Repeal most money laundering regulations

Businesses are not the guardians of the country and should not be required to monitor or check the identity of their clients who wish to carry out inherently legal acts.

 

There should be no requirement for companies or citizens to report the legal actions of people to the Government.

 

In fact it should be illegal for anybody to pass the information of a client (or other person with whom they have a fiduciary duty or other client contract) to any person or organisation (inc the State) without a Court Order based upon some evidence of wrongdoing.

Why is this idea important?

Businesses are not the guardians of the country and should not be required to monitor or check the identity of their clients who wish to carry out inherently legal acts.

 

There should be no requirement for companies or citizens to report the legal actions of people to the Government.

 

In fact it should be illegal for anybody to pass the information of a client (or other person with whom they have a fiduciary duty or other client contract) to any person or organisation (inc the State) without a Court Order based upon some evidence of wrongdoing.

Reduce Money Laundering Regulations Liability on Business Sector

Tone down the level of scrutiny and burden in complying with money laundering regulations and/or reduce the level of punishment for regulated person unwittingly caught up in a money laundering operations and affect family life.

Why is this idea important?

Tone down the level of scrutiny and burden in complying with money laundering regulations and/or reduce the level of punishment for regulated person unwittingly caught up in a money laundering operations and affect family life.

Reduce money laundering regs

Money laundering requirements are too onerous for small transactions. The requirements for certified copies of passport and utility bills are a time consuming chore which create charging opportunities for lawyers and others. With the growth of paperless billing it can sometimes be difficult to provide the information asked for. The money level at which money laundering requirements are necessary should be raised considerably, perhaps to £100000. A simpler approach would be to discontinue the requirements for alltransactions but install a mechanism for checking a few transactions, say one every fifty thousand. This would provide the disincentive for fraud through the knowledge that a checking mechanism was in place.   

Why is this idea important?

Money laundering requirements are too onerous for small transactions. The requirements for certified copies of passport and utility bills are a time consuming chore which create charging opportunities for lawyers and others. With the growth of paperless billing it can sometimes be difficult to provide the information asked for. The money level at which money laundering requirements are necessary should be raised considerably, perhaps to £100000. A simpler approach would be to discontinue the requirements for alltransactions but install a mechanism for checking a few transactions, say one every fifty thousand. This would provide the disincentive for fraud through the knowledge that a checking mechanism was in place.   

Simplify money laundering regulations

The money laundering regulations need to be simplified. As an estate agent I am required to check a client’s identity and also check the politically exposed persons list, the same client will also have to go through the same checks with their solicitor and their lender before any transaction can take place. Is it really necessary to check a person’s identity three times just to sell a house for client you may have known for 20 years?

 

Why is this idea important?

The money laundering regulations need to be simplified. As an estate agent I am required to check a client’s identity and also check the politically exposed persons list, the same client will also have to go through the same checks with their solicitor and their lender before any transaction can take place. Is it really necessary to check a person’s identity three times just to sell a house for client you may have known for 20 years?

 

Repeal the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

We petition to restore the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial before punishment and the repeal the Proceeds of Crime Act (POAC)
 

Sir Ivan Lawrence QC calls the POAC “a law more draconian and manifestly unjust than anything ever devised by a State in modern times”
He continues that this “legally complicated, draconian and unjust system” has come about “mainly because Parliament does not send enough time , or use enough care, in vetting the laws us before it by civil servants and politicians-goaded as they are by the tabloid press with little understanding of the consequences of what they do”

 

1) Search warrants under POAC.

Warrants under the Proceeds of Crime Act can be issued to ‘the Occupant’. Someone who is merely suspected of involvement in a crime, without any evidence or complaint and without anyone having been charged or convicted of a crime, and any person who lives in an adjacent named property in the same building can have all movable assets seized

The police already have enough power to search and seize property relating to a crime they do not need the wide ranging powers given by the search and seizure warrant under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

 

2) Restraint Orders

Freeze all non movable assets at the beginning of an investigation, before charge and on suspicion alone. By issuing a Restraint Order the suspect is punished before charge and before trial and prevented from paying for legal advice or assistance to overturn or vary the Restraint Order. If not charged or found innocent at trial the innocent victim is prevented from seeking compensation. This is a gross injustice.

 

3) Fair Trial

At trial the defendant, unless on State Benefits, is unable to obtain Legal Aid and because their assets are frozen is unable to pay for legal representation or expert witnesses. Justice for the defendant is impossible in these circumstances.
Whilst the Crown has virtually unlimited resources, is adversarial and stands to gain financially from a confiscation order if their prosecution succeeds

 

4) Confiscation Order

The prosecuting authority receives a cut of the proceeds seized from people convicted and subjected to confiscation orders and senior staff receives bonuses


Sir Ivan Lawrence, QC, says the “manifest injustices” in confiscation proceedings that were compounded by the setting of targets. “Once you start setting targets you are saying, ‘Never mind justice.’ Bodies like RCPO have to make a judgment on the cases they pursue — if they make that judgment on the basis that they will receive a lot of money, it calls into question whether justice is going to be done.

The Proceeds of Crime Act is not necessary as laws already exist for the confiscation or the proceeds of crime and these laws can be extended if necessary.

Why is this idea important?

We petition to restore the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial before punishment and the repeal the Proceeds of Crime Act (POAC)
 

Sir Ivan Lawrence QC calls the POAC “a law more draconian and manifestly unjust than anything ever devised by a State in modern times”
He continues that this “legally complicated, draconian and unjust system” has come about “mainly because Parliament does not send enough time , or use enough care, in vetting the laws us before it by civil servants and politicians-goaded as they are by the tabloid press with little understanding of the consequences of what they do”

 

1) Search warrants under POAC.

Warrants under the Proceeds of Crime Act can be issued to ‘the Occupant’. Someone who is merely suspected of involvement in a crime, without any evidence or complaint and without anyone having been charged or convicted of a crime, and any person who lives in an adjacent named property in the same building can have all movable assets seized

The police already have enough power to search and seize property relating to a crime they do not need the wide ranging powers given by the search and seizure warrant under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

 

2) Restraint Orders

Freeze all non movable assets at the beginning of an investigation, before charge and on suspicion alone. By issuing a Restraint Order the suspect is punished before charge and before trial and prevented from paying for legal advice or assistance to overturn or vary the Restraint Order. If not charged or found innocent at trial the innocent victim is prevented from seeking compensation. This is a gross injustice.

 

3) Fair Trial

At trial the defendant, unless on State Benefits, is unable to obtain Legal Aid and because their assets are frozen is unable to pay for legal representation or expert witnesses. Justice for the defendant is impossible in these circumstances.
Whilst the Crown has virtually unlimited resources, is adversarial and stands to gain financially from a confiscation order if their prosecution succeeds

 

4) Confiscation Order

The prosecuting authority receives a cut of the proceeds seized from people convicted and subjected to confiscation orders and senior staff receives bonuses


Sir Ivan Lawrence, QC, says the “manifest injustices” in confiscation proceedings that were compounded by the setting of targets. “Once you start setting targets you are saying, ‘Never mind justice.’ Bodies like RCPO have to make a judgment on the cases they pursue — if they make that judgment on the basis that they will receive a lot of money, it calls into question whether justice is going to be done.

The Proceeds of Crime Act is not necessary as laws already exist for the confiscation or the proceeds of crime and these laws can be extended if necessary.

Make Money Laundering Regs Apply to Ex-(prime) Ministers

It seems to be generally accepted that ex-Prime Ministers become extremely (in some cases obscenely) rich.

Not just Blair and Thatcher- John Major (from a very poor background) acquired a large holding in Carlyle Group after leaving office. How and why?

Ex-ministers should be required to declare and prove that all substantial receipts and capital holdings were not acquired as a result of actions (favours) carried out during their period of office.

Failure to do so should result in forfeiture of the funds to HM Treasury

Why is this idea important?

It seems to be generally accepted that ex-Prime Ministers become extremely (in some cases obscenely) rich.

Not just Blair and Thatcher- John Major (from a very poor background) acquired a large holding in Carlyle Group after leaving office. How and why?

Ex-ministers should be required to declare and prove that all substantial receipts and capital holdings were not acquired as a result of actions (favours) carried out during their period of office.

Failure to do so should result in forfeiture of the funds to HM Treasury

Reduce unnecessary money laundering requirements

Remove the money laundering requirements which make it necessary to re-prove identity to a bank and/or stockbroker when certain trading limits or transactions are reached or when new products/accounts are required.. 

You can't have an account in the first place without confirming identity so, having done so once, it should not be necessary to do so again.

This is particularly true bearing in mind the additional legal requirement for staff of such companies to report "out of the ordinary transactions" to the police for investigation into possible money laundering.

As it stands I can lose time and money when I try to sell shares I hold if the sale takes my cumulative dealings over a (secret) limit.  I then cannot deal until my id is confirmed again.  Crazy and very frustrating it will be!

Why is this idea important?

Remove the money laundering requirements which make it necessary to re-prove identity to a bank and/or stockbroker when certain trading limits or transactions are reached or when new products/accounts are required.. 

You can't have an account in the first place without confirming identity so, having done so once, it should not be necessary to do so again.

This is particularly true bearing in mind the additional legal requirement for staff of such companies to report "out of the ordinary transactions" to the police for investigation into possible money laundering.

As it stands I can lose time and money when I try to sell shares I hold if the sale takes my cumulative dealings over a (secret) limit.  I then cannot deal until my id is confirmed again.  Crazy and very frustrating it will be!

Money Laundering Regulation overkill

As a small business owner we have been put to huge and continuing inconvenience because of the way these regulations apply and the documentation and form of ID that is required. It is not only that we have to supply detail every time some even trifling change is needed to bank details (irritation enough) but whenever we need to retain or even speak to a professional adviser, even one in no way directly related to money handling, like a solicitor. This causes delay, inconvenience and expense and is grossly disproportionate to the risks the government seeks to protect itself from. It is hard to believe this was intended by those framing legislation. Some may regard questions as intrusive.

The most annoying aspect is constantly having to demonstrate we are bona fide respectable directors. If this kind of inquisition is necessary at all (and I do query this) then surely the point at which to have the investigation is when one becomes a company director in the first instance (or every ten years or so thereafter); demonstrating that one is a director should then be proof enough that one is a fit person to run a bank account and appoint a financial adviser and so on.

Why is this idea important?

As a small business owner we have been put to huge and continuing inconvenience because of the way these regulations apply and the documentation and form of ID that is required. It is not only that we have to supply detail every time some even trifling change is needed to bank details (irritation enough) but whenever we need to retain or even speak to a professional adviser, even one in no way directly related to money handling, like a solicitor. This causes delay, inconvenience and expense and is grossly disproportionate to the risks the government seeks to protect itself from. It is hard to believe this was intended by those framing legislation. Some may regard questions as intrusive.

The most annoying aspect is constantly having to demonstrate we are bona fide respectable directors. If this kind of inquisition is necessary at all (and I do query this) then surely the point at which to have the investigation is when one becomes a company director in the first instance (or every ten years or so thereafter); demonstrating that one is a director should then be proof enough that one is a fit person to run a bank account and appoint a financial adviser and so on.

Money laundering regulations

That the requirement for financial institutions and other organisations to check customer ID is re-framed to ensure that the requirements placed on the customer are proportionate to the risk that the regulations are trying to stop, ie money laundering.

Why is this idea important?

That the requirement for financial institutions and other organisations to check customer ID is re-framed to ensure that the requirements placed on the customer are proportionate to the risk that the regulations are trying to stop, ie money laundering.

Revise Money Laundering Regulations

Amend these regulations so that a credit card company (Co-op Visa) cannot say to me that it is illegal for me to pay my credit card bill with cash!!

The Money Laundering Regulations are too wide in their application, causing unneccessay aggravation to honest citizens trying to carry out unremarkable transactions. They apply to activities with quite small monetary values. They also mean people feeling affronted at having to establish their identity over and over again. 

Why is this idea important?

Amend these regulations so that a credit card company (Co-op Visa) cannot say to me that it is illegal for me to pay my credit card bill with cash!!

The Money Laundering Regulations are too wide in their application, causing unneccessay aggravation to honest citizens trying to carry out unremarkable transactions. They apply to activities with quite small monetary values. They also mean people feeling affronted at having to establish their identity over and over again. 

stop the persecution of Catholics.

Various laws old and new are designed to make being a Catholic a crininal offence.  A catholic cannot be the monarch of this country.  The Catholic Church is discriminated against in equality laws that make some people or groups more equal then others.

Why is this idea important?

Various laws old and new are designed to make being a Catholic a crininal offence.  A catholic cannot be the monarch of this country.  The Catholic Church is discriminated against in equality laws that make some people or groups more equal then others.

