Top money men face up to 2 YEARS in slammer for neglecting to spot crim-cash activity Senior managers at "money service businesses" face up to two years imprisonment and an unlimited fine if their neglect leads to money laundering or terrorist financing activities, HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has warned. In new guidance on its supervision of money services businesses under anti-money laundering rules (65-page/ …
This is starting to really disturb me.
First we had the US government leaning on banks, Mastercard, & Visa, to strangle the ability of Wikileaks to conduct banking and accept donations. No court case, nothing illegal or criminal proven, all done on the quiet. 'Silent but deadly'.
Then we had 'Operation Choke Point' (Google it) - US DoJ again using pressure on banks to get them to deny banking facilities to individuals and businesses that are perfectly legal but controversial, politically incorrect, or 'morally' dubious. Again all quiet, secret, not involving the law or lawmakers.
Then the same again in the UK - HSBC closing the accounts of Islamic charities and individual Muslims and their families. Again silently, no discussion, no explanation, no publicity, nothing involving parliament or the law, 'no comment' all round.
Now this. Very disquieting. Inland revenue 'rules' and 'guidance' - completely shortcutting the courts and democratic institutions. Making financial institutions an arm of law - no, of POLICY - enforcement. They've clearly been reading Frank Herbert:
"Control The Coinage And The Courts - Let The Rabble Have The Rest!" - Emperor Shaddam IV…
Now this. Very disquieting. Inland revenue 'rules' and 'guidance' - completely shortcutting the courts and democratic institutions. Making financial institutions an arm of law - no, of POLICY - enforcement.
HMRC can do this kind of thing thanks to the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (among other things) - they didn't just pull some 'rules' and 'guidance' out of their arses. They can also enforce delegated legislation (Google it).
They are one bunch of people I would avoid tangling with as they have a LOT of powers.
> they [ the financial company ] must also "verify key facts that only the customer may know
Hmmm.
"Can you tell us something that only you know? So that we can verify it"
Well, I could. But then you'd know it, too. So it wouldn't be something that only I knew.
"D'oh!"
Sounds like it's a wise idea to keep a stash of cash under the mattress. Just in case your bank suddenly and arbitrarily decides you're a terrrrrist and won't let you make any withdrawls. An oooopsie, sorreeee after the fact just doesn't cut it.
Firstly, it is bitcoins not BitCoins.
Secondly, the price has been falling pretty consistently since December.
Thirdly, there is no easy way of acquiring bitcoins anonymously. All the exchanges require you to upload identification and some want selfies of you with your id. You might be able to mine or find a trusted source on localbitcoins, but mining is barely profitable and there have been charges filed against localbitcoin sellers for money laundering.
I am confused that you are confused. Kraken and Cryptsy do the selfie thing. Bitstamp has a fairly long AML procedure. I wouldn't use BTC-E if you paid me. Any exchange that wants to operate within the law should have stringent Anti Money Laundering/Know Your Customer rules in place.
"Thirdly, there is no easy way of acquiring bitcoins anonymously. All the exchanges require you to upload identification and some want selfies of you with your id"
Are these exchanges in Nigeria and run by people who have come across a large number of bitcoins that you are ideally placed to help get out of the country?
I wanted to open a co-op account for my elderly mother but she did not appear on any database as she had been a housewife since her marriage. All the utility bills had been in my father's name. They wanted all sorts of original documents before proceeding. Later I asked for the documents back and was told "We don't know where they are". Most likely they are in a landfill somewhere just waiting for an identity thief to find them.
Not the CEOs of the Big Banks who happily shift funds to Nigeria from Joe Public accounts without any sort of escrow arrangement. Or the current scam where they allow a new account to be opened, fund transfer from a dupe and exit in a few days.
No they will target the "pub landlord" who changes money on the side because the banks charge so much to make a cash deposit!
Where they are required to take regular refresher courses on Anti Money Laundering (AML) and go through a complicated process (Know Your Customer) before taking on new accounts. It also makes them nervous about certain types of activity (which have to be reported to the authorities) and they may close the accounts of individuals or companies that they are twitchy about as a defensive move.
The result is that people who are acting in good faith may end up with their accounts closed because the bank doesn't want to take the risk that they are laundering money, so it's not always a good thing.
it's also illegal to do anything that would let them know they're being investigated for money laundering ('tipping off')
therefore in the bank where i worked this guy would smile and do his transactions. i'd smile back and help. we both knew that he hwas money laundering and i knew and he knew i knew, but we acted best of friends. it was bizarre. everytime we shut an account down he'd open another one and we'd not be able to reject it because he was the current subject or money laundering investigations, so we'd be making nice while he paid in or took out his criminal gains and i was taking notes for the form i'd fill in for the cops when he left
and we did get on really well, our pretend backstabby friendship was the best ever. so bizarre.
Anyone who has ever done even the meanest job for a financial services company will have the riot act read to them about money laundering. When I trained for a McJob in a bank call centre 10 years ago, I had to be trained about money laundering, and it was made clear to us that we could go to prison for not reporting it when we had suspicions. Perhaps senior management didn't go on this training?
Sounds like they're simply getting management into the same level of responsibility as accountants! A friend of mine's training to be an accountant, and as I understand it from him they don't even have a defence of "I didn't know" in some circumstances. Eg, if based on the information they had access to + their level of knowledge (whether they're chartered or just a book keeper) they SHOULD have known and suspected that something dodgy was happening then it's assumed that they DID know. So I guess it sucks if you're an incompetent accountant, and now an incompetent manager!
"Senior managers at "money service businesses" face up to two years imprisonment and an unlimited fine if their neglect leads to money laundering or terrorist financing activities*"
* Unless they happen to be HSBC or one of the other large firms that we play golf with while laughing at the plebs, in which case we'll just fine them a bit. Don't want to risk that cushy consultancy gig lined up with them after you leave HMRC eh?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20673466
Firstly since when is a $1.9Bn fine a "slap on the wrist"? It's a heck of a spanking for any company.
Secondly this was under US AML rules, not the UK. It's there legal system and punishments that apply in this case (as it was related to the transfer of funds between the Mexican and US subsidiaries).
Because 1.9 Billion DOLLARS IS a "slap on the wrist" for a bank like HSBC. Drug dealers (That are paying to have their money "laundered"), have HUNDREDS of billions available.
So do the BANKS. Any fine that is not in the same value range is chump change for these people.
Next fine should be 100 Billion and four seats on the board!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(That is if they ever get caught again.)
Actually no they didn't.
You want to Google this a bit. There's no actual evidence they laundered a single bloody cent. What they got fined for was paperwork errors; not having all the right forms filled in to PROVE that they WEREN'T laundering. Just that. Paperwork.
"don't pay tax"
As usual the threat of terrorism is used to justify control and invasion of privacy that would otherwise be considered unreasonable.
Like all of us my GF is a suspected terrorist supporter and money launderer. She doesn't have enough database entries or personal documents to prove to the satisfaction of HMRC (through their slaves the banks) that she isn't. That means she isn't even allowed to be a secondary holder of my credit cards.
Annoyingly she would have much less trouble obtaining financial services if she had spent half her life scrounging from the state.
The problem with rules like this is that they end up getting implemented by jobsworths.
When I sold my late parents' house (on which there was no mortgage and I was not buying anything) my solicitor's firm insisted that I fill in a form about "the source of the funds for the transaction". It took two weeks to persuade them that the funds would come from the buyer of the house, not me.
AC because I am now using the same firm to buy a house.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
