Why not charge twopence ha'penny a as a 'fine'. A few thousand would barely hit the sides and certainly not enough to discourage.
Tis all just a charade. This country is probably one of the most corrupt - certainly with those in safe top places. Make a show of regulation, pick on the little honest people whilst allowing corruption as usual in high places/offices.
I wonder if the AML scrutiny is just another tax and little more than that. 'Regulatory' bodies, in my experience, are not interested in regulating. So are we just paying peoples wages and for fancy offices for more administration to take fees.
Companies House website does not seem to show signatures anymore and companies can file abbreviated accounts - so much less chance of checking out dodgy behaviour there as well.
Please tell me this is not just a show of regulation to take money. Pick on the lowly people ofcourse as they are more easily frightened and can be pushed around, whilst letting the 'big boys' and freemasons no doubt get away with whatever they like.
Please tell me this is not the case.
Dressing to intimidate - I am horrified by this suggestion.
People are not how they dress and, to be honest, from my experience, I have come to see that more dodgy characters wear suits than wear hoodies and have tattoos.
Sorry to offend anyone but it is who you are and what you do that is important. Integrity not intimidation.
This is where ethics and integrity comes in.
I called a revenue office today and went through the voice ID password experience. It really is pushy. I remained silent whilst it asked three times for me to comply.
I do not consent and yes, it certainly feels like the government having no regard for GDPR.
And does this not make a joke of MLR due diligence requirements in relation to checking Companies House?
A joke and a waste of our time if Companies House don't check anything.
Should this not be raised by the bodies involved for their members?
Well written Tom...so "the FIRST person to be prosecuted in the UK for falsifying filings" is the person that is doing the country a service for highlighing issues that need addressing.
The FIRST prosecution for falsifying fillings. Do they check anything? Are they bothered at all?
An accountant submitted an SAR for us and I have been wondering if it will be taken up.
I take from what you say that this is unlikely.
Thank you for your comment.
Maybe he also meant 'weaker members' who aren't significant in terms of sub revenue so therefore easy to pick on. Usual story.
I asked my case to be escalated to 'independent review body' to find it's only 50% independent.... They did not tell me when asked who was on this 'review body' - their report was very biased. When I submitted corrections and accompanying letter, they did not send me amended report (so I don't know if corrections were actually made) and they stated that my submission was read 'once' they had made their decision! Total farce all of it. I have to say that one sentence in their report was 'They think its ***** fault'! I commented that it was not a very professional sentence for such a report.