Money laundering rules

The paperwork required to open a new bank account is a substantial burden on banks and individuals. It should be removed unless it can be proved to make a real difference to money laundering. It would be easier to restrict the amount of cash payable into a bank account to control black and grey market transactions.

Why is this idea important?

The paperwork required to open a new bank account is a substantial burden on banks and individuals. It should be removed unless it can be proved to make a real difference to money laundering. It would be easier to restrict the amount of cash payable into a bank account to control black and grey market transactions.

MONEY LAUNDERING REGULATIONS

NO SELF RESPECTING CRIMINAL WOULD BE UNABLE TO PRODUCE A PASSPORT AND A UTILITY BILL – DO NOT SPEND ANY MORE TIME ON THINKING ABOUT ALTERNATIVES – BANKS, ESTATE AGENTS AND SOLICITORS ARE SPENDING HUGE AMOUNTS OF TIME WITH USELESS COMPLIANCE MEASURES.

Why is this idea important?

NO SELF RESPECTING CRIMINAL WOULD BE UNABLE TO PRODUCE A PASSPORT AND A UTILITY BILL – DO NOT SPEND ANY MORE TIME ON THINKING ABOUT ALTERNATIVES – BANKS, ESTATE AGENTS AND SOLICITORS ARE SPENDING HUGE AMOUNTS OF TIME WITH USELESS COMPLIANCE MEASURES.

Review money laundering requirements for private individuals

I recently tired to open an ISA, over the internet because I live in  rural location, with a provider I already had accounts with. Not only was I asked to provide two forms if ID but, "because of changes to money laundering rules", the ISA provider said they had to be countersigned by a "suitable" person such as a GP OR I could take my application in to a branch.

Visiting a branch entails a fifty mile round trip for me, which is a full day undertaking if attempted on public transport. Nor do I wish to waste the time of my GP (or pay the fee he charges) every time I want to change my savings account. I think the requirement to countersign documents should be aboloished and the whole issue of proof of identity reviewed for people wanting to deposit small amounts of money in a personal svings account.

Why is this idea important?

I recently tired to open an ISA, over the internet because I live in  rural location, with a provider I already had accounts with. Not only was I asked to provide two forms if ID but, "because of changes to money laundering rules", the ISA provider said they had to be countersigned by a "suitable" person such as a GP OR I could take my application in to a branch.

Visiting a branch entails a fifty mile round trip for me, which is a full day undertaking if attempted on public transport. Nor do I wish to waste the time of my GP (or pay the fee he charges) every time I want to change my savings account. I think the requirement to countersign documents should be aboloished and the whole issue of proof of identity reviewed for people wanting to deposit small amounts of money in a personal svings account.

Cut back bureaucracy associated with Money Laundering Regs.

Do away with the need to provide multiple identification when carrying out certain financial transactions of a low value (say under £3,000) other than in opening a bank account, or  form of account or investment that may be added to in the future.

Why is this idea important?

Do away with the need to provide multiple identification when carrying out certain financial transactions of a low value (say under £3,000) other than in opening a bank account, or  form of account or investment that may be added to in the future.

Seriously review the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

This creeping legislation has allowed the authorities to use draconian powers against citizens and just to highlight some::

Guilty until proven innocent, entering citizens homes only on suspicion, restraining people's assets, confiscating peoples's assets with very little they can do to defend themselves …etc

This 'Gestabo' law  has thrown Britain once the cradle of democracy into the dark ages.

The government needs to seriously review this law which creates great misjustices against citizens.

How can we point the finger at other countries for abusing human rights laws when we are the no better – hypocracy!  

Why is this idea important?

This creeping legislation has allowed the authorities to use draconian powers against citizens and just to highlight some::

Guilty until proven innocent, entering citizens homes only on suspicion, restraining people's assets, confiscating peoples's assets with very little they can do to defend themselves …etc

This 'Gestabo' law  has thrown Britain once the cradle of democracy into the dark ages.

The government needs to seriously review this law which creates great misjustices against citizens.

How can we point the finger at other countries for abusing human rights laws when we are the no better – hypocracy!  

Repeal MLR Regs for- IHT advice

Remove the requirement for those giving Inheritance Tax Advice in the course of taking instructions to write a Will to register as an accountancy provider under the Money Laundering Regulations

Why is this idea important?

