Money Laundering (2)

Money Laundering (2)

Didn't find your answer?

May I extend my thanks to all of those who contributed answers to this very important topic. However, there are a few "buts" in my previous question and in short, it is the one that slipped through the net. Needless to say, the authorites are satisfied.

This particular client is one that never got reported: only because all reasonable steps had been taken in making the usual enquiries into the person's bankings and that satisfactory explanations were given. For instance, if a person says "my mate gave me £10,000 as a loan"; am I to believe that person or, do I make background checks to verify thet person's story? Now in my repy, if I had said: pull the other one, now tell me the real story, and it turned out to be a lie, then I'd know what to do. But, if that person says it's the truth and in so doing,documentary evidence by way of a signagture attesting to the transaction was given, then it's the end of the matter: my personal instincts tell me so and the story ends. This may be esoteric in its nature but in response, to stretch the point even further, the fees I'm afraid, would not extend to full audits and lengthy enquiries! Now that's not to say there's a push policy to get the desk cleared or any naivety involved here, or due to lack of experience and integrity on my part; but more of a judgemental decision at that time, in that particular set of circumstances, rightly or wrongly.

My other point being: I'm not a copper, neither have I any extended experience in forensics, nor lastly, have I the depth of knowledge to spot a crook when I see one. In my defence therefore, it would be more congruent to report all of my clients thereby exonerating me from any further reprisals? However, if on the other hand, I could surmize, that "A" doesn't work then go to "B" because that fits the picture, then this would be perhaps, more clear-cut and my perspective in profiling would I think, eventually change.

I have to draw the line between suspicion or speculation and in so doing, if my intuition or gut feeling tells me that one or the other is inexact, then and only then, I make my choice.

Dr Allen Lunn
Allen Lunn

Replies (1)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

David Winch
By David Winch
23rd Dec 2006 14:09

What the ML legislation requires of an accountant

Allen

You have lost me a bit here!

Let me say that the money laundering legislation does require you to confirm the identity of a new client, but it does not require you to undertake any investigation or make any enquiries beyond that.

If you suspect a client (or anyone else for that matter) is engaged in money laundering (as a result in information received in the course of your accountancy / tax / audit / insolvency work) then you have two options.

Option one is simply to report your suspicion to SOCA (or to your MLRO if you are not yourself the MLRO). This option involves no questioning of your client.

Option two is to make further enquiries which may result in your suspicions evaporating. If this resolves the matter and you no longer have a suspicion then you need not report. If, on the other hand, you remain suspicious you can report at that stage.

Does that clarify the position for you?

If you are looking for guidance on what counts as "reasonable grounds for suspicion" you could do worse than download my article on the subject by clicking on this link.

David
www.mlrosupport.co.uk

Thanks (0)