MLR - acting for family members

MLR - acting for family members

Didn't find your answer?

If you have known somebody as a close relative for 40 years do you still need to ID him before accepting instructions?
Phil Rees

Replies (9)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By skylarking
23rd Apr 2009 18:28

Fellow Andy
I agree

Too many jobsworths get hung up about the ID and logic goes out of the window.

How is it that if you fail to ask to see your mum's passport and utilities bill you won't be able to spot the signs that she is a crook?

Equally, how is it that if you do see your mum's passport and utilties bill you will be able to spot the signs?

Barmy!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
23rd Apr 2009 17:42

despite my cynicism below
later comments are more helpful - it is not so much the initial ID check, but what the client (or relative) actually does, that we should be watching out for.

The problem with ID checks is that having faffed about to get them on file and be 'compliant' we sometimes think the job is done.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
23rd Apr 2009 12:52

Mum and Dad
Having known the above for a number of years, I am reasonably sure they they are who they say they are.

If they have fooled me for my entire life, I don't think viewing their passport is going to convince me otherwise!!

Thanks (0)
David Winch
By David Winch
23rd Apr 2009 12:47

I agree with Stephen

The problem with a family member or long-standing friend is not that they may be someone different from who they say they are - the problem is that you may be, or become, 'blind' to the 'obvious' signs of high risk that something untoward is going on.

Do not switch your critical faculties to "OFF" when dealing with someone whom you know well.

Sadly I have seen too many examples of shocked friends and family who never suspected what was going on - although once they did know the signs had been plain to see (in terms of 'odd' behaviour or accounting procedures for example) for years!

Depending upon how you want to relate to this type of client, actually going through the standard formalities in the same way that you would for any other client can be a positive way to set the tone of your business relationship.

There is only a very, very slight chance that your Uncle Fred is, unknown to you, engaged in serious crime. However if it turns out that he is, and you are both his accountant and his nephew, there is naturally an increased risk that the police may suspect that you may be also be involved in that serious crime. In that event your behaviour may come under a spotlight when stuff starts hitting the fan.

David

Thanks (0)
avatar
By steveoneill
23rd Apr 2009 10:41

Common sense approach
This post assumes that you are acting for your friends and relatives’ by the way of businesses and not in just a ‘family’ capacity which was never designed to be a part of the ML Regulations, for example a wife doing the books for her husband who may be a plumber

The Regulations actually state “identifying the client and verifying the client’s identity on the basis of documents, data or information obtained from a reliable and independent source;” Nowhere in the Regulations states that you must have documentary evidence on any client.

Information may be in any form, including word of mouth or personal experience etc, someone you know and trust may confirm a clients identity, your mother may confirm that the gentleman you are acting for really is your father (hopefully), and indeed you have probably visited your mothers house so you have information as to the home address.

We already know that it is not in the public interest to prosecute a regulated person who may commit a trivial or technical breach of the Regulations, this has been stated by SOCA and other law enforcement agencies, so you will should not receive any penalty for not having a copy of your mothers’ passport, so an element of common sense prevails. So document that it is your father and you been to his house, this would suffice for any Supervisory staff who may ask, if it does not then I would suggest that the supervisor gets retrained.

The problem with friends and relatives is not the knowing of who they are, but are you independent enough to effectively ‘police’ them. For example, you act for your farther and you discovered you father was involved in drugs dealing, could you file a SAR on him? If you could not, you stand a very good chance of being investigated along side your relative for those offences since you are ‘aiding and betting’ by turning a blind eye, especially if you continue to act. You can choose who you act for, who you want to be friends with, but in some respects you cannot choose your relatives.

Do not forget that a risk assessment is mandatory for all clients, including your relatives; here you would document your policy of what you would do to mitigate any potential risk of loosing your independence because of your association with the client relative. For example, your firm may be the agent, but an independent member of staff may complete most of the initial work.

Steve O’Neill
Business Tax Centre

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
23rd Apr 2009 10:23

ID Them
Because of the laxness that could easily creep in when accepting this engagement, you should ensure that their identity is properly confirmed, including passport (if they don't have one they should apply for one), driving licence (as with passport if not got, they will have to get one, and not one of those useless provisional things with a big red L on it), birth certificate (legible but showing a definite patina of age), four tokens out of a set of five from last week's Daily Telegraph special offer of the week, inside leg measurement (if you are not up to that, the nice gentleman at the local clothing boutique may assist) and a sample of hair (not less than 6 months old so it can be tested for inappropriate substances including illicit hair applications from the 1970's still at the back of the bathroom cabinet), is anybody still reading this and if so why, is it because you didn't find Mr Eyebrow's performance particularly convincing yesterday. Or perhaps put a note on your file in big red pen marked "MLR not applied CBA" to give compliance people something to find.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By skylarking
22nd Apr 2009 17:56

Colin
You brought him up. I usually find David Winch compelling, but on this single issue I thought he sounded a little foolish, especially when he tried to convince us that we should ID our own mothers. It sounded to me like he was participating in an Oxbridge-style debate after a particularly long and enjoyable lunch.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By colinhigginson
22nd Apr 2009 17:25

See previous thread
See link below. Been dealt with below and according to the MLR expert Mr Winch, you do need to ID them.

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=192774&d=1031&h=1021&f=1026

Thanks (0)
avatar
By skylarking
22nd Apr 2009 16:12

Phil!
You are stirring it!
Short answer, 'no' - you already know they are who they say they are, and you already know they live where they say they live, but there will be plonkers who tell you otherwise. Maybe they don't trust themselves.

Thanks (0)