Remove the requirement for those giving Inheritance Tax Advice in the course of taking instructions to write a Will to register as an accountancy provider under the Money Laundering Regulations

Trusting people again

One of the basic problems in Britain is that people are not believed or trusted. This is a wide ranging point and doubting people's honesty and integrity is the basis of many recently enacted oppressive laws. Most people can and should be trusted unless there is a good reason to doubt them. Opening a bank account, for example, is a nightmare of bureaucracy but should be a very simple matter as it used to be before the FSA was invented. The erosion of public trust is too high a price to pay for the control of money laundering. The latter is a matter for the police. Life should not be made difficult for everyone simply to make it easy for them.

A parallel are is that of CRB checking. However much we want to protect people from vice, we don't achieve much by treating everyone as a criminal as an a priori assumption. It is cruel and deeply destructive to society, it isolates people through fear, and actually it seems to do little to identify the relatively few people who are unworthy of trust.

There are many other vexatious examples: you can't buy more than 16 aspirin ( or is now 32?) because you can't trusted not to be a potential suicide. The only thing that tempts me to suicide is that kind of distrust! And to this you have to add all the spy cameras in cities, on roads, in parks. This is our country. We're at home here. We do not wish to be spied on as if we are unwelcome intruders in our own homeland.

And of course the great champion of distrust of the people of this country is the Health and Safety Executive. God save us from it and all its demons!
 

Why is this idea important?

One of the basic problems in Britain is that people are not believed or trusted. This is a wide ranging point and doubting people's honesty and integrity is the basis of many recently enacted oppressive laws. Most people can and should be trusted unless there is a good reason to doubt them. Opening a bank account, for example, is a nightmare of bureaucracy but should be a very simple matter as it used to be before the FSA was invented. The erosion of public trust is too high a price to pay for the control of money laundering. The latter is a matter for the police. Life should not be made difficult for everyone simply to make it easy for them.

A parallel are is that of CRB checking. However much we want to protect people from vice, we don't achieve much by treating everyone as a criminal as an a priori assumption. It is cruel and deeply destructive to society, it isolates people through fear, and actually it seems to do little to identify the relatively few people who are unworthy of trust.

There are many other vexatious examples: you can't buy more than 16 aspirin ( or is now 32?) because you can't trusted not to be a potential suicide. The only thing that tempts me to suicide is that kind of distrust! And to this you have to add all the spy cameras in cities, on roads, in parks. This is our country. We're at home here. We do not wish to be spied on as if we are unwelcome intruders in our own homeland.

And of course the great champion of distrust of the people of this country is the Health and Safety Executive. God save us from it and all its demons!
 

Amend Money Laundering Regulations for Multiple Identity Checks

When opening a new bank account or transferring ISAs isit really necessary to have to show passport/driving licence and gas bills when the money laundering legislation has already been applied to money in a bona fide British bank account?   Also it should not be necessary to prove identity where someone has banked with the same bank for many years and simply wishes to open another account.  The more instances where copies of passport and other details are held the more opportunities there are for identity theft.  Our private details should not be required where there is an audit trail for money already in the system.  This infringes our civil liberties and does not stop criminals from laundering money. More and more personal information is  required to confirm identity and this is intrusive. It should not be necessary to ask where you live currently and previously in order to open a savings account.  A savings account is not an application for credit or a loan.

Why is this idea important?

When opening a new bank account or transferring ISAs isit really necessary to have to show passport/driving licence and gas bills when the money laundering legislation has already been applied to money in a bona fide British bank account?   Also it should not be necessary to prove identity where someone has banked with the same bank for many years and simply wishes to open another account.  The more instances where copies of passport and other details are held the more opportunities there are for identity theft.  Our private details should not be required where there is an audit trail for money already in the system.  This infringes our civil liberties and does not stop criminals from laundering money. More and more personal information is  required to confirm identity and this is intrusive. It should not be necessary to ask where you live currently and previously in order to open a savings account.  A savings account is not an application for credit or a loan.

Reassess the Money Laundering Regulations for SMEs

The money laundering regulations for small businesses that are also potentially high value dealers are exceptionally onerous, and in many cases nonsensical.  The paperwork trail is excessive for small business and is taking up far too much time, particularly when combined with all the other regulations (and inspections) that we must endure.

