Money laundering . . .

[dowie]

Why does the British Government consistently turn a blind eye to this corruption by "foreign officials" (AKA Crooks)?

They don't... they've introduced new legislation and the NCA is trying to crack down on the issue. You might well find that these cases are rather complex and take time.

I gather that there are any number of tower blocks in London where there are no lights on in any of the windows at night for 11 months of the year and the underground car parks are full of cars covered in dust sheets.

That doesn't imply money laundering per say... for every property held by some Russian/central asian gangster/corrupt politician there might well be dozens owned by say overseas investors just looking for a safe haven for their assets etc...

Perhaps we ought to ramp up taxes on vacant/unused properties, especially those in prime central London areas where others would benefit from using them but that is another matter...

 

[Scam]

Perhaps we ought to ramp up taxes on vacant/unused properties, especially those in prime central London areas where others would benefit from using them but that is another matter...

We should. Why should we let homes stand empty just so a rich oligarch can keep his money safe?

 

[Dis86]

@dowie one of the buildings that I oversaw in London had an estimated non-occupancy rate of 75%. It's a huge problem.

 

[hans gruber]

So you want to use the state to remove private property and redistribute it? There's a word for that but I can't quite remember it

Nope. Just be transparent about who owns what and how they managed to acquire it and jobs a good un.

And when it comes to shelter if someone is buying up vast swathes of it and deliberately letting it stand empty then maybe tax it more. They can then buy gold/art/cars/wine/cigars etc. instead.

 

[dowie]

To the government things change due to information sharing agreements. For example, if the shell company is in Panama, then you're still right. However, if your shell company is in Bermuda, there is an information sharing agreement between the UK and Bermuda that permits Bermudan authorities (and I believe Bermuda has a private register of beneficial interests in its companies) to share details of beneficial owners to the UK government (i.e. it's departments such as the NCA or HMRC).

Shell companies can be used as a legitimate source of privacy for individuals from public scrutiny, but not governmental. An example would be a high profile individual who wants to keep their holiday homes private. If public privacy is important, but you're not being dodgy with anything, then a shell company in Bermuda may well be a great idea.

Ah so if someone sets up a company owned by a nominee shareholder(s), overseen by a nominee director(s), a local lawyer, accountant etc.. etc.. in say BVI, Bermuda etc.. they still have to register themselves as a beneficial owner somewhere? Does that also help prevent a dodgy lawyer/accountant from simply stealing the company/assets since they're nominally in his name?

Seems like, for the properties already under some shell company, there is a massive stamp duty advantage to this sort of set up too, you never need sell the actual property, just sell the company overseas... or even don't don't that... you keep the same nominee shareholders/directors and just change the beneficial owner. Officially nothing has changed - the £XX million flat at one Hyde Park still belongs to "GTFO HMRC Bermuda Ltd.." which is still owned by [dodgy accountant] and has [dodgy lawyer] as a director.

Then just for fun you might as well not pay any council tax either as they'll struggle to collect it.

 

[Pudney]

Ah so if someone sets up a company owned by a nominee shareholder(s), overseen by a nominee director(s), a local lawyer, accountant etc.. etc.. in say BVI, Bermuda etc.. they still have to register themselves as a beneficial owner somewhere? Does that also help prevent a dodgy lawyer/accountant from simply stealing the company/assets since they're nominally in his name?

Obviously that isn't a yes/no question as there's no international requirement to maintain a beneficial ownership registry, however, I believe the BVI, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands all do require companies to maintain a beneficial ownership register. I think this was actually as a result of the UK government passing an Act of Parliament in 2018 requiring British Overseas Territories to maintain such a register. The British Overseas Territories weren't particularly happy about that particular Act.

Obviously if we're talking about other types of territory/nation (e.g. Panama) then the answer is quite possibly no.

Seems like, for the properties already under some shell company, there is a massive stamp duty advantage to this sort of set up too, you never need sell the actual property, just sell the company overseas... or even don't don't that... you keep the same nominee shareholders/directors and just change the beneficial owner. Officially nothing has changed - the £XX million flat at one Hyde Park still belongs to "GTFO HMRC Bermuda Ltd.." which is still owned by [dodgy accountant] and has [dodgy lawyer] as a director.

I think, and I haven't looked at this in a while, that SDLT is still applicable if you sell a company that owns UK residential property. Another anti-avoidance mechanism that has been around a long time. Further, companies owning residential properties that don't undertake certain activities are subject to the Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings (ATED), which in the long run wipes out any potential SDLT savings.

Then just for fun you might as well not pay any council tax either as they'll struggle to collect it.

No comment as I have no real idea, but that certainly seems an issue!

 

[dowie]

Obviously that isn't a yes/no question as there's no international requirement to maintain a beneficial ownership registry, however, I believe the BVI, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands all do require companies to maintain a beneficial ownership register. I think this was actually as a result of the UK government passing an Act of Parliament in 2018 requiring British Overseas Territories to maintain such a register. The British Overseas Territories weren't particularly happy about that particular Act.

Obviously if we're talking about other types of territory/nation (e.g. Panama) then the answer is quite possibly no.

By BVI, Bermuda etc.. I meant to imply UK overseas ones, obvs we can't dictate terms to some random ones, that is good at least. As for whether they like it... well they've cost us enough in terms of lost revenue so they can lump it if they still want the association, the defence, handling of foreign policy etc..etc..

I think, and I haven't looked at this in a while, that SDLT is still applicable if you sell a company that owns UK residential property. Another anti-avoidance mechanism that has been around a long time. Further, companies owning residential properties that don't undertake certain activities are subject to the Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings (ATED), which in the long run wipes out any potential SDLT savings.

Even if the company is overseas? Like one Russian not resident here sells his interest in some Bermudan company to another Russian also not resident here - not sure how the UK gets to charge SDLT on that? Or even worse, if he doesn't even sell it but the beneficial owner changes but the nominee owner remains the same. That latter part you mention does seem to clear up my concern here though - I'm glad they can at least get them with that ATED you've mentioned - that seems to tackle this exact sort of scenario.

(Not that I'm anti foreign investment but I do think some of the rich international buyers using housing as an investment vehicle/store of wealth while leaving stuff empty in central London really do need to **** off/or be incentivised to either rent it out or **** off with some ramped up taxation... and at the other end of the scale I don't think we need to house unemployed/economically inactive people in council housing in zone 1 or most of zone 2 either, they can just as well **** off and watch day time TV all day in zone 4-6 instead!)

 

[Pudney]

By BVI, Bermuda etc.. I meant to imply UK overseas ones, obvs we can't dictate terms to some random ones, that is good at least. As for whether they like it... well they've cost us enough in terms of lost revenue so they can lump it if they still want the association, the defence, handling of foreign policy etc..etc..

I seem to recall some of the Governor-Generals (or whatever their name is) talking about becoming fully independent because of this, instead I think they just implemented Beneficial Owner Registers. Another way the UK government has attempted to combat money launders using shell companies to purchase UK property, which again seems to illustrate the OP's lack of understanding.

Even if the company is overseas? Like one Russian not resident here sells his interest in some Bermudan company to another Russian also not resident here - not sure how the UK gets to charge SDLT on that? Or even worse, if he doesn't even sell it but the beneficial owner changes but the nominee owner remains the same. That latter part you mention does seem to clear up my concern here though - I'm glad they can at least get them with that ATED you've mentioned - that seems to tackle this exact sort of scenario.

Technically the UK treats the sale of shares in a company that is purely a layer between the land/property as the sale of the interest in land/property and therefore chargeable to SDLT. Practically whether this is enforceable by HMRC for oversea shell companies is a completely different question that I can't really comment on!

However, one thing I would say, if it is a British Overseas Territory, then HMRC can request details from the overseas territory. Strictly this comes under the "Automatic Exchange of Information", which if the name is accurate would imply HMRC would get notification of the change in beneficial ownership without needing to request the data. In combination with HMRC's Connect computer system, which cross-references data from multiple data sources including HMRC's own data, Land Registry, Rightmove, Companies House etc., I wouldn't be surprised if HMRC could link the change in beneficial owner to a particular property.

 

[dowie]

Thanks @Pudney v.interesting

 

[Psycho Sonny]

I seem to recall some of the Governor-Generals (or whatever their name is) talking about becoming fully independent because of this, instead I think they just implemented Beneficial Owner Registers. Another way the UK government has attempted to combat money launders using shell companies to purchase UK property, which again seems to illustrate the OP's lack of understanding.



Technically the UK treats the sale of shares in a company that is purely a layer between the land/property as the sale of the interest in land/property and therefore chargeable to SDLT. Practically whether this is enforceable by HMRC for oversea shell companies is a completely different question that I can't really comment on!

However, one thing I would say, if it is a British Overseas Territory, then HMRC can request details from the overseas territory. Strictly this comes under the "Automatic Exchange of Information", which if the name is accurate would imply HMRC would get notification of the change in beneficial ownership without needing to request the data. In combination with HMRC's Connect computer system, which cross-references data from multiple data sources including HMRC's own data, Land Registry, Rightmove, Companies House etc., I wouldn't be surprised if HMRC could link the change in beneficial owner to a particular property.

HMRC doesn't have the resources to do what is required. They also haven't had a wage rise in 13 years and a real world wage cut. With their staff morale at an all time low and being hit with more cuts every year they simply don't bother sending out as many requests as they have too many coming in from other countries. So rather than send requests out majority of resource is put on handling requests inwards. So they help out all the other countries but ask for very little help in return. It's probably a 75-90% split in other countries favour but it should be mor e 50/50.

It's FAME which is used in conjuction with land registry. Not rightmove.

 

[Pudney]

HMRC doesn't have the resources to do what is required. They also haven't had a wage rise in 13 years and a real world wage cut. With their staff morale at an all time low and being hit with more cuts every year they simply don't bother sending out as many requests as they have too many coming in from other countries. So rather than send requests out majority of resource is put on handling requests inwards. So they help out all the other countries but ask for very little help in return. It's probably a 75-90% split in other countries favour but it should be mor e 50/50.

It's FAME which is used in conjuction with land registry. Not rightmove.

HMRC technically has the ability, whether or not they have the practical ability to is a different matter that I can't comment on. Also, my understanding from the outside is that Connect links in with a large number of databases and sites, FAME wouldn't surprise me (although in my opinion it provides little extra information to Companies House) but Rightmove was a source that has been mentioned publicly in the past. The list I provided wasn't meant to be exhaustive (I have seen talk that there are at least 30 databases that it can search), nor necessarily connected. Whether or not this is correct I don't know, but given your post you may have more insight to the inner workings!

 

[Psycho Sonny]

HMRC technically has the ability, whether or not they have the practical ability to is a different matter that I can't comment on. Also, my understanding from the outside is that Connect links in with a large number of databases and sites, FAME wouldn't surprise me (although in my opinion it provides little extra information to Companies House) but Rightmove was a source that has been mentioned publicly in the past. The list I provided wasn't meant to be exhaustive (I have seen talk that there are at least 30 databases that it can search), nor necessarily connected. Whether or not this is correct I don't know, but given your post you may have more insight to the inner workings!

They have access to ICE searches too as well as a few other systems. but it all depends on which department. they all use different systems. land registry is one they have a contract with as well as equifax. they used to use experian but equifax was cheaper so now use that even though it's worse. so the same goes for other software with all the cuts they keep going for the cheap option or they go for an option which doesn't suit them or isn't fully compatible. MTD has shown them up again. they just don't have the resources to work as effectively as they should be.

The resources just simply aren't there in terms of budget, staff and wages. All the experienced staff are leaving for jobs elsewhere as they want better pay and none of their knowledge is being passed down to new recruits fresh off the street who don't have a clue. Staff retention and decent staff is impossible under such circumstances.

it's funny this being the case as they are responsible for bringing all the money in yet no money is being spent on them to help them bring in more money.

 

[Jean-F]

Why does the British Government consistently turn a blind eye to this corruption by "foreign officials" (AKA Crooks)?

I gather that there are any number of tower blocks in London where there are no lights on in any of the windows at night for 11 months of the year and the underground car parks are full of cars covered in dust sheets.

