Money Laundering Registration for book-keepers.

What are you talking about. Ignoring the fact that I am NOT monitored by the IAB but another organisation, there are no past crimes to report!  I know about the IAB because I have a IAB member in Practice that I sometimes mentor, and trust to pass work to.

Please don't presume or jump to conclusions.  I have always over the last 20+ years checked that my clients have not been "fiddling"........        The difference now is, that if they refuse to correct the figures as well as telling them to find a new accountant I will report them. 

Clients will try things on for the first time, and I make sure I identify it immidetely before they do it again.  If you have to identify "Past Crimes" then you never did your job properly in the first place. 

Hi Star

You may not need to take further qualifications to obtain IAB membership. Depending on your current qualifications and experience I would suggest you contact the IAB on their direct line 01732 897750 and they would be more than happy to help.

I think the query may have arisen because of your example as follows:

3. Client: my previous accountant told me to do it.  Me: I'm not your previous accountant, I don't work this way and don't expect my clients to either. Client: Please help me do it correctly.  Me: Of course as long as you tell me everything and do it correctly.

Result: Client is happy not to "fiddle"!  - no need to report client for ML

This suggests that the client may have now discovered that his past VAT / tax returns were incorrect due to accepting erroneous advice from the previous accountant.  If that is the case then either the client now corrects the previous incorrect returns or he is dishonestly failing to correct those returns.  In the latter case an obligation would arise upon you to submit a Suspicious Activity Report.

However I would not go back 20 years as suggested by the previous poster.  The present definition of money laundering came into effect in 2003 and (in my view at least) there is no need to go back prior to then.

David

Britain has a paranoid control freak as a Prime Minister, and reading this thread it looks as if we are becoming as paranoid as McDoom himself is.

To those who go on about "imprisonment"  - you really do need a reality check.  We are accountants/book keepers etc - not psychics. The unreported item has to be pretty obvious before a sustainable prosecution for non reporting can be brought. Of course the courts would set the bar a little higher for an accountant than they would for a book keeper, but the law says it must be clear enough for a "reasonable man with similar qualifications etc" to be expected to see it. Note, it says "reasonable man", not overzealous paranoid man.

I wonder how many can actually put their hands on their hearts and say that their clients, particularly the plumbers, bricklayers etc, never do "back pocket jobs"?   None of you can.  So shouldnt you therefore have a "suspicion" and report every plumber or electrician every year?

We are in danger of becoming too obsessed with MLR and undermining its purpose by reporting every minor error. 

Thank goodness for common sense.

Of course, they don't really want to imprison you. What they want is your money by way of fines in order to improve the country's cashflow

I agree with David that the duty to report only goes back for crimes since 2003 however HMRC are looking back 20 years with respect to Non disclosure opportunities and I believe are being encouraged to go back 20 years rather than the traditional 6 particulary when they are entitled to in the case of Fraud or negligence.

Added to which it is the correct behaviour professionaly, either that or you refuse to act and advise the tax office that previous returns submitted were incorrect. You do not have to give a reason.

We are not here to help our clients evade tax and no it is not acceptable for plumbers etc to be doing undeclared cash. Although I do accept you don't really know (if you do its a different matter) the only way this exists if mr dodgy can simply move to another accountant that tolerates this sort of behaviour which appears to be the vast majority.

Is it any wonder when we can't play fair we get awful law like ML and other proposed legislation that is on its way.

reality check ! it may not be reality, but it is what the law says, one must assume there will come a time when the law is enforced. If you disagree with the law the action is not to ignore it. Unfortunately it is about time a few examples were made as was promised when MLR was introduced.

We are not here to help our clients evade tax and no it is not acceptable for plumbers etc to be doing undeclared cash. Although I do accept you don't really know (if you do its a different matter) the only way this exists if mr dodgy can simply move to another accountant that tolerates this sort of behaviour which appears to be the vast majority.

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 23/02/2010 - 09:47

That is a totally wrong attitude.

