Anyone watch Panorama? - offshore companies

Anyone watch Panorama? - offshore companies

Didn't find your answer?

The undercover Panorama reporters easily uncovered an industry still fit & well providing nominee directors & offshore companies to help people hide dirty money.

This was going on when I started in the business in the 70s and, considering the legislation over the years, changes in attitudes and even cleverness of fraudsters, I'm surprised it's still this blatant. The company in Dubai had rubber stamps for the nominee directors so the humans never even saw the documents they were signing.

I suppose you'll never stop fraudulant individuals but I wonder how many firms of accountants still pass clients on to make these arrangements?

The final staw for me was their visit to Stanley Davis, who I have used for many years.  they have now put a statement on their website but, personally, it doesn't resolve the issue.

Replies (13)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By ShirleyM
27th Nov 2012 12:54

Nothing surprises me any more

The greed and self serving attitude prevalent today has become so commonplace that it is being accepted as the norm by many, and those involved excuse it as being 'good business' to avoid taxes and ignore their social responsibility.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Roland195
27th Nov 2012 12:59

What are the legitmate reasons

for requiring the use of a nominee director?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By uktaxpal
27th Nov 2012 13:09

I didnt see it but I assume the individuals didnt register a Permanent Establishment or file foreign company/branch accounts with companies house? Silly question really--do criminals do these things?

 

Should the question be why HMRC has not spotted these foreign companies? (Unless they dont trade and all the transactions are fictitious)

Thanks (0)
By ccassociates
27th Nov 2012 13:23

I saw it

The issue for me was HMRC's attitude to supervison for ML purposes which is evidently zero. The journalist actually told the service providers on more that one occasion that the money ws criminal proceeds yet they didnt bat an eyelid. Its evident that as in all HMRC dealings the easy target gets done for making mistakes whilst the ones who blatantly flout the law get away with it

Thanks (0)
By George Attazder
27th Nov 2012 13:33

I didn't see it...

... but I do make a point of not believing:

anything said by a politician,anything said by a journalist,anything on TV,anything in the papers,anything on the internet.

But then maybe I'm naive.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By paulwakefield1
27th Nov 2012 13:37

I agree with George...

Certainly, any time something has been covered which I have actual knowledge of, the standard of reporting has left me breathless.

But I watched last night struggling to see it from another side and then it hit me. Clearly they were leading the journalists up the garden path to glean as much information as possible before making an MLRO report. ;-)

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ACDWebb
27th Nov 2012 14:29

Watched it.

It had some truly laugh out loud moments.......but not in a good way

Thanks (0)
avatar
By 3569787
03rd May 2016 17:24

Who was conning who?

;

Thanks (1)
By Canary Boy
27th Nov 2012 16:00

Naturally enough...

the public purse is big large enough for the "reporters" to travel extensively across the world to make a 30 minute programme that showed very little new.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By geoffwolf
27th Nov 2012 16:30

To which agency should money laundering be reported?

Why did the reporter beleive that HMRC are the agency to which moneylaundering is to be reported.

 

As tipping off is a criminal offence there is no way that the guy at Stanley Davis would admit to the iundercover reporter that notghing would be reported.

 

 

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
27th Nov 2012 21:29

Hold on a sec

Interesting range of responses above which probably indicates why this sort of practice is still alive and kicking, bit like the attitude of a client a few years back when he said "that [his money in the Caymans] is none of HMRC's damn business" then went on to slag off the benefit cheats he'd seen slumming about in his home town.  Clearly he'd been used to past accountants nodding sagely.

If you bother to watch the programme and discount perhaps 50% as a journalistic sting, you are still left with the distinct possibility Panorama has uncovered only the tip of an iceberg.

@3...etc, as far as the BBC's political motives are concerned, you don't say which way you are leaning but, at a guess, you can join the band of labour supporters who claimed the same thing in the past.  In this case though you are probably right in that I hardly think this kind of theft is common amongst your typical lefty.

@geoffwolf the reporter thought HMRC were the agency for reports because they are.  

Not sure about your other comment but tipping off would not have been an issue at the meeting, all that was needed was for Mr Kaye to tell Mr Singh that what he was suggesting was not possible, leaving Mr Singh and the BBC to try someone else.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By paulwakefield1
27th Nov 2012 22:08

HMRC were the agency for reports because they are.

I thought it was SOCA whoever the registering body is?

Thanks (0)
David Winch
By David Winch
28th Nov 2012 01:41

Supervisory bodies
HMRC are the Supervisory Body for Trust & Company Service Providers, except that an organisation (such as a firm of chartered accountants) which is a member of another supervisory body will be monitored by that other supervisory body for its T&CSP activities too.

Suspicious Activity Reports should be submitted to SOCA (not to the supervisory body).

The issue the reporter was addressing, I believe, was whether the supervisory body (i.e. HMRC) was adequately supervising the compliance of T&CSPs with the MLR 2007 (not whether those T&CSPs should themselves be reported to SOCA).

David

Thanks (1)