Amend the Money Laundering Regulations

Repeal the need for ID checks and proof of identity papers etc in respect of the opening of some types of account e.g. children's accounts etc Ridiculous process entailed with opening a chils account involving £25 per month for example.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the need for ID checks and proof of identity papers etc in respect of the opening of some types of account e.g. children's accounts etc Ridiculous process entailed with opening a chils account involving £25 per month for example.

Remove onerous money laundering regulation

The money laundering regulations must have cost the British economy millions and millions of pounds.  The administrative burden and cost placed on legitimate companies and the various institutions that have to follow it is very subsantial and yet I am sure that the criminals who want to would get round it easily.

Why is this idea important?

The money laundering regulations must have cost the British economy millions and millions of pounds.  The administrative burden and cost placed on legitimate companies and the various institutions that have to follow it is very subsantial and yet I am sure that the criminals who want to would get round it easily.

Reform Money Laundering Regulations

These are overly onerous on companies and the public and create a lot of unnecessary paperwork and cost. They are applied to investments which are not conceivably of interest to money launderers (eg a small pension policy). Companies commonly ask individuals for several identity documents when there is any alteration to an account.  There is no consistency between one company's rules and another. Providing these documents can be time wasting, and/or expensive.

For example an individual with a small endowment or pension policy might be asked to provide their passport or a copy of their passport certified as "original seen", as well as copies of household bills, in order to simply get their address changed.  It is not longer easy to get a certified copy of a passport; banks refuse to do it, and solicitors will usually only do it for established clients.  If the financial company concerned is one that does not have local branches (eg Britain's biggest insurer – Aviva), the customer is left with little option except send valuable documents through the post.  This is not satisfactory, and likely to lead to identity theft.

Why is this idea important?

These are overly onerous on companies and the public and create a lot of unnecessary paperwork and cost. They are applied to investments which are not conceivably of interest to money launderers (eg a small pension policy). Companies commonly ask individuals for several identity documents when there is any alteration to an account.  There is no consistency between one company's rules and another. Providing these documents can be time wasting, and/or expensive.

For example an individual with a small endowment or pension policy might be asked to provide their passport or a copy of their passport certified as "original seen", as well as copies of household bills, in order to simply get their address changed.  It is not longer easy to get a certified copy of a passport; banks refuse to do it, and solicitors will usually only do it for established clients.  If the financial company concerned is one that does not have local branches (eg Britain's biggest insurer – Aviva), the customer is left with little option except send valuable documents through the post.  This is not satisfactory, and likely to lead to identity theft.

Remove Money Laundering Regulations

In these days of low interest rates, we find it necessary to move money around regularly to take advantage of the best returns. Every time this happens the institutions invoke the money laundering regulations even if the amount being deposited is as little as £1.

The institutions all behave differently in the way they check for money laundering. Some insist on paper documentation being sent through the post, others will carry out an electronic check.

Those requesting paper documentation risk that documentation being lost. Worse still, that documentation is the very documentation that would prove useful to a money launder or identity thief, wishing to obtain a “clean” identity.

Those carrying out electronic checks, use credit reference agencies. The results of these seem arbitrary. For instance in the last two weeks my wife and I both opened two online savings accounts. On one of these both of us passed the checks, but on the second I passed whilst my wife was rejected. She phoned the call centre but was fobbed off by the bank with the check was failed by the credit agency. They could not tell her why she failed, even though we have lived together at the same addresses for over 30 years and as far as we know have identical official documentation. Now she is back to risking her documentation (and identity) in the post. Worst of all, my savings account became available today; hers will take some time making her feel unfairly discriminated against.

It is not clear why money laundering regulations are required.

1.        How many people do these regulations catch? Those who are laundering money surely already have their own methods to avoid being caught.

2.       All my money comes from another bank account in my name so it’s already been through “money laundered checks”. 

3.       The requirement for “identity” documentation puts those documents and the individual’s identity at risk if the documents are lost in the post.  In every financial institution, there is a department that contains an Aladdin’s Cave of identity documents – ripe for the picking.

4.       Opening financial accounts is delayed whilst these dubiously effective hoops are jumped through.

5.       Time and effort is wasted both by the customer and the bank officials for what seems like box-ticking.

Money Laundering regulations seem like a using a hammer to crack a nut – and missing. Everyone is plagued by it, yet no-one seems able to explain how it stops money laundering.  Having opened a legitimate account how does it stop  “dirty” money being funnelled through it?

