Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'laundering'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day


Cost Per Day


Location

Found 8 results

  1. A female friend of mine sold a property back in Oct 2013. She had no mortgage on that property so all the proceeds from the sale went into her bank account as you would expect. She then proceeded to buy a new property. Everything was going well regarding the buying of the new property. The conveyancing company accepted her bank money transfer to pay outright for the new property. She was expecting to collect the keys to her new property. However, the conveyancing company said that she had to prove that the money she paid for the new property wasn't obtained by criminal means in order to prevent money laundering. My lady friend was fuming angry and had to prove that she obtained the money from the sale of her previous property. She did that and all went through ok. I was angry over this issue for two reasons. Firstly, the conveyancing company accepted all her money into thier bank account and then wanted her to prove that the money wasn't obtained by criminal means. Secondly, I thought that it was up to the accuser to prove guilt rather than the accused having to prove their innocence. I therefore assume that the law has completely changed. A person is now guilty until they prove themselves innocent even though the accusing party has no evidence to to support their accusations.
  2. I knew that young girl selling Lemonade in their advert was upto no good. . . . Banking giant HSBC, which was hit with a US fine for money laundering last year, is facing fresh accusations of illegal activity in Argentina. Argentina has alleged that the bank used "fake receipts" to facilitate money laundering and tax evasion, and launder 392m pesos ($77m; £50m). The country's tax authority said it had filed criminal charges against HSBC. HSBC said that it would cooperate with the investigation, adding that the allegations were "of great concern". "We are committed to working cooperatively with authorities to ensure a thorough review and appropriate resolution of the matter," said Lyssette Bravo, a spokeswoman for HSBC. Last year, HSBC agreed to pay US authorities $1.9bn (£1.2bn) in a settlement over money laundering, the largest paid in such a case. Argentina laid out its case against HSBC late on Monday. "On the basis of what's been investigated so far, in six months we've recorded 392 million pesos in fraudulent transactions, generated by evasion and money laundering," said Ricardo Echegaray, head of Argentina's tax agency. Mr Echegaray added that HSBC also helped clients evade taxes on an additional 224m pesos. "We hope to recover what is due and see the courts apply an appropriate penalty," he said. More: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21840052
  3. HSBC is expected to pay more than $1.5bn (£933m) in fines to US authorities within weeks to settle money-laundering investigations into its business. HSBC is expected to pay more than $1.5bn (£933m) in fines to US authorities within weeks to settle money-laundering investigations into its business. The bank could be fined the sum as early as next week as part of a settlement with federal prosecutors, according to reports yesterday. HSBC has put aside $1.5bn to meet the cost of the fines, but admitted at its latest results presentation that the eventual penalty could be “significantly higher” and that it could face criminal charges. Yesterday’s reports put the likely size of the fine at $1.8bn. HSBC declined to comment. The fines relate to an investigation of HSBC’s US and Mexican operations that found the bank had allegedly ignored warnings that billions of dollars of funds being moved between the two subsidiaries were linked to drug trafficking. A Senate committee described the bank as “pervasively polluted for a long time”. It highlighted what it said were lax controls and inadequate compliance by staff as the bank was accused of handling transactions involving terrorists, drug lords and rogue regimes. Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9728409/HSBC-set-to-pay-more-than-1.5bn-to-settle-money-laundering-probe.html
  4. Europe's largest bank has also reserved a further £500m for PPI claims http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20202586
  5. Recently my partner replied to a job advert "Financial Services Officer". Basically the job was about receiving money trough Giro transfer into personal account and transfer them further using Western Union. The company issued all terms and conditions, invoices for transactions, they have a website which is still online and they are registered in the UK. My partner did two transactions for this company, for £1600 total. After that Santander locked her account due to suspicious activity. The company ceased contact after finding that out and Santander started investigation. No one ever contact my partner in regards to this investigation, no one asked for any documents nor details of her employer. It was just decided that her account will be closed and that she will need to pay a 'readjustment fee' of £1600 as the money was fraudulent. The bank recognises that she might not have been knowingly committing fraud but from their point of view she is held responsible. We appealed from the decision however the bank did not agree to re-investigate. No one seems to be interested, Police, Action Fraud, no one. Only Revenues registered a complaint against the fraudulent company, however their website and job advert still stands (tech-inserviceltd.com - beware!). What can we do?
