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.
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.
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)
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
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.
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. ;-)
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.
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.
HMRC were the agency for reports because they are.
I thought it was SOCA whoever the registering body is?
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