  • Repeal its current use
  • Identify what the real problem is that it’s meant to be addressing
  • Find an effective replacement

Why is this idea important?

In these days of low interest rates, we find it necessary to move money around regularly to take advantage of the best returns. Every time this happens the institutions invoke the money laundering regulations even if the amount being deposited is as little as £1.

The institutions all behave differently in the way they check for money laundering. Some insist on paper documentation being sent through the post, others will carry out an electronic check.

Those requesting paper documentation risk that documentation being lost. Worse still, that documentation is the very documentation that would prove useful to a money launder or identity thief, wishing to obtain a “clean” identity.

Those carrying out electronic checks, use credit reference agencies. The results of these seem arbitrary. For instance in the last two weeks my wife and I both opened two online savings accounts. On one of these both of us passed the checks, but on the second I passed whilst my wife was rejected. She phoned the call centre but was fobbed off by the bank with the check was failed by the credit agency. They could not tell her why she failed, even though we have lived together at the same addresses for over 30 years and as far as we know have identical official documentation. Now she is back to risking her documentation (and identity) in the post. Worst of all, my savings account became available today; hers will take some time making her feel unfairly discriminated against.

It is not clear why money laundering regulations are required.

1.        How many people do these regulations catch? Those who are laundering money surely already have their own methods to avoid being caught.

2.       All my money comes from another bank account in my name so it’s already been through “money laundered checks”. 

3.       The requirement for “identity” documentation puts those documents and the individual’s identity at risk if the documents are lost in the post.  In every financial institution, there is a department that contains an Aladdin’s Cave of identity documents – ripe for the picking.

4.       Opening financial accounts is delayed whilst these dubiously effective hoops are jumped through.

5.       Time and effort is wasted both by the customer and the bank officials for what seems like box-ticking.

Money Laundering regulations seem like a using a hammer to crack a nut – and missing. Everyone is plagued by it, yet no-one seems able to explain how it stops money laundering.  Having opened a legitimate account how does it stop  “dirty” money being funnelled through it?

  • Repeal its current use
  • Identify what the real problem is that it’s meant to be addressing
  • Find an effective replacement

unwarrated impact of Anti-money laundering requirements

It is becoming ever more difficult and burdensome to open new bank accounts or other financial services, even for people who already have multiple bank accounts, UK jobs, NI numbers, tax codes and passports. 

I now have to send off multiple important documents – passport, driving licence each time I want to open an account, despite the fact that these are uniquely important documents and difficult to replace.  This increases the risk of them going missing en-route and being used for identity fraud.  No wonder ID fraud is a growing probem.

I am also increasingly frustrated by the requirement to get documents signed by a person of standing.  These are apparently limited to such people as bank/building society official, solicitor, accountant, commissioner of oaths, justice of the peace, legal secretary, member of parliament, police officer or an officer of the armed services include bank managers.  Why are these the only jobs that mean people are honest and upstanding.  Surely someone who has held the same job for 10 years, has a degree and a passport and driving licence should be perfecty acceptable.  This is insulting to honest, hard working people.

There is also a growing trend for these people to charge for this signing service.  So now we have to pay for the priviledge of proving who we obviously are, just to open a bank account.  These standards need to be widened to allow any professional person to sign (like passports – why do we need a narrower standard than passports??).  Or better still, this madness needs to be unwound. 

Why is this idea important?

It is becoming ever more difficult and burdensome to open new bank accounts or other financial services, even for people who already have multiple bank accounts, UK jobs, NI numbers, tax codes and passports. 

I now have to send off multiple important documents – passport, driving licence each time I want to open an account, despite the fact that these are uniquely important documents and difficult to replace.  This increases the risk of them going missing en-route and being used for identity fraud.  No wonder ID fraud is a growing probem.

I am also increasingly frustrated by the requirement to get documents signed by a person of standing.  These are apparently limited to such people as bank/building society official, solicitor, accountant, commissioner of oaths, justice of the peace, legal secretary, member of parliament, police officer or an officer of the armed services include bank managers.  Why are these the only jobs that mean people are honest and upstanding.  Surely someone who has held the same job for 10 years, has a degree and a passport and driving licence should be perfecty acceptable.  This is insulting to honest, hard working people.

There is also a growing trend for these people to charge for this signing service.  So now we have to pay for the priviledge of proving who we obviously are, just to open a bank account.  These standards need to be widened to allow any professional person to sign (like passports – why do we need a narrower standard than passports??).  Or better still, this madness needs to be unwound. 

Replace capital allowances with accounting depreciation and 100% allowance for small businesses

Under the life of the last Labour Government there was constant tinkering with capital allowances (the tax allowances given to businesses for capital purchases, such as plant, equipment, vehicles, etc) in just about every Budget.  Most small businesses really had no idea where they stood with capital allowances.

The system can be simplified in two ways: –

1.  All small businesses should be entitled to 100% first year allowance for capital purchases.  In any case, we are effectively just about there already with the £100k annual investment allowance.  Few small businesses spend more than that in capital equipment every year.  If they do, then congratulate them by giving them the tax relief!

2.  For all other businesses replace capital allowances with accounting depreciation.  After all, if it is good enough for the shareholders, why is it not good enough for the Taxman.  Of course, the Taxman will argue that the two are different over the short term and that depreciation is open to manipulation for tax purposes.  Tough – they generally even out over the long term.

Why is this idea important?

Under the life of the last Labour Government there was constant tinkering with capital allowances (the tax allowances given to businesses for capital purchases, such as plant, equipment, vehicles, etc) in just about every Budget.  Most small businesses really had no idea where they stood with capital allowances.

The system can be simplified in two ways: –

1.  All small businesses should be entitled to 100% first year allowance for capital purchases.  In any case, we are effectively just about there already with the £100k annual investment allowance.  Few small businesses spend more than that in capital equipment every year.  If they do, then congratulate them by giving them the tax relief!

2.  For all other businesses replace capital allowances with accounting depreciation.  After all, if it is good enough for the shareholders, why is it not good enough for the Taxman.  Of course, the Taxman will argue that the two are different over the short term and that depreciation is open to manipulation for tax purposes.  Tough – they generally even out over the long term.

Dispense with the obsessive craze of ‘proof of identity’ under, for example, the Money Laundering Regulations

The law requires that when instructing, for example, a solicitor or estate agent, to handle selling your house you need provide proof of identity and they duly photocopy your passport and driving licence (though its debateable whether they in fact need only note the reference numbers from them, but anyway …).

But what does that prove?  If you are laundering money chances are you will have bogus documents anyway!

Meanwhile, it simply means in this day and age of ID theft there are countless hundreds of copies of everyone's documents blowing around in the wind, so to speak.  It devalues the real weight of passport and driving licence to prove identity when it might truly be required.

And though, to continue the example, estate agents have no need or right to ask to see a copy of a house buyer's passport/licence (because there is no monetary custom between the two parties) many agents gormlessly try it on, and likewise many house buyers gormlessly oblige and hand their documents over.

When changing doctors surgeries recently I was asked to let them have a copy of passport and driving licence.  Oh yes?, I asked.  What law or regulation requires that?  Erm, well, oooh, uhmmm, dunno, there isn't one, sorry, we don't really need it.

Why is this idea important?

The law requires that when instructing, for example, a solicitor or estate agent, to handle selling your house you need provide proof of identity and they duly photocopy your passport and driving licence (though its debateable whether they in fact need only note the reference numbers from them, but anyway …).

But what does that prove?  If you are laundering money chances are you will have bogus documents anyway!

Meanwhile, it simply means in this day and age of ID theft there are countless hundreds of copies of everyone's documents blowing around in the wind, so to speak.  It devalues the real weight of passport and driving licence to prove identity when it might truly be required.

And though, to continue the example, estate agents have no need or right to ask to see a copy of a house buyer's passport/licence (because there is no monetary custom between the two parties) many agents gormlessly try it on, and likewise many house buyers gormlessly oblige and hand their documents over.

When changing doctors surgeries recently I was asked to let them have a copy of passport and driving licence.  Oh yes?, I asked.  What law or regulation requires that?  Erm, well, oooh, uhmmm, dunno, there isn't one, sorry, we don't really need it.

MONEY LAUDERING REGULATIONS

The money laundering regulations are unnecessary and burdensome.  I do not believe that they have any impact on the movement of money used in illegal and unlawful enterprises or schemes.  Criminals have their own network by which money is transferred. 

The regulations must cost a huge amount of time and money for professionals to comply with.  The regulations should be scrapped. 

Why is this idea important?