  6. Standard Chartered would allow US regulators to audit its New York operations independently as part of a resolution of the money-laundering case against it, the bank told the Daily Mail yesterday. The New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) ordered Standard Chartered to open its doors to an auditor of the regulator’s choosing on Monday as it laid charges that the bank illegally laundered £160billion for Iran. The bank has admitted to wrongdoing in a tiny fraction of these cases. The news comes as US regulators – including the Department of Justice, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury – scramble to establish a joint negotiating position before they begin settlement talks with Standard Chartered. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2186244/Standard-Chartered-allow-audit-New-York-arm.html#ixzz236qTXfMP
  7. FSA/PN/081/2012 02 Aug 2012 The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has fined Turkish Bank (UK) Ltd (TBUK) £294,000 for breaching the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 (MLR). These breaches – which related to TBUK’s correspondent banking arrangements - were widespread and lasted over two and a half years.They led to an unacceptable risk that TBUK could have been used to launder money. This is the first occasion in which the FSA has taken enforcement action against a firm in relation to money laundering weaknesses in its correspondent banking arrangements. TBUK is a wholly owned subsidiary of Turkish Bank Limited which is incorporated in Northern Cyprus. TBUK’s customer base is mainly retail. TBUK offers a range of financial services, including correspondent banking. Correspondent banking involves a bank (correspondent) providing banking services to an overseas bank (respondent) to enable the respondent to provide its own customers with cross-border products and services, such as payment and clearing, that it cannot provide them with itself. TBUK acted as a correspondent bank for nine respondent banks in Turkey and six respondent banks in Northern Cyprus between 15 December 2007 and 3 July 2010. Under the MLR, providing correspondent banking services to banks based in non-EEA states is recognised as creating a high risk of money laundering that requires enhanced due diligence and ongoing monitoring of the relationship. During this period, Turkey and Northern Cyprus did not have anti-money laundering (AML) requirements that were equivalent to those in the UK. The FSA visited TBUK in July 2010 as part of a thematic review of how banks operating in the UK were managing money laundering risks. The visit gave serious cause for concern in relation to TBUK’s AML controls over correspondent banking. TBUK’s breaches of the MLR included failing to: establish and maintain appropriate and risk-sensitive AML policies and procedures for its correspondent banking relationships; carry out adequate due diligence on, and ongoing monitoring of, the respondent banks it dealt with and failing to reconsider these relationships when this was not possible; and maintain adequate records relating to the above. Whilst not deliberate or reckless, these failings were more serious because the FSA had previously warned TBUK of deficiencies in its approach to AML controls over correspondent banking. Tracey McDermott, acting director of the Enforcement and Financial Crime Division, said: “Turkish Bank fell far short of the standards we expect of firms in managing their money laundering risks. This was despite clear warnings from the FSA that it needed to improve. “Banks must have appropriate policies and procedures in place to manage these risks. Turkish Bank’s correspondent banking business made it particularly vulnerable to money laundering risks and its failings exposed UK financial services to the possibility that money could be laundered through the UK. We will continue to demand the highest standards from banks and to take tough action for those banks that fail to meet them.” TBUK agreed to settle with the FSA at an early stage of the investigation. Without this early settlement and the firm’s co-operation, the fine would have been £420,000. Notes for editors The Decision Notice for Turkish Bank (UK) Ltd. The FSA’s report on its thematic work into banks’ AML systems and controls. The FSA regulates the financial services industry and has four objectives under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: maintaining market confidence; securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers; fighting financial crime; and contributing to the protection and enhancement of the stability of the UK financial system. The FSA will be replaced by the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority in 2013. The Financial Services Bill currently undergoing parliamentary scrutiny is expected to receive Royal Assent by the end of 2012. Link: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/library/communication/pr/2012/081.shtml
×
×
  • Create New...