I have a client who is a plasterer. He was contacted by someone who had some work coming of in the new year.
The job was quite big and as he was struggling for work he was keen to take it on. He quoted keenly for the work and won it provided
He done some work in the guys own house before Xmas as he some family coming to stay with him.
He dropped everything and sorted the guys house out finishing on Xmas Eve and charged a fraction of normal fee as he bigger job coming off.
He rang and rang for a start date and heard nothing. He went to the site to see the job and when he got there it was full of unemployed lads
Who were working cash in hand (Apperently he knew a few of them and they told him they were).
He never got the work.
He came in with his March Year End and told me the story as is quite rightly not happy about losing job to "fiddlers".
The other guy is not my client and I have only heard it second hand so have no idea if its true or not. He wants to report the matter to whoever he can.
I told him there was a section on HMRC website where you could report this type of thing remaining Anon if you so wish.
He seemed a bit put out that I wasn't keener to get stuck and report this blokes dodgy dealings.
Would you have done more to help or even put in a MLR to report this guy?
I didn't particularly want to get involved but wonder if I should have helped him more.
Replies (11)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Construction is rife with this sort of thing
I doubt your client has anything in writing to confirm he was awarded the contract, so his chances of success are pretty remote.
Put simply, it is a rip-off to take advantage of the lack of work in the building trade to get personal work done on the cheap. Didn't he realise the guy was wheeling & dealing when he was 'awarded' the contract on the following basis "...... provided
He done some work in the guys own house before Xmas as he some family coming to stay with him.".????
He was willing to do business with someone not altogether honest, and it backfired.
With regard to the cash in hand work, he can report that here:
im not so sure
there is clearly a contract as PC Shirley intimates. was he paid for the house work and if so how much and how much was the bigger job? he should tell his 'mates' to scarper before you know who hits the fan. is he likely to be threatened as well?
Hearsay and verbal contracts
Can an accountant make an MLR report based on hearsay about a situation that he has no personal knowledge of? Maybe, but it doesn't sound right to me.
The verbal contract for the additional work is worth at least as much as the paper it was typed on.
@TomMcCelland
Can an accountant make an MLR report based on hearsay about a situation that he has no personal knowledge of? Maybe, but it doesn't sound right to me.
Tom
What the law says is that the accountant must make a report if he has a suspicion of money laundering by someone.
Now "suspicion" is an interesting word. I would say that a speculation is not a suspicion and a broad brush statement (such as "All taxi drivers are on the fiddle") isn't a suspicion about a particular person.
But a suspicion is less strong than a belief - and much less strong than proof.
Of course if I believe something is NOT the case then I do not hold a suspicion that it is the case.
The Court of Appeal have said this:
It seems to us that the essential element in the word "suspect" and its affiliates, in this context, is that the defendant must think that there is a possibility, which is more than fanciful, that the relevant facts exist. A vague feeling of unease would not suffice. But the statute does not require the suspicion to be "clear" or "firmly grounded and targeted on specific facts", or based upon "reasonable grounds".
Now that leaves open whether, in the OP's case, he does or does not "suspect" money laundering based on what he has heard from his client. That will depend upon what the client said and what the OP thinks about the reliability of things which this client says.
David
P.S. The Court of Appeal quote comes from R v Da Silva [2006] EWCA Crim 1654 para [16].
the old ones are the best Tom
however there was consideration for something , ie the house being done up has he been paid for that seems to be the crucial arguement
Really interesting, thanks David
Thanks for the clarification, which certainly makes one think
Cynical v naive
Does that mean a cynical person is required to make many reports and a naïve person is not required to make any? Or is being naïve a money laundering offence? This is not meant to be as facetious as it might sound. When the criteria requiring a report are highly subjective one's personality seems to be a determining factor. Aren't we meant to be equal under the law?
deliberate?
Does that mean a cynical person is required to make many reports and a naïve person is not required to make any? Or is being naïve a money laundering offence? This is not meant to be as facetious as it might sound. When the criteria requiring a report are highly subjective one's personality seems to be a determining factor. Aren't we meant to be equal under the law?
I am sure they didn't evade their taxes deliberately though? But don't keep any record of the conversation just in case.
I wonder if a company cheque was written for the private work or was this just cash in hand too.
As for cash in hand construction industry workers, HMRC will deny that their CIS scheme is not 100% fool proof? and so will do nothing as usual.
As for reporting things an accountants report will be ignored on the basis that you have a vested interest in the law being applied where as a member of the public's report is likely to carry more weight.
he could report it to action fraud?