Proof as to the source of funds for individuals
Discussion
Hi All,
I know there is the AML regulations for companies. But is there any regulation and or law regulating the reciept of funds by an individual.
The scenario is:
Person A sends money (owned to Person B) through their solicitor. Of course the Solicitor of Person A can claim they themselves have carried out all necessary checks etc... but What regulation is imposed on Person B in relation to the money they are receiving from Person A?
any guidance will be appreciated.
XTO
I know there is the AML regulations for companies. But is there any regulation and or law regulating the reciept of funds by an individual.
The scenario is:
Person A sends money (owned to Person B) through their solicitor. Of course the Solicitor of Person A can claim they themselves have carried out all necessary checks etc... but What regulation is imposed on Person B in relation to the money they are receiving from Person A?
any guidance will be appreciated.
XTO
It's actually a very good question.
I must admit that I don't know the answer but as a private individual it is unlikely that you are expected to carry out AML procedures or checks, unlike an intermediary like a law firm. If it is a matter of wanting to dot i's and cross t's then putting in writing to the solicitors to confirm that they have carried out AML procedures in accordance with their responsibilities would surely be more than enough?
Obviously? If you have a genuine suspicion that funds might be bent then while there might no strictly be a legal duty there is probably a moral one?
As a minimum it has to be worth grassing up a solicitor for AML breech suspicions just for the sheer pleasure?
I must admit that I don't know the answer but as a private individual it is unlikely that you are expected to carry out AML procedures or checks, unlike an intermediary like a law firm. If it is a matter of wanting to dot i's and cross t's then putting in writing to the solicitors to confirm that they have carried out AML procedures in accordance with their responsibilities would surely be more than enough?
Obviously? If you have a genuine suspicion that funds might be bent then while there might no strictly be a legal duty there is probably a moral one?
As a minimum it has to be worth grassing up a solicitor for AML breech suspicions just for the sheer pleasure?
Reasons in the US, not really relevant but I'll toss it in
Apart from the obvious, criminal proceeds or money that may have avoided the tax system.
There is a concern that money used as a deposit is also loaned, therefore a persons ability to pay the loan in question may be hindered by the servicing of the loan used as a deposit.
They like to know the deposit is actually your money.
Apart from the obvious, criminal proceeds or money that may have avoided the tax system.
There is a concern that money used as a deposit is also loaned, therefore a persons ability to pay the loan in question may be hindered by the servicing of the loan used as a deposit.
They like to know the deposit is actually your money.
xto said:
What regulation is imposed on Person B in relation to the money they are receiving from Person A?
If the whole think looks "fishy" by any reasonable standards then B may be,- Handling stolen goods, or
- Money Laundering.
For instance, B sells his car to A for £20,000 with a proper written contract in place, and A pays B as specified in the contract. However, the car was only ever worth £500 and it's pretty obvious the car was only ever worth £500. B is very much at risk and saying "yes, but we had a contract" isn't going to do him any good at all. Anyone who helps them set up this fishy contract is similarly exposed. Put simply, you can't turn a blind eye and hope everything will be OK if a deal is "too good to be true".
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff