Permabanned
- Joined
- 24 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 25,863
- Location
- Godalming
Queenpins was a decent film, watched it last night. 6/10. They laundered money by buying lambos, private jets and becoming arms dealers.
Bank fined for being hilariously sloppy about its money laundering.
- Thread starter Angilion
- Start date
I'm confused. Is that a money laundering offence? Or as I queried before:
Is it not a separate entity?
Paul Walter Hauser was excellent in Kingdom! Wish they brought that show back
All you have to do as a crim is present yourself as an artist. If anyone needs to pay you a significant sum of money in exchange for illicit goods or services you just have them buy an original artwork from you, that doesn’t even have to be any good, for a price most right thinking people would consider absurd.
Eventually the art critics get wind of this new artist selling their artworks for crazy money and even though they don’t understand it they pretend that they do because to call it out as rubbish makes them look like an uncultured philistine.
Before you know it, your works are legitimately trading for crazy money as all of the speculators jump on board. You quit the crime game and just keep pumping out artworks. No-one really understands how any of this is happening but as long as they are all getting richer no-one cares.
Now let’s say that these ‘artworks’ were entirely digital, you could even give them a fancy name like ‘NFTs’ and have people pay for them with untraceable digital currency….
Eventually the art critics get wind of this new artist selling their artworks for crazy money and even though they don’t understand it they pretend that they do because to call it out as rubbish makes them look like an uncultured philistine.
Before you know it, your works are legitimately trading for crazy money as all of the speculators jump on board. You quit the crime game and just keep pumping out artworks. No-one really understands how any of this is happening but as long as they are all getting richer no-one cares.
Now let’s say that these ‘artworks’ were entirely digital, you could even give them a fancy name like ‘NFTs’ and have people pay for them with untraceable digital currency….
Money laundering is specifically a set of defined actions, e.g.
There are also other ways (e.g. facilitating money laundering by providing a fake explanation of the legal source of funds).
The proceeds of crime are "criminal property". So a drug dealer who holds cash from selling illegal drugs has proceeds of crime. Spending the proceeds of crime, i.e. transferring it, adds in the criminal offence of money laundering.
Ah ok I've seen it now: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/29/part/7
When I initially googled the POCA you stated it led me to: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/29/section/327
Which did not mention money laundering at all which is why I queried the definition, however part 7 clearly defines it as money laudering.
Thanks for the enlightenment
hmm... but why does section 327 not? Does it mean there cam be multiple charges for the same action?
When I initially googled the POCA you stated it led me to: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/29/section/327
Which did not mention money laundering at all which is why I queried the definition, however part 7 clearly defines it as money laudering.
Thanks for the enlightenment
hmm... but why does section 327 not? Does it mean there cam be multiple charges for the same action?
No one said anything about Hollywood or posted anything overly dramatic here, my point was that your example of buying a car with cash wasn't the full picture and you seem to have conceded that. Whether a fake legal explanation needs to be actively given to some party as part of the process or not (because no one has bothered asking) seems to be a bit moot, the aim ultimately for the criminals is for the source of (typically a large amount of) cash to be disguised to make it look legit, which would tend to require some fake legal cover being present for it as Angilion pointed out.
I dunno, you took issue with his description, when it seemed fine - but aren't willing to explain why, I find that a bit off tbh... I think perhaps that things accountants might look out for or things people might be charged with under broad anti-money laundering legislation (when the specific actions are only part of the process) might be getting muddled/conflated here.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 24 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 25,863
- Location
- Godalming
#baller
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 20,772
- Location
- Officially least sunny location -Ronskistats
Tough crowd on that one old bean! Great that we have someone in this field to expand on the vague stuff!
I don't believe I've conceded anything. I said it can be done without fake legal cover being present. I still maintain that and I've provided examples how that can happen. I've clearly stated that either Angillon's description or mine can lead to money laundering. I even bolded the important times where I've said it can be done in either method.