The vast majority of accountants dont tolerate "back pocket" jobs. BUT, it really is time you had a reality check. How would you know if a tradesman has done a couple of cash jobs during the year?  Do you use a rubber hose to beat the truth out of your clients? 

Indeed, can YOU honestly say that you have NEVER had a client give you £20 for helping them fill in a mortgage application or passport application or whatever?  Are you SURE that you ALWAYS recorded it? Or, have you NEVER had a grateful client do a quick freebie for you (fix that leaking tap, or whatever) or only charge you "trade" price for things, or not charge you for the whisky you have whilst discussing their pub's accounts with them?  

We ALL break laws, every time we drive our cars we probably break half a dozen traffic laws. So, although things might be technically wrong, one should always apply some comon sense to the issue. Otherwise total paranoia is the inevitable result.  I therefore think your comment about "another accountant that tolerates this sort of behaviour which appears to be the vast majority" as uncalled for and insulting to the majority of perfectly honest accountants. 

You say "we are not here to help our clients evade tax" - correct.  But we ARE here to help our clients AVOID tax by any legal means available. I once had a tax officer accuse me of "using a loophole in the legislation". To which my response was go and close the loophole, until you do its perfectly legal to use it, and indeed I would be guilty of not doing my best for my client if I didnt. This exchange took place in court and the Judge totally agreed with me. Bad and ill conceived legislation badly drafted is something of the norm for HMRC.

If this government hadn't f****d up (or allowed banks/Tesco etc to) the economy and didn't p**s our money against the wall supporting all and sundry except the hard working minority we wouldn't need this debate. Which is so wide of the mark of the prime purpose of this legislation, which I always thought was a concerted international effort against drug barons and human traffickers, which once again has been twisted to inflict paper trails and paranoia on accountants and screw a few extra bob out of the remaining decent, hard working law abiding citizens (who may evade a bit of tax in the attempt to feed and house their families) for the great and the good to sqaunder.

Would make good ole Joe McCarthy proud!

What a waste of time - just another tax on business.  I reported 3 companies working a scam (loss to the Revenue possibly £150,000+).  Action? None.  Would I do it again via the MLR channels - No.    I might have to pay to stay in business but I do  not subscribe! 

TheAncientOne

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-GB
X-NONE
X-NONE

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Wrong attitude.

Indeed, can YOU honestly say that you have NEVER had a client give you £20 for helping them fill in a mortgage application or passport application or whatever?  Are you SURE that you ALWAYS recorded it?

YES !!!

Don't you ?

How could you advise a client to be honest if you yourself are dishonest. ( if )

I can't believe an accountant would have such an attitude !

Are you trying to say that a certain amount of tax evasion is acceptable ? Where would you draw the line ?

It is clear that we do need nasty legislation to deal with this problem !!

You are to be congratulated for first identifying and second reporting this matter. 

However, I would not expect an immediate response.  In my experience this could be for a number of reasons but is most likely to be that HMRC and/or SOCA are putting together a case.  It could be that the person is known to SOCA already for other reasons and that your SAR is just a small cog in a much bigger machine. Much of the delay could also be put down to SOCA trying do things in such a way as to protect your anonymity.

I know that things can seem to go quiet and then suddenly all hell is let loose, with clients getting the 6am wake-up call. 

Anyway, you have done your bit so you should have nothing to worry about. 

How could you advise a client to be honest if you yourself are dishonest. ( if )

I can't believe an accountant would have such an attitude !

Are you trying to say that a certain amount of tax evasion is acceptable ? Where would you draw the line ?

It is clear that we do need nasty legislation to deal with this problem !

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 23/02/2010 - 14:00

Either you are a saint, or deluded.

What "attitude" exactly are you implying?  Its called being realistic and living in the real world. Do you declare a benefit in kind every time a client gives you a cup of tea?  Do you keep mileage records accurate to the last yard so you only ever claim purely business mileage?  Never used a pen or a stamp from the business for personal use? Or is a "certain amount of tax evasion acceptable"?

It must be wonderful to be so perfect. Be careful you dont trip over your halo.

Now, if you want to accuse me of dishonesty then do so, put your name, and get ready for court - because that is where you will find yourself in very short order.