The money laundering regulations are unnecessary and burdensome.  I do not believe that they have any impact on the movement of money used in illegal and unlawful enterprises or schemes.  Criminals have their own network by which money is transferred. 

The regulations must cost a huge amount of time and money for professionals to comply with.  The regulations should be scrapped. 

Money laundering regulations – no de-minimus limit

Accountants and many other professions are required to report to SOCA (Serious Organised Crime Agency) any crimes which involve the proceeds of crime.

Drug trafficing, terrorism, robbery, tax evasion?  Absolutely no problem with these.

One big problem with the current regulations is that there is no de-minimus limit.  So if you have reasonable suspiscions that an employee at a client has stolen a pen then you are technically required to report it.

SOCA currently need to employee people to process the multitude of trivial reports they receive every day.

My idea is to give a de-minimus level for reporting of £1,000, with no lower limit in the case of the most serious offences such as drug trafficing, terrorism, etc.

Why is this idea important?

Accountants and many other professions are required to report to SOCA (Serious Organised Crime Agency) any crimes which involve the proceeds of crime.

Drug trafficing, terrorism, robbery, tax evasion?  Absolutely no problem with these.

One big problem with the current regulations is that there is no de-minimus limit.  So if you have reasonable suspiscions that an employee at a client has stolen a pen then you are technically required to report it.

SOCA currently need to employee people to process the multitude of trivial reports they receive every day.

My idea is to give a de-minimus level for reporting of £1,000, with no lower limit in the case of the most serious offences such as drug trafficing, terrorism, etc.

It should be made clear that the Consumer Credit Act does not apply to Amateur Sports Club Subscription instalment schemes

We wished to provide our Members with the facility to pay their Annual sports club subscriptions (<£800) by monthly instalments in order to make membership more affordable in these difficult times.

Our legal advice was that this required us to obtain a Consumer Credit Licence and to register under anti-money laundering regulations.  However, other legally authorities are known to hold the view that the situation is not entirely clear cut.  Nonetheless, the general advice on CCA is if in doubt, then you should register – so we have.

If we had continued to insist that Subscriptions are paid annually in advance and in full, then niether act applies. 

The introduction of the scheme has cost us several thousand pounds in fees, which ultimately has to be borne by the Members of the Club, as it is a non-profit making entity.  It has also added significantly to administrative workload and complexity.

The application of both laws to this situation of a self administered scheme (where there is no actual lending of cash) seems well beyond the intention of the legislation and out of proportion to the perceived risks to the idividual and to the state that the Laws are attempting to address. It therefore makes membership of amateur sports clubs such as ours unnecessarily less affordable than they would otherwise be and adds to the Club's unnecessary "red tape".

It is quite possible that the law makers would consider that such self administered annual instalment spreading schemes do already  fall outside the respective Laws but no one is prepared to say so uneqivocally (despite lobbying by the National Golf Club Advisory Association).

What's needed is a definite statement that neither Law applies for self administered annual subscription spreading schemes of this type, where no actual cash loan is involved.

Why is this idea important?

We wished to provide our Members with the facility to pay their Annual sports club subscriptions (<£800) by monthly instalments in order to make membership more affordable in these difficult times.

Our legal advice was that this required us to obtain a Consumer Credit Licence and to register under anti-money laundering regulations.  However, other legally authorities are known to hold the view that the situation is not entirely clear cut.  Nonetheless, the general advice on CCA is if in doubt, then you should register – so we have.

If we had continued to insist that Subscriptions are paid annually in advance and in full, then niether act applies. 

The introduction of the scheme has cost us several thousand pounds in fees, which ultimately has to be borne by the Members of the Club, as it is a non-profit making entity.  It has also added significantly to administrative workload and complexity.

The application of both laws to this situation of a self administered scheme (where there is no actual lending of cash) seems well beyond the intention of the legislation and out of proportion to the perceived risks to the idividual and to the state that the Laws are attempting to address. It therefore makes membership of amateur sports clubs such as ours unnecessarily less affordable than they would otherwise be and adds to the Club's unnecessary "red tape".

It is quite possible that the law makers would consider that such self administered annual instalment spreading schemes do already  fall outside the respective Laws but no one is prepared to say so uneqivocally (despite lobbying by the National Golf Club Advisory Association).

What's needed is a definite statement that neither Law applies for self administered annual subscription spreading schemes of this type, where no actual cash loan is involved.