At the very least, increase the sum at which checks must be made to 50K and take the smaller companies out of the process.  We know our trade, and are capable (and adept) at spotting dodgy customers without needing to keep vast reams of paperwork to confirm the fact.

Why is this idea important?

The money laundering regulations for small businesses that are also potentially high value dealers are exceptionally onerous, and in many cases nonsensical.  The paperwork trail is excessive for small business and is taking up far too much time, particularly when combined with all the other regulations (and inspections) that we must endure.

At the very least, increase the sum at which checks must be made to 50K and take the smaller companies out of the process.  We know our trade, and are capable (and adept) at spotting dodgy customers without needing to keep vast reams of paperwork to confirm the fact.

MLR too onerous on professional advisors

As accountants, we are concerned that the Money Laundering Regulations under which we are registered are too onerously drafted. Any information about trivial or unwitting breaches in taxation procedure disclosed are not protected by client/agent privilege and there are serious fines against agents if they fail to report.

We would suggest either a de minimis limit, or some other test of materiality for reportable events.

Why is this idea important?

As accountants, we are concerned that the Money Laundering Regulations under which we are registered are too onerously drafted. Any information about trivial or unwitting breaches in taxation procedure disclosed are not protected by client/agent privilege and there are serious fines against agents if they fail to report.

We would suggest either a de minimis limit, or some other test of materiality for reportable events.

“Fit and Proper” register for bookeeping services

As a firm that is not regulated by a proffesional body we were required to register with the government for fit and proper persons status. This required us answering questions like " have you been convicted of a terrorist act". We duly paid over our fee not only for each individual within the firm but also an annual fee that allows us to trade as accountants, bookkeepers and payroll agents. This was supposed to put a stop to money-laundering and terrorist activities. I believe it is the law that anyone who is not affiliated with a proffesional body has to register as fit and proper if they deal in any way with accounts, bookkeeping and or payroll or they are not allowed to trade under penalty of fines etc. We are aware that there are many bookeepers etc out there who are not registered with the government and possibly never will be, I think mainly because they are not aware of the law. As a firm that is registered with HMRC as accountants why did we need to register with another government department? Surely not another government money raising excercise! Scrap this law and fee. If a bookeepers works only a couple of hours a week, they have the choice of not registering or not bothering to do those few hours through cost of the registration fee. If like us it is a proffession, let us get on with it and let HMRC decide whether we are doing our jobs properly. If a money launderer or terrorist is in this trade do you think he will actually register?

Why is this idea important?

As a firm that is not regulated by a proffesional body we were required to register with the government for fit and proper persons status. This required us answering questions like " have you been convicted of a terrorist act". We duly paid over our fee not only for each individual within the firm but also an annual fee that allows us to trade as accountants, bookkeepers and payroll agents. This was supposed to put a stop to money-laundering and terrorist activities. I believe it is the law that anyone who is not affiliated with a proffesional body has to register as fit and proper if they deal in any way with accounts, bookkeeping and or payroll or they are not allowed to trade under penalty of fines etc. We are aware that there are many bookeepers etc out there who are not registered with the government and possibly never will be, I think mainly because they are not aware of the law. As a firm that is registered with HMRC as accountants why did we need to register with another government department? Surely not another government money raising excercise! Scrap this law and fee. If a bookeepers works only a couple of hours a week, they have the choice of not registering or not bothering to do those few hours through cost of the registration fee. If like us it is a proffession, let us get on with it and let HMRC decide whether we are doing our jobs properly. If a money launderer or terrorist is in this trade do you think he will actually register?

Money Laundering Rules

The current money laundering rules are ludicrous.  They make your bank manager, your accountant, your lawyer and anyone you used to deal with in trust and confidence a secret informer against you.  Someone only has to suspect you have done something wrong and if they don't secretly report you to the authorities they are in trouble.  These wide draconian laws which were meant for terrorism have eroded the fabric of civil society and torn up the trusting social consensus. 

Why is this idea important?

The current money laundering rules are ludicrous.  They make your bank manager, your accountant, your lawyer and anyone you used to deal with in trust and confidence a secret informer against you.  Someone only has to suspect you have done something wrong and if they don't secretly report you to the authorities they are in trouble.  These wide draconian laws which were meant for terrorism have eroded the fabric of civil society and torn up the trusting social consensus.