These properties should be handed over to local councils for social housing unless the owners can be identified as UK residents and the flats are occupied for 11 months of the year.

This entire business is a disgraceful scam orchestrated by Construction Companies and Bankers and tolerated by their friends and beneficiaries in Government.

I’m not disputing your assertion re the empty tower blocks, and underground car parks full of cars covered by dust sheets, but in common with most people, I don’t take much notice of tower blocks, be they dark, or illuminated, neither do I drive into residential underground car parks to look around.
Any chance of pointing me in the direction of one or two, just to see where they are?

 

[Scam]

I’m not disputing your assertion re the empty tower blocks, and underground car parks full of cars covered by dust sheets, but in common with most people, I don’t take much notice of tower blocks, be they dark, or illuminated, neither do I drive into residential underground car parks to look around.
Any chance of pointing me in the direction of one or two, just to see where they are?

You could try The Shard, or Centre Point? Admittedly empty for different, albeit equally as pointless reasons.

I'm actually struggling to find articles regarding buyers leaving their apartments empty as all the coverage has skewed to how they are failing to sell (and thus remain empty).

But according to this article you wouldn't have to look hard, because around 1 in 20 homes in Central and West London lies empty whereas if you look at "prime" areas only of London this rises to a third.

This figure rises to more than one-third of buyers, or 36 per cent, if we look at the “prime” market areas of central London over the same period. Here, vacancy was measured by looking at homes with little or no “transactional data”, relating to finance, retail or other forms of administration, such as tax records and bills.

On this measure, we find that half of residences in new builds in general are empty, as are 19 per cent of dwellings across London’s inner boroughs. The likelihood that a home is empty rises alongside its market value: 39 per cent of homes worth £1m to £5m are underused, and 64 per cent of homes worth more than £5m. Of the homes owned by foreign investors, 42 per cent are empty.

 

[Dis86]

@Jean-F Belgrave Square.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

they changed the amount of tax you need to pay on empty commercial properties quite a while back to stop people hoarding commercial properties with no intention of using them from 10% to 90% iirc on rates.

i don't believe residential get the same treatment.

Empty properties
You’ll usually have to pay Council Tax on an empty home, but your council can decide to give you a discount - the amount is up to them. Contact your council to ask about a discount.

You can be charged up to double your Council Tax if your home has been empty for 2 years or more (unless it’s an annexe or you’re in the armed forces).

The rules are different in Scotland.


So all these empty properties are still paying taxes, etc. so it's not all gravy for the owners. they will be paying thousands every year for nothing if they truly are empty.

 

[Combat squirrel]

The UK is horrific, it's the playground of the rich alone, it's all geared for them. Brexit is only happening because of the mega rich as well, they essentially in all but name want to make the UK a lawless tax haven that doesn't have to answer to anyone.

Money is being placed above humanity ever more aggressively than before.

 

[Scam]

So all these empty properties are still paying taxes, etc. so it's not all gravy for the owners. they will be paying thousands every year for nothing if they truly are empty.

For the prices of these luxury apartments, I don't think they're going to care much about paying <£3,000/yr of council tax! You do realise band H in Westminster is only £1500/yr? lol...

And the fact they'll probably claim the single person discount (if they can be bothered) is even more lol...

 

[Jean-F]

@Jean-F Belgrave Square.

While there may be, almost certainly are, multi million pound properties 2, 3, or 4 storey high in Belgrave Square standing empty, there are no tower blocks there, the nearest tall buildings that I recall, will be the Park Tower Hotel in Knightsbridge, north end of Lowndes Square, and the Jumeirah Carlton Tower Hotel, Cadogan Place.
I’m not trying to be difficult, empty houses are bad too, but the post quoted “many tower blocks” empty in London, their underground car parks full of cars covered by dust sheets, where?

 

[StriderX]

It’s one of our biggest ‘unofficial’ economies, British offshore companies account for a hugely disproportionate amount of money flow and property is a chonker as well.

Funding terrorists, drug barons, slavers, traitorous lobbyists, pedos and all sorts of goodies.

Westminster/public school chums won’t give that up, it’s their primary means of ******* over the country. So these new powers... a pittance to make it seem like they’re doing something.