I pity your clients - not that you will have many once you have reported them all in your zealous rush to penalise them all for simply earning a living.  Be careful that your reports are not found to be without good reason, or you may find it a very expensive excercise as no legislation can protect you from claims for damages, and where a report is found to be without reasonable cause or potentially malicious then court orders can be obtained to secure the original report.

Incidently - however "nasty" legislation is, the FINAL decision how to apply it lays with the courts, and the more unreasonable it is, the more likely the courts are to ignore it.

when doing the odd cash job for a few quid invokes the harshest possible penalties,

but fiddling your MP expenses, awarding billion pound contracts to companies in which you have a vested interest in, or even changing laws so they give an advantage to companies you have an interest in are fine - because its within the law.

The sooner we start to close this yawning chasm between law and good sense the better.

I have re written a 10cc classic to bring it up to date:

Gimme your body
Gimme your mind
Open your heart
Pull down the blind
Gimme your money gimme it all
I'll tax your kitchen I'll tax your hall
Tax for Tax sake
Money for Gods sake
Tax for Tax sake Money for Gods sake
Gimme the readys
Gimme the cash
Gimme a bullet
Gimme a smash
Gimme a silver gimme a gold
Make it a million for when I get old
Tax for Tax sake
Money for Gods sake
Tax for Tax sake
Money for Gods sake
Money talks so listen to it
Money talks to me
Anyone can understand it
Money can't be beat Oh no
When you get down, down to the root
Don't give a damn don't give a hoot
Still gotta keep taxing the loot
Chauffeur driven
Gotta tax her quick as you can
Tax even her lovin' don't give a damn
Give your tax in the palm of my hand
Bread from Heaven Ain't no country
Where you can be free
Can run if you want to
Just pay your duty
Keep you in exile the rest of your days
You can leave the country as long as you pays
Tax for Tax sake
Money for Gods sake
Tax for Tax sake
Money for Gods sake
Tax for Tax sake
Money for Gods sake
Tax for Tax sake
Money for Gods sake

They've done a good job of brainwashing  when doing the odd cash job for a few quid invokes the harshest possible penalties,

but fiddling your MP expenses, awarding billion pound contracts to companies in which you have a vested interest in, or even changing laws so they give an advantage to companies you have an interest in are fine - because its within the law.

The sooner we start to close this yawning chasm between law and good sense the better.

Posted by Old Greying Acc... on Tue, 23/02/2010 - 16:27

The bible says something about "he that is without sin cast the first stone".

What I find amazing is that there are some who are so full of their own importance and so self deluded that they are actually willing to reach for the stone.

Now I don't deliberately break the law, but, I'm not stupid enough to believe that I am perfect or infallible.

Have I ever failed to declare income?  Not as far as I know, but I guarantee that sometime or other I've forgotten something.  The same with expenses no doubt.

And YES, it is a bit rich when politcians pontificate about others whilst their own snouts are firmly in the trough. There are 4 being prosecuted, so how the hell did the other 650 get away with it?

Personally I cant wait to see a couple of malicious prosecution cases succesfully brought. Then maybe some people will realise that they cannot toss around accusations without good reason.  At present I think their are a few accountants who  are on some kind of "power trip".

I am really worried at your suggestion that people could find out who has made the report.

Take the case of an accountant who finds a client is into drugs in a big way with shootings taking place in the area as a result of drugs wars. The accountant makes a report and the client finds out who made the report the accountant could be shot.

In these circumstances would the accountant have to make a report ?

The short answer to your question about whether an accountant has to make a report under MLR 2007 / PoCA 2002 which might put himself in danger is "No".

Section 330 PoCA 2002 (which is the section which obliges accountants and others to report suspicions of money laundering by others) includes an exception where a person has a reasonable excuse for not making a report.  A credible threat of violence is likely to be considered a reasonable excuse.

It is also the case that only in rare circumstances would the authorities reveal information leading to the identification of the reporter.