I've explained multiple times in multiple ways. Perhaps it's due to a lack of understanding of what both sides are talking about. I've clearly set out what I term to be money laundering. All I have to go on for your position is guesswork, hence the suggestion you are being Hollywood-esque.
Ah ok I've seen it now: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/29/part/7
When I initially googled the POCA you stated it led me to: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/29/section/327
Which did not mention money laundering at all which is why I queried the definition, however part 7 clearly defines it as money laudering.
Thanks for the enlightenment
I don't understand your question.
Tough crowd on that one old bean! Great that we have someone in this field to expand on the vague stuff!
In fairness my stance is absolutely with an accounting hat on. Other industries such as banking, real estate, auctioneers, solicitors etc. will have their own viewpoints and risk indicators because we're trained on what to look out for in our little part of the business world.
If you don't know something and can explain the question differently I'm happy to help if I know anything about it! I'm just genuinely not sure what you're asking.
Edit: and for the lols, I can commit a criminal offence under s330 by not notifying suspected money laundering. It's why we get all the training on it
Yes, I recall similar when I worked for santander - but those parts of the courses were generally aimed at customer facing roles rather than us in IT. We simply used the java source to show us what answers were true rather than read the courseIf you don't know something and can explain the question differently I'm happy to help if I know anything about it! I'm just genuinely not sure what you're asking.
Edit: and for the lols, I can commit a criminal offence under s330 by not notifying suspected money laundering. It's why we get all the training on it
Ok I'll try again, but I'm not sure how different it will be. There are two pages which list those actions being an offence. One under part 7 specifically states it refers to money laundering, however in section 327 it simply relates to POCA. So if you perform one of those listed actions can you be charged with two offences? I suppose this is more for a criminal lawyer than an accountant, however being retarded it might be obvious to someone else what I'm confusing myself with (even if it does come incoherently from my brain fart).
don't they just give loans to each other from an offshore company in a tax haven that will never be paid back
Your example was simply buying a cheap second-hand car with cash, I've objected that that doesn't seem to be the full picture and you yourself then stated that "you paying a trader in cash is likely going to be the start of a money-laundering chain"... You've also made assertions re: training materials and that you're wary of posting details etc..
I think that's perhaps the issue here, as suggested before. Angilion's description seemed fine, you've objected to it but you seem to be making an argument that any number of things that accountants might need to be wary of or that might fall under money laundering legislation (even if they might only be a part of the process) are money laundering. If you're only making an argument about some part of a given money laundering process/a specific offence under the relevant legislation then sure, that part might not involve any fake legal explanation, that doens't negate what Angilion was saying though.
Ok, so this is to do with the structure of a piece of legislation.
The "title" of the legislation is the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
There are various "chapters" in the legislation. "Chapter" 7 (AKA Part 7) is money laundering.
Section 327 is the first "paragraph" of the money laundering chapter. It is defining the first set of money laundering offences.
Other sections are other "paragraphs" of the money laundering chapter, up to section 340 anyway. Some of these "paragraphs" define other offences. Some "paragraphs" explain what is meant by certain words in other "paragraphs". E.g. section 340 explains what is meant by "criminal property" amongst other things.
Sections 327 to 340 all describe money laundering per UK law.
That's because the chain can have multiple ways to money launder and I'm not going to list them all. The second hand car dealer was provided as it's a quick and very simple example. The example can be made more complex easily.
I'm pretty certain this started out as a pedantic correction that money laundering isn't about creating a fake legal explanation... I even said I was being pedantic.... I've since explained how money laundering can happen without fake legal explanations, and I stand by my pedantic correction!
It's not a stupid question. I know the answer because I read tax legislation on a daily basis so I've learnt how to read and interpret legislation. I got trained on this at some point.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 20,772
- Location
- Officially least sunny location -Ronskistats
In fairness though, your aligned to the banking world well enough for the op in my book, and concise enough with opinion.