Money laundering compliance
Discussion
This is a bit of a technical one, and I'm not sure if anybody will even answer, but...
So I had a hypothetical client, Fred, and Fred turns up at my office looking for me to notarise his signature on a document. I'm not offering any substantive legal advice, merely confirming his identity, mental capacity and age as well as the existence and his authority to sign on behalf of an English limited. This is easy and standard stuff.
However, his document smells. I can confirm his identity and also the existence of the English limited, but the transaction relates to 1937 Chinese Liberty bonds - these are worthless and have been ever since China defaulted on them.
My question is, as a regulated professional, what would my crime be, if any, if I proceeded to notarise the document? There's no money laundering as there is no money. Similarly there's no crime, and I'm fairly sure no terrorist links... Professionally negligent perhaps, but anything else?
Just a discussion in the office trying to work out what our liability could be - this was easy to spot, but I wonder if more sophisticated scammers fly under the radar.
So I had a hypothetical client, Fred, and Fred turns up at my office looking for me to notarise his signature on a document. I'm not offering any substantive legal advice, merely confirming his identity, mental capacity and age as well as the existence and his authority to sign on behalf of an English limited. This is easy and standard stuff.
However, his document smells. I can confirm his identity and also the existence of the English limited, but the transaction relates to 1937 Chinese Liberty bonds - these are worthless and have been ever since China defaulted on them.
My question is, as a regulated professional, what would my crime be, if any, if I proceeded to notarise the document? There's no money laundering as there is no money. Similarly there's no crime, and I'm fairly sure no terrorist links... Professionally negligent perhaps, but anything else?
Just a discussion in the office trying to work out what our liability could be - this was easy to spot, but I wonder if more sophisticated scammers fly under the radar.
Edited by Actus Reus on Friday 16th October 14:40
Actus Reus said:
This is a bit of a technical one, and I'm not sure if anybody will even answer, but...
So I had a hypothetical client, Fred, and Fred turns up at my office looking for me to notarise his signature on a document. I'm not offering any substantive legal advice, merely confirming his identity, mental capacity and age as well as the existence and his authority to sign on behalf of an English limited. This is easy and standard stuff.
However, his document smells. I can confirm his identity and also the existence of the English limited, but the transaction relates to 1937 Chinese Liberty bonds - these are worthless and have been ever since China defaulted on them.
My question is, as a regulated professional, what would my crime be, if any, if I proceeded to notarise the document? There's no money laundering as there is no money. Similarly there's no crime, and I'm fairly sure no terrorist links... Professionally negligent perhaps, but anything else?
Just a discussion in the office trying to work out what our liability could be - this was easy to spot, but I wonder if more sophisticated scammers fly under the radar.
Doesn't it depend on the nature of the fishy document in relation to the Chinese bonds.So I had a hypothetical client, Fred, and Fred turns up at my office looking for me to notarise his signature on a document. I'm not offering any substantive legal advice, merely confirming his identity, mental capacity and age as well as the existence and his authority to sign on behalf of an English limited. This is easy and standard stuff.
However, his document smells. I can confirm his identity and also the existence of the English limited, but the transaction relates to 1937 Chinese Liberty bonds - these are worthless and have been ever since China defaulted on them.
My question is, as a regulated professional, what would my crime be, if any, if I proceeded to notarise the document? There's no money laundering as there is no money. Similarly there's no crime, and I'm fairly sure no terrorist links... Professionally negligent perhaps, but anything else?
Just a discussion in the office trying to work out what our liability could be - this was easy to spot, but I wonder if more sophisticated scammers fly under the radar.
The document doesn't 'do' anything - they rarely do. In this case it's a letter purporting to allow a payment of the profits of the sale of the bonds to somebody - though I am fairly sure that there is no sale as there are no bonds. It's hard to explain because it's just a nonsense.
Edited by Actus Reus on Friday 16th October 14:42
Actus Reus said:
This is a bit of a technical one, and I'm not sure if anybody will even answer, but...
So I had a hypothetical client, Fred, and Fred turns up at my office looking for me to notarise his signature on a document. I'm not offering any substantive legal advice, merely confirming his identity, mental capacity and age as well as the existence and his authority to sign on behalf of an English limited. This is easy and standard stuff.
However, his document smells. I can confirm his identity and also the existence of the English limited, but the transaction relates to 1937 Chinese Liberty bonds - these are worthless and have been ever since China defaulted on them.
My question is, as a regulated professional, what would my crime be, if any, if I proceeded to notarise the document? There's no money laundering as there is no money. Similarly there's no crime, and I'm fairly sure no terrorist links... Professionally negligent perhaps, but anything else?
Just a discussion in the office trying to work out what our liability could be - this was easy to spot, but I wonder if more sophisticated scammers fly under the radar.