There are also steps which can be taken to reduce the likelihood of the reporter's identity becoming known.  For example, the MLRO when drafting the report should avoid unnecessarily naming the individual within his organisation who reported to the MLRO and should avoid naming members of his organisation in the "white space" free text narrative on the report form.

However the risk to a reporter cannot, in my view at least, be completely eliminated.

David

 I am really worried at your suggestion that people could find out who has made the report.

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 23/02/2010 - 19:59

I wasn't actually thinking about you reporting the local Mafia.

What I was refering to is any case where it can be shown to the court that a report may, on the balance of probabilities, have been filed maliciously.  In those circumstances the court would almost certainly issue an Order for the immediate disclosure of the original report and it's source.

After all, there are I have no doubt, some sick people out there who because a client has upset them (refused to pay his bill or whatever) might well see filing a spurious report as a good way of "getting their own back".

Let's face it, the courts see malicious false rape accusations almost daily so why not malicious false MLRs too?

David,

As regards the excuse of not reporting through fear. At what point are we allowed not to report?  We fear we might get hurt a little bit?  Quite a bit?  Ouch that hurts?  book me a hospital bed? A lot? Killed?

You got the grey hair bit right - lol

Not rertired yet though - not quite - but I have reached that stage in life where I can pick & choose what I do and what I cant be bothered to do.

I'm not sure we have any retraunts here run by the Chinese Triads - maybe you should make it the Welsh Tafia instead.

... or may be the irony

I thought you realised we are on the same hymn sheet?

And seems a bit farcical that you wouldn't have to report the drugs baron for fear of harm, when identifying and stopping the drug barons was the prime motive for this legislation, which was the point of my post, i.e. it is not there to give accountants sleepless nights over whether to shop Jones the brick for doing the odd cash job.

May be I should get a job at BAe bribing Saudi's, then I wouldn't have to worry!

And seems a bit farcical that you wouldn't have to report the drugs baron for fear of harm, when identifying and stopping the drug barons was the prime motive for this legislation, which was the point of my post, i.e. it is not there to give accountants sleepless nights over whether to shop Jones the brick for doing the odd cash job.

Posted by Old Greying Acc... on Wed, 24/02/2010 - 00:26

Since when did anything this useless government do actually achieve what it was supposed to do ?

Reading most of the posts it seems that we are so afraid of state retribution that every time someones petty cash doesnt balance they will be reported.  It really is silly.

I wonder if it really is "mere coincidence" that legislation allegedly introduced to catch terrorists and drug barons, "just happens" to be useful in gathering in extra tax for minor innocent errors. 

Just as other anti-terrorism laws have, "by coincidence" been useful for councils wishing to snoop on innocent ratepayers. 

We have an Orwellian government with a paranoid obsessive as its leader.  

Has anyone made a report of a tax or VAT irregularity that has led to a Revenue enquiry or a VAT compliance visit?  None of my reports have led to anything, which makes all the "skint government increasing taxes" alegations ring a bit hollow here

the first school rule ' was any breach of common sense is a breach of school rules'  i take a similar appeoach to what is an offence under the MLR - so no reports for stamp use or paper clip nicking etc etc - ill be damned no doubt

...........the first school rule ' was any breach of common sense is a breach of school rules'  i take a similar appeoach to what is an offence under the MLR -  Posted by carnmores on Wed, 24/02/2010 - 10:43

You are introducing a concept which doesnt seem to be recognised by the current adminstration............"common sense".

thats what i was trying to get at !

......need to rob a bank first to get the fee ready...

Star

Posted by STAR181270 on Wed, 24/02/2010 - 11:45

Ah, but when you've robbed the bank, will you report yourself under MLR? 

Or, will you take the view that you don't need to because the knowledge of the robbery didnt come to you in the course of your business?

Maybe you could threaten to beat yourself up and not have to report yourself because of duress?

As for the Taffia - if you thought I was joking take a look for yourself at the following BBC page -

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/03/05/spectre-of-the-taffia-could-still-threaten-hopes-of-a-law-making-assembly-91466-23068197/

cos thats what they will be doing to us in 5 yrs