adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,019 
Likes: 5,147
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 30, 2023 9:30:52 GMT
|
|
james100
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 1,288
|
Post by james100 on Jun 30, 2023 9:45:16 GMT
Obviously all political persecution is sad and wrong...my heart bleeds for him. Perhaps he could apply for asylum in Rwanda, I have heard it's nice (and safe) there. Also sunny, what's not to like 
|
|
jonno
Member of DD Central
nil satis nisi optimum
Posts: 2,808
Likes: 3,242
|
Post by jonno on Jun 30, 2023 9:53:33 GMT
Obviously all political persecution is sad and wrong...my heart bleeds for him. Perhaps he could apply for asylum in Rwanda, I have heard it's nice (and safe) there. Also sunny, what's not to like What's not to like? It's going to be bloody awful when it gets inundated with all those pesky asylum seekers!! 
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,019
Likes: 5,147
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 30, 2023 10:01:34 GMT
Obviously all political persecution is sad and wrong... Not persecution. The financial institutions are merely following the law regarding Politically Exposed Persons, and assessing their risk of continued association with him. www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/692/regulation/35/madeApart from the simple reputational damage of association, I wonder whether this bit in particular is relevant... "(5) A relevant person who proposes to have, or to continue, a business relationship with a PEP, or a family member or a known close associate of a PEP, must, in addition to the measures required by regulation 33—...(b)take adequate measures to establish the source of wealth and source of funds which are involved in the proposed business relationship or transactions with that person"...given what is known about Farridge's links with Arron Banks, and the ongoing question marks around Banks' own finances?
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,710
Likes: 2,985
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Jun 30, 2023 13:24:32 GMT
What concerns me is that rules designed for money laundering seem to be used in other situations. One of the right of centre politicians published her letter from the Nationwide and it read very similarly to, for example, those who have been blocked from using Wise (a money transfer service). Things like "....we can't tell you why we've closed/suspended your account but its to do with the way we are regulated....".
Those on the left of centre are clearly happy seeing these politicians struggle. One day, when the wind changes direction, it might affect their favourite politician.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jun 30, 2023 13:54:13 GMT
What concerns me is that rules designed for money laundering seem to be used in other situations. One of the right of centre politicians published her letter from the Nationwide and it read very similarly to, for example, those who have been blocked from using Wise (a money transfer service). Things like "....we can't tell you why we've closed/suspended your account but its to do with the way we are regulated....". Those on the left of centre are clearly happy seeing these politicians struggle. One day, when the wind changes direction, it might affect their favourite politician. Edit: I'll reprhase. You may be right that certain people are happy to see them struggle, but its a pretty sweeping statement to suggest that they would be happy with inappropriate rules being applied to punish people for the their political views (which is what is conveyed when taking both those sentences together). What is the evidence that such rules are being used for nefarious political purposes ? Other than Nigel Farage ranting and saying "it must be so 'cos it couldn't be for any other reason". ? I've yet to see any. The rules should be applied without fear or favour. Period.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,019
Likes: 5,147
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 30, 2023 14:33:13 GMT
What concerns me is that rules designed for money laundering seem to be used in other situations. What "other situations"? Financial service companies (which includes banks) are legally required to do due diligence on all their customers. For customers in certain categories, including Politically Exposed Persons, they're legally required to do enhanced due diligence. Farage is unequivocally a Politically Exposed Person, as all politicians are - British and foreign. Yes, Sunak and Hunt and Starmer and my backbench MP and yours, as well as the favoured nephew of a dictator in the developing world... commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7376/Therefore, all financial services companies are legally required to do enhanced due diligence on Farage, before he does any business with them. They are legally allowed to take their perception of reputational risk from their association into account - and that may well be what they've done. That's what you're speculating about when you make comments about "favourite politicians". So when you say "be careful what you wish for", you are referring to the banks simply choosing not to do business with people that they think may harm their reputation if the association becomes known. They are legally required to take account of whether they can satisfy themselves as to the source of any and all wealth. Financial services companies are not required to disclose their due diligence findings, nor are they required to restrict themselves to criminal standards of evidence and proof. As I said, it's well documented that Farage has had long-standing financial links with Banks (to which they both agree). It's strongly suspected, but not directly proven, that Banks has financial links with a sanctioned regime. In addition, while Banks has not been proven to have lied about the origin of money he spent in support of his political aims - at least, not to any criminal standard - it has also been strongly suspected. www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-enforcement-work/investigations/investigation-payments-made-better-country-and-leaveeuwww.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/public-statement-on-nca-investigation-into-suspected-eu-referendum-offencesBut that's my speculation.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,710
