Amazingly, there\’s a difference between Ritchie\’s opinion and the law

As for the bank’s behaviour, I note what the BBC says. But it always baffles me as to how a bank can be innocent in these cases. It has a duty to make sure it is not handling money laundered funds. Tax evaded money is money laundered in my opinion.

It\’s entirely possible that tax evaded money is indeed money laundering. I\’ve no idea.

But there is still this considerable difference between what the Law of the Land says and Ritchie\’s opinion.

Thankfully.

22 comments on “Amazingly, there\’s a difference between Ritchie\’s opinion and the law

  1. Have criminals actually laundered money or do they just happen to have bank accounts in a bank near where they live.

    Criminals will have bank accounts unless they are really are working in a totally cash based environment. They’ll use it to pay bills, buy white goods, etc.

    Are we going to create a new law that says that no criminal should ever have a bank account because they might put some money they stole, even 1p, into it.

  2. Tax evaded cash is the proceeds of crime so using any institution to handle it is money laundering.

    Campaigning is about changing the laws of the land.

    The same accusation can be levelled at you.

  3. Arnold, so whenever anyone who does a job cash-in-hand puts the money in the bank, the bank should be penalised. And because they never know where that cash comes from they’ll start asking everyone (because rather than pick on the real criminals politicians and campaigners such as yourself prefer the easy route of punishing everyone, just like a whole class being put in detention because one naughty kid wrote on the blackboard) for proof in writing that the cash is fully taxed and accounted for.

    No doubt the person taking the cash-in-hand is a real criminal and needs locking up for many months for such an action because they have potentially deprived a diversity equality officer in a council of a job.

    Yep, I can see that working in the real world – NOT!

    You can be a bit naive sometimes.

  4. If you work cash-in-hand you are not going to put it in a bank, are you?

    If you have a bank account in a secrecy jurisdiction then that’s a whole different game, isn’t it?

  5. SBML, have you tried to open an account and deposit money recently? Even depositing large sums in existing accounts when you’ve been a long standing customer have to be justified.

    It really is only a small step (legally anyway because I suspect it could be done under secondary legislation) to making us justify every penny. That it will cost £bns and be an administrative nightmare that doesn’t stop any criminal activity has never been a reason to not act in the past so probably won’t be in this case.

  6. Clearly, banks should be under no legal obligation to monitor the moral behaviour of their customers. I know of no instance in which these regulations have actually prevented any terroristsandpaedophiles operating; they simply enable state snooping into private financial affairs.

  7. “Tax evaded cash is the proceeds of crime so using any institution to handle it is money laundering.”

    So say you and Richie. The law says different.

    “Campaigning is about changing the laws of the land.”

    True, but irrelevant to the point at hand. Campaigning for something that is not currently illegal, to be made illegal doesn’t mean that we can there fore claim that it is illegal. The campaign has to actually be successful and the law changed in order to be able to make such a claim.

  8. Tax evaded cash is the proceeds of crime

    Hardly. The cash is the proceeds of whatever enterprise generated it. That a %age of it should have been paid to some country or other’s revenue is very difficult to tell.

    The same accusation can be levelled at you.

    I think Tim is generally more cross (here at least) about egregious ignorance of the laws of economics rather than his whims, petty or otherwise, not being immediately signed in to statute.

    I know of no instance in which these regulations have actually prevented any terroristsandpaedophiles operating

    Whereas I’ve worked with the police to catch both, back when I worked for a bank. Money laundering reporting, however, does have more of a tendency to catch drug dealers and embezzlers. The wages of those particular sins being somewhat more than those of terror or kiddy fiddling.

  9. Can’t help wondering if the anti-laundering regulations have quite the effect they’re intended to have. Certainly known a few people whose activities generate great deals of unattributable cash over the years & none of them seem to have cut back on their activities. Legitimising it is a problem of course so it tends to churn around in the unofficial economy a while till it reaches safe harbour. And every transaction until it does is another the taxman doesn’t get a sight of. Probably totalling several times the amount of the original wad.
    All in all, heavy anti-laundering regulation probably promotes the black & grey economies, more than curtail them so it’s quite a good thing.

  10. Can’t help wondering if the anti-laundering regulations have quite the effect they’re intended to have.

    I very much doubt they do – they’re cumbersome, poorly drafted, and difficult to administer. The mechanisms in place for reporting, for banks at least, are bureaucratic, ineffective and slow. So IanB’s point about state prurience is over-blown – they might make snooping legal, but they hardly “enable” it to any sufficient degree of competence for you to be particularly concerned.

  11. Since tax is mostly due in arrears, neither the bank nor the tax evader would know whether money is “proceeds of tax evasion” at the time it is deposited – only at the end of the tax year when it isn’t declared.

