with the amount of money needed for the purchase in it (but this was not the same amount of money as the inheritance).    I no longer had the bank account the money was originally paid into, so couldn't show her that.

The receptionist said this wasn't enough proof.

However, when she asked the solicitor, she was it was more than enough.

Make sure you deal directly  with the solicitor on this.

fistfulofsteel

user1977 said:

fistfulofsteel said:

I'm buying in cash from a relative for 100K so DIY is an option.

Is your relative using a solicitor? If so then they're likely to be even more paranoid about where your money has come from if you're doing your side DIY.

But generally solicitors are only looking back a number of months, not years or decades.

And if necessary, you can ask the banks for copies of statements for closed accounts. Generally it's advised to keep records for seven years for tax purposes, if nothing else.

No, they're not using one. I'm worried because I've withdrawn from but not added to savings since I last moved them a year or so ago. 

I don't know the account numbers for old accounts.

user1977

fistfulofsteel said:

user1977 said:

fistfulofsteel said:

I'm buying in cash from a relative for 100K so DIY is an option.

Is your relative using a solicitor? If so then they're likely to be even more paranoid about where your money has come from if you're doing your side DIY.

But generally solicitors are only looking back a number of months, not years or decades.

And if necessary, you can ask the banks for copies of statements for closed accounts. Generally it's advised to keep records for seven years for tax purposes, if nothing else.

 I don't know the account numbers for old accounts.

I'm sure the banks could find them. 

EssexHebridean

Generally speaking, if solicitors want to go back further than (at most) 6 years, that is because their  suspicions have been raised somewhere along the line, and usually by the client. Sometimes this can be an inadvertent thing, and sometimes it comes down to someone being hostile to the idea of the checking of proof of funds.

In this instance, I'd suggest asking the executor for a copy of the will - there is a decent chance that they will still have it I would think. If not, then right now, the best option might be for your parents to start afresh with a new solicitor and ensure that they don't give off any "red flags" when asked for proof of funds. It's not about people having DONE something wrong, it's about them giving the IMPRESSION they have done something wrong!

As others have already said, it's incredibly unusual for a request to be made for proof from this far back, but when it is, it's for a reason.