None, as far as I can see.So I had a hypothetical client, Fred, and Fred turns up at my office looking for me to notarise his signature on a document. I'm not offering any substantive legal advice, merely confirming his identity, mental capacity and age as well as the existence and his authority to sign on behalf of an English limited. This is easy and standard stuff.
However, his document smells. I can confirm his identity and also the existence of the English limited, but the transaction relates to 1937 Chinese Liberty bonds - these are worthless and have been ever since China defaulted on them.
My question is, as a regulated professional, what would my crime be, if any, if I proceeded to notarise the document? There's no money laundering as there is no money. Similarly there's no crime, and I'm fairly sure no terrorist links... Professionally negligent perhaps, but anything else?
Just a discussion in the office trying to work out what our liability could be - this was easy to spot, but I wonder if more sophisticated scammers fly under the radar.
Keep a record of the meeting, keep evidence of ID checking, and make a note of the reason why you haven't reported it to SOCA.
If you're still concerned I'd run it past whoever your regulatory body is.
Countdown said:
None, as far as I can see.
Keep a record of the meeting, keep evidence of ID checking, and make a note of the reason why you haven't reported it to SOCA.
If you're still concerned I'd run it past whoever your regulatory body is.
Yes, I think we need to improve on our record keeping for these things, but we didn't act or charge the 'client'. This is the second one in a week - this time of year seems to always see an upturn in this sort of stupidity. My main reason for not reporting to SOCA is the PITA factor, coupled with the fact that there's no actual money laundering going on (in my view). Perhaps we should start reporting everything just to be safe?Keep a record of the meeting, keep evidence of ID checking, and make a note of the reason why you haven't reported it to SOCA.
If you're still concerned I'd run it past whoever your regulatory body is.
Actus Reus said:
The document doesn't 'do' anything - they rarely do. In this case it's a letter purporting to allow a payment of the profits of the sale of the bonds to somebody - though I am fairly sure that there is no sale as there are no bonds. It's hard to explain because it's just a nonsense.
Sounds like it has a scent of fraud to me. Edited by Actus Reus on Friday 16th October 14:42
Why would there be any profit from a sale of bond which either do not exist or have no redemption value?
Unless the bond documents themselves have value as a collector's item and this is the profit the agreement refers to.
Oh, this is totally a con - by notarising a document like this the client hopes to use some of my credibility (real or assumed) to give the document a whiff of authenticity - he then uses it in some sort of a confidence trick elsewhere.
The bonds have some value as 'works of art', but I saw no actual bonds and doubt he has any. Historical bonds, to my knowledge, are all worthless save as something you may want to hang on the wall.
The bonds have some value as 'works of art', but I saw no actual bonds and doubt he has any. Historical bonds, to my knowledge, are all worthless save as something you may want to hang on the wall.
Actus Reus said:
Oh, this is totally a con - by notarising a document like this the client hopes to use some of my credibility (real or assumed) to give the document a whiff of authenticity - he then uses it in some sort of a confidence trick elsewhere.
The bonds have some value as 'works of art', but I saw no actual bonds and doubt he has any. Historical bonds, to my knowledge, are all worthless save as something you may want to hang on the wall.
Ah, in that case there is a hint of a crime - a section 6 or section 7 offence of the Fraud Act 2006.The bonds have some value as 'works of art', but I saw no actual bonds and doubt he has any. Historical bonds, to my knowledge, are all worthless save as something you may want to hang on the wall.
Ring SOCA or whatever that is now.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Surely, if you are not comfortable doing it in this instance, then don't?
I haven't - this is really a question to ask what I could be hypothetically guilty of if I had acted - mainly because for every muppet like the guy we met earlier, there must surely be a more competent con-man who manages to con me into acting (or maybe there's not - I don't think much gets past me, but of course I'd never know if it did).IanA2 said:
My view, for what it's worth, is that if you have some reservations about the matter, and that subsequently your input was found to have aided a criminal act, that in failing to act on your concerns, you would be guilty of something. Quite what I have no idea, but then IANAL.
Yes, I think Proceeds of Crime Act might well cover it now I've spent a joyous afternoon refreshing myself of the guidance.Personally I would advise the client that you do not understand what the document is detailing so you can't sign or be witness for it , essentially just refuse to sign/witness it
I would also then detail and review all past and current transactions/relationships with the client for red flags/suspicious behaviour. Ignorance does not go down well in court!
I would also then detail and review all past and current transactions/relationships with the client for red flags/suspicious behaviour. Ignorance does not go down well in court!
S7 Fraud Act 2006 said:
7Making or supplying articles for use in frauds
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article—
(a)knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, or
(b)intending it to be used to commit, or assist in the commission of, fraud.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).
(3)Subsection (2)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.
S7(1)(a). If you notarised that document you'd tick a few of those boxes, no? (1)A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article—
(a)knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, or
(b)intending it to be used to commit, or assist in the commission of, fraud.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).
(3)Subsection (2)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff