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.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide

Source of funds and source of wealth

245

Comments

  • simonpies234
    simonpies234 Posts: 57 Forumite
    10 Posts Name Dropper

    This is the problem with new laws. Source of Funds checks are much more lenient and the worst case you can try another solictor who is more reasonable, at worst not buy the house.

    Source of Wealth checks are much more draconian requiring detailed evidence how wealth was built over time, possibly going back 50 years or more. Worst case you get your account blocked with no access to it.

    The most anyone should be able to go back is the date the law was changed, even that is harsh given the other laws regarding record keeping.

  • mills112
    mills112 Posts: 385 Forumite
    100 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 27 February at 5:48PM

    It is standard for conveyancing but not for savings account or trading accounts as far as I have experienced, with the exception of DF Capital when I tried to open a 12 months bond with them recently.

    Source of funds I am happy to provide, but source of wealth is a bit ridiculous. Only time I had to do this was when I bought my ex-husband out of our house with cash and when my Natwest bank manager called me to a meeting many years ago as a lot of money was going through my current account and I had a standard current account so he offered me a premier current account and a personal bank manager after the meeting for free, so that wasn't too bad. He didn't ask to see documents or anything, just asked me to state my current wealth, give details of my job and salary and tell him how much I am worth in total, which he jotted all down.

    I had an email from HL a few months ago to ask that I confirm my tax status as they needed that for HMRC. Hope they don't start with the source of wealth milarky as well!

  • MyRealNameToo
    MyRealNameToo Posts: 3,956 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Name Dropper

    Dont understand what you are trying to say, particularly given the link you have given?

    6 years is the law of limitations which is why most base it on that but that doesnt oblige anyone to hit 6 years. Many go to 7 years because it can take time for court papers to arrive etc so it gives a safety net.

    But that doesnt mean private individuals have to keep records for 6 or can't keep it for longer. Indeed your own link that says for those doing self assessment its 22 months legal minimum after the date the return was due or 15 months if you submitted late.

  • simonpies234
    simonpies234 Posts: 57 Forumite
    10 Posts Name Dropper

    I did say at most.

    Another link, maybe you believe him,

    https://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2025/11/bank-statements-ignore-six-year-rule/

    Feel free to provide a link to the law that states I must keep all records my whole life?

  • MyRealNameToo
    MyRealNameToo Posts: 3,956 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Name Dropper

    There arent any, thats the whole point. It's up to you how long you want to keep them for. If you end up before the judge though and someone can present a record showing you did something and you no longer have a record of if it happened or not then it probably doesnt look so good for you.

    Same on this topic, they would be free to decline you as a customer if your lack of records means you arent able to pass their ALM checks and so decline to do business with you.

  • simonpies234
    simonpies234 Posts: 57 Forumite
    10 Posts Name Dropper

    Declining business is one thing. Locking accounts with no access is a another sport.

    It then ends up before a judge for you to gain access and you say they was asking for documents from 50 years ago when HMRC only go back 6.

  • MyRealNameToo
    MyRealNameToo Posts: 3,956 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Name Dropper

    It's not a different thing because AML is a constant thing. It's not like banks dont give you enough time to respond or move funds elsewhere. With HSBC and their exercise took 9 months before they threatened to lock and close our account and even then they were saying there was to be 3 months notice. All that time money was going in and out without issue.

    What HMRC do is irrelevant, lets take my world, a minor injured in an accident has until their 21st birthday to sue for compensation. Someone sues us 20 years after an alleged incident and they hold a copy of the certificate of insurance they said the driver had at the time, the driver confirms he was at fault for the accident and that we were his insurers. We've deleted our records so have no idea if this person was ever a customer of ours or not, maybe we even paid out the claim to their parents and they're hoping we forgot.

    Do you really think we get to avoid the claim by saying HMRC only keep records for 6 years therefore we dont keep records any longer and so have no idea if we insured them or not as a result?

  • masonic
    masonic Posts: 29,616 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    edited 27 February at 6:36PM

    The issue is that there is a legal obligation under AML legislation, but not prescriptive requirements under the legislation as to how to fulfil the requirement. Leading to certain firms requiring evidence stretching back further than HMRC. And you cannot take a firm to court for refusing to retain your custom.

    If they need to establish where a sum of money came from, and it came from an event over 6 years ago, then they may consider it reasonable to ask for the same evidence as if it were 6 months ago. The customer has no option but to take their business elsewhere. The customer could try the complaints process, and might win some compensation, but they'd be unlikely to change the outcome.

    Just as you have the right to refuse to deal with firms with whom you aren't completely satisfied your money would be safe, firms are allowed to end the relationship if they feel the customer may present a risk through their use of the services.

  • simonpies234
    simonpies234 Posts: 57 Forumite
    10 Posts Name Dropper

    Yes, most places let you move. Fundsmith state they will lock your account, others might as well.

    The insurance arugment sounds like apples and oranges. There is a legal requirment to keep records 20 years. With a huge risk if you do not comply obvious to any company.

    Institutions can now reach back and demand detailed records going back as far they like and hide behind AML.

    I mean, It's common knowledge and has been 100's of years you should have keep all payslip, bank statements and all financial records from your whole life including your paper round from 60 years ago.

Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 354.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 455.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 178.4K Life & Family
  • 261.5K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.