Money Laundering Rant

Somerset

Ember999

Just saw your question, and thought what a coincidence ! the house I bought two years back was with a mortgage from Northern Rock. And the thing I thought was funny at the time was ......... they wanted NO proof of I.D. from me at all. Obviously they check employment and presumerably credit check. But no passport, drivers licence, ulility bills etc. As I said I'll jump through whatever hoops neccessary but .......... considering the documentation you need to open a new savings/current account, there seems to be far less documentation required to borrow.

Ember999

Somerset wrote:

Ember999

Just saw your question, and thought what a coincidence ! the house I bought two years back was with a mortgage from Northern Rock. And the thing I thought was funny at the time was ......... they wanted NO proof of I.D. from me at all. Obviously they check employment and presumerably credit check. But no passport, drivers licence, ulility bills etc. As I said I'll jump through whatever hoops neccessary but .......... considering the documentation you need to open a new savings/current account, there seems to be far less documentation required to borrow.

Hi

Thanks for your response. At the moment the Conveyancing Firm in Glasgow have said they need proof of ID ie: Utility Bill in names etc. but also they would want proof of signature of husband. An ID Card, Passport, Driving License etc. but he doesn't have any of these :mad: is this going to cause a problem with the Solicitor who are acting on our behalf to purchase? (the Conveyancers)

At the moment we are just at the 'filling in form stage' with Northern Rock, daren't even get stressed about ID with them, but from what you have said it may not be a problem. We have an entry date of 14th September (8 weeks) with no property to sell and the property is in Scotland. Will no passport or Driving License cause probs with Solicitor? Very stressed about it :eek:

Cook_County

The Money Laundering Regulations 2003 (introduced following the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002) became effective on 1 March 2004 for accountants, solicitors and estate agents.

Acting for an individual who has not been identified is a criminal offence which may put the adviser in jail.

If the adviser chooses not to comply that is her or her lookout, but each adviser will follow the rules of his or professional body.

If one does not like the rules then we all have the power to have then changed by voting for a different government that will not impose these things upon us.

At heart I am a civil libertarian, but then I am also a realist and know that the rules will only be tightened and not loosened so I would suggest getting ID that is suitable.

It will not stop crime of course because criminals will forge documents if they want, but it will make the wheels of bureaucracy roll along for the rest of us.

lush_walrus

Exactly spot on, money laundering is a thing which is being tackled on a huge scale these days and for good reason, accountants, solicitors and morgage/ financial advisors, banks are now all scrutonised to check for money laundering.

ANYONE who arranges funding, receives funding or has money come through their bank and out the other side would be stupid not to follow the guides that are out there to safeguard themselves being looked at. Two minutes of effort of providing ID and bills for the appropriate person, can save the professional having their business stopped from trading while investigations are carried out and their reputation pulled into question.

Is providing ID really too much of a civil liberty or effort for the homebuyer?

GDB2222

I recently consulted a solicitor for some legal advice on my son's education. No large transactions, paid his fees by cheque drawn on my account, etc. They STILL wanted to ID me. Very annoying.

I really cannot see why anybody could think that would be necessary in those circumstances, but I think the solicitors must be gold-plating the standard. Either that, or they are worried that I might approach them for non-financial legal advice, become known as an established client, and then do a house purchase, at which point they might forget to ID me and get into trouble.

Sujamjen

I posted a similar message a couple of months ago and got a severe 'talking down to' by several holier-than-thou-joes about how my feelings were unimportant if it stopped money laundering. Well IF it did it wouldn't be so bad but we all know it doesn't. The BIG criminals employ/use people to get round the laws so the occasional small time crook is caught and it makes money for everyone else (ie solicitors have to 'do more paperwork' and so their fees go up) and we poor saps just have to put up with it :mad:

And yes, I can prove what I'm saying as I work for the government.

Ember999

lush_walrus wrote:

Exactly spot on, money laundering is a thing which is being tackled on a huge scale these days and for good reason, accountants, solicitors and morgage/ financial advisors, banks are now all scrutonised to check for money laundering.

ANYONE who arranges funding, receives funding or has money come through their bank and out the other side would be stupid not to follow the guides that are out there to safeguard themselves being looked at. Two minutes of effort of providing ID and bills for the appropriate person, can save the professional having their business stopped from trading while investigations are carried out and their reputation pulled into question.

Is providing ID really too much of a civil liberty or effort for the homebuyer?

I see your point entirely, but what if you DON'T HAVE a passport (as you don't go abroad) and you DON'T HAVE a Driving License as my husband doesn't??? He has no interest in driving, it's my car and I am the driver is his opinion. What then?

I see the need for checks but to ask for documentation that everybody is not liable nor legally expected to have causes problems. I have a driving license, my husband doesn't. He also doesn't have a passport. So what now???

BrokeBrokeBroke

Now I am going to get shot down I know, but this is where a national ID card would come in handy!

Woby_Tide

Sujamjen wrote:

I posted a similar message a couple of months ago and got a severe 'talking down to' by several holier-than-thou-joes about how my feelings were unimportant if it stopped money laundering. Well IF it did it wouldn't be so bad but we all know it doesn't.

So because it doesn't work yet(given that the regulations are still relatively new, and the fact that the public think it's all ver
y big brother so don't want to co-operate!), the solution is to remove the regulations as it wasn't a problem in the first place?

Jimj40

Woby_Tide wrote:

So because it doesn't work yet(given that the regulations are still relatively new, and the fact that the public think it's all very big brother so don't want to co-operate!), the solution is to remove the regulations as it wasn't a problem in the first place?

I'd say that encapsulates it pretty well!

For my part, I find many offences considerably more worthy of the government's attentions than money-laundering, especially since it's an offence which doesn't directly impact most people's lives, or certainly not to the extent which makes it acceptable to have another litlle chip taken out of all our liberties. Regrettably, governments of all persuasions in what used to be a democratic country have very different concerns to the rest of us. Offences which impact the exchequer are viewed much more seriously than those which keep the average citizen awake at night. For example, I'd much rather see burglars and muggers targetted than money-launderers.

In addition, knee-jerk legislation aimed at what is perceived as "popular demand" leads to such farces as the Dangerous Dogs Act, the banning of hand-guns (the Olympic Pistol Team complies, law-abiding gun-owners comply but surprise, surprise gun-toting crims don't...) and the continuing quarantine laws which have detected zero (count 'em...zero!) rabid animals.

If we are really so concerned about crims and their illicit activities, might we start by looking at the gang which invaded another gang's turf and created such a stir in Bagdhad?