  12. Not an expert, but I think tax evasion money does count as “proceeds of crime” and therefore falls under what is commonly called “money laundering”.

    However:

    1) criminal tax evasion is much more limited than Murphy seems to think it is; it requires criminal intent and is very different to failed tax avoidance.

    2) the banks’ duty is not “to make sure it is not handling money laundered funds”, but to do specific things that (the government says it hopes) will make money laundering more difficult and less common.

    It is perfectly possible that the banks have done everything they should, and yet some criminal money will always get into the banking system.

    It is even possible that the banks have reported these customers but that the super-Plod at the NCIS (or whatever it is these days) haven’t done anything about it.

    In fact there is an argument that the banks are obliged, by the money laundering law itself, to open accounts for these criminals. When you report them to the NCIS you must not do anything to warn them that you have done so, and refusing to take their money must be a pretty clear warning.

  13. Yep Arnald! That’s the second comment you’ve made I’m fully in agreement with. Groundbreaking stuff that!
    Arnald, if there’s laws I don’t agree with they’re there to be broken. I don’t want politicians getting their grasping hands on one cent more of my money than I can avoid by fair means or foul. If that means some member of the disadvantaged goes without the necessities that’s a welcome feature. More they suffer happier I am. Arnald, I’m not interested in supporting your corrupt socialist system. I want to kill it, burn its rotting corpse & salt the ground it’s buried in. The more whining about poverty I hear the more I want to find a catchy tune to accompany it & hum along. I want to see your world crash & as the middle classes have very little history of riot & mayhem, I’m hoping the poor will do it for me. So we need more poor not less. And they need to understand, ultimately, it’s your filthy stateism & socialism makes & keeps them poor. Then lynch the lot of you.

  14. In fact there is an argument that the banks are obliged, by the money laundering law itself, to open accounts for these criminals.

    The “Know Your Customer” regulations and the various checks, including against embargo lists, are very different from the money laundering regulations. Which require you to report suspicious transactions …

    A habitual criminal with a steady income (say some £65,738 for example) can open a bank account and run his pay and living expenses through it without the bank running any risk under MLRR. However, that suspicious £1645? Must be reported (if, of course, you notice.)

  15. Isn’t anyone going to point out the real Ritchiebollocks here?

    “It has a duty to make sure it is not handling money laundered funds.”

    Money-laundered funds, by definition, are funds which have gone through the process of money laundering and been legitimised. There is no way for the banks to tell what cash has or hasn’t been laundered, or which cash has or hasn’t come from a legitimate business. They are not required or expected to do so, because doing so is impossible.

    The anti-money-laundering regs aren’t about already-laundered funds at all, but about preventing laundering activities.

    I don’t suppose it’s any great surprise to find that Ritchie’s wrong on the fundamentals again.

  16. Arnald – “Tax evaded cash is the proceeds of crime so using any institution to handle it is money laundering.”

    I have been mildly struck by the juxtaposition of three stories recently. Ritchie thinks that banks should know, before a decision has been made, whether their clients are cheating on their taxes or not. And that they are guilty if it turns out one or two of them aren’t quite pukka.

    Fair enough.

    But on the other hand, British schools are giving children contraceptive injections without the consent or knowledge of their parents. To prevent pregnancy. By children I mean 11 year olds. Which is under the age of consent.

    So the third story would be Jimmy Savile. If it turned out that any of these 11 year olds had been abused by Savile, or indeed any random gang of predators, would the NHS be morally and legally culpable in the way that Ritchie and his deformed pet Igor Arnald would like?

    After all, a bank can’t know if their customers are wrong ‘uns most of the time. But anyone who gives an 11 year old a contraception jab knows it is for an illegal purpose.

  17. The bank’s obligation is to report any suspicion that it may be handling the proceeds of crime.

    Opening an offshore bank account is definitively not a crime. Believing that the client is not declaring the resulting interest earned starts to trigger that suspicion that a crime is now being committed.

    The allegation that 3 of their clients are facing fraud charges is irrelevant. Until and unless they are found guilty of that, they are not criminals. There is also no certainty that the money in the Jersey account is linked to that fraud, although the suspicion would be natural. However at this stage there is no reason why the bank should not be holding accounts for them.

    The client with a conviction for holding 300 illegal arms is clearly a criminal, but as it was years ago and he has already served his time, is he not now allowed to have a bank account? Why does it mean that the bank would be handling criminal money? The bank is simply holding an account for somebody who previously committed an offence for which the conviction is “spent”.

    Very bad reporting by the Telegraph and of course Murphy jumps on the bandwagon.

    Arnald is just an ignorant twat – ignore him.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>