Likes: 2,985
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Jun 30, 2023 15:06:52 GMT
What concerns me is that rules designed for money laundering seem to be used in other situations. What "other situations"? Financial service companies (which includes banks) are legally required to do due diligence on all their customers. For customers in certain categories, including Politically Exposed Persons, they're legally required to do enhanced due diligence. Farage is unequivocally a Politically Exposed Person, as all politicians are - British and foreign. Yes, Sunak and Hunt and Starmer and my backbench MP and yours, as well as the favoured nephew of a dictator in the developing world... commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7376/Therefore, all financial services companies are legally required to do enhanced due diligence on Farage, before he does any business with them. They are legally allowed to take their perception of reputational risk from their association into account - and that may well be what they've done. That's what you're speculating about when you make comments about "favourite politicians". So when you say "be careful what you wish for", you are referring to the banks simply choosing not to do business with people that they think may harm their reputation if the association becomes known. They are legally required to take account of whether they can satisfy themselves as to the source of any and all wealth. Financial services companies are not required to disclose their due diligence findings, nor are they required to restrict themselves to criminal standards of evidence and proof. As I said, it's well documented that Farage has had long-standing financial links with Banks (to which they both agree). It's strongly suspected, but not directly proven, that Banks has financial links with a sanctioned regime. In addition, while Banks has not been proven to have lied about the origin of money he spent in support of his political aims - at least, not to any criminal standard - it has also been strongly suspected. www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-enforcement-work/investigations/investigation-payments-made-better-country-and-leaveeuwww.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/public-statement-on-nca-investigation-into-suspected-eu-referendum-offencesBut that's my speculation. Interesting that you used and bolded "legally required" several times. If that was always an argument for something, there'd be no point ever changing laws or even having MPs. As it stands, a pep is likely seen by a bank as a risk and a cost to investigate meaning they won't take them on. In a functioning democracy, it should no only be the poor who are entitled to a basic bank account but anybody. How that should work I don't know but clearly something needs to change.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,019
Likes: 5,147
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 30, 2023 15:20:09 GMT
Interesting that you used and bolded "legally required" several times. Indeed I did. That was to illustrate to you that this isn't the banks picking on poor St Nige. I think we can all agree that robust legislation - in this case, enacted in 2017 - is required to combat financial crime and financial enabling of crime. Can't we...? I think you're just restating the reputational risk angle. Oh, I absolutely agree that he certainly should be allowed a basic bank account, as should everybody from bankrupts to fraudsters to the utterly fiscally irresponsible. I very much doubt that's the actual issue here - but since St Nige has been somewhat scarce in detail...
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,594
Likes: 2,624
|
Post by keitha on Jun 30, 2023 16:17:22 GMT
If this is the case then should impropriety be proven in the Sturgeon case then presumably the banks will close the accounts for her and her hubby and the SNP
in terms of reputational damage then Piers Corbyn would be high up my list of fruit cakes and being associated with him or his slightly less nutty brother would put me off banking with whoever. Indeed would many people wish to be associated with the bank that provides services to Andrew Windsor ( formerly known as Prince )
however I would say that everyone should have the right to a bank account, as without it getting your state pension, benefits etc is well nigh impossible
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jun 30, 2023 16:40:29 GMT
If this is the case then should impropriety be proven in the Sturgeon case then presumably the banks will close the accounts for her and her hubby and the SNP in terms of reputational damage then Piers Corbyn would be high up my list of fruit cakes and being associated with him or his slightly less nutty brother would put me off banking with whoever. Indeed would many people wish to be associated with the bank that provides services to Andrew Windsor ( formerly known as Prince )however I would say that everyone should have the right to a bank account, as without it getting your state pension, benefits etc is well nigh impossible this is so not my area of expertise, but my understanding is that the "reputational risk" that is in scope here has nothing to do with what others might think of you providing banking services to someone they consider to be a tin foil hat wearing complete nut job. Thankfully. The "reputational risk" that is in play with a client who is a "Politically Exposed Person" is all around the fact that their position or influence makes them more susceptible to being involved in bribery or corruption. And financial services suppliers are therefore going to do more due diligence around that for such an individual.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,710
Likes: 2,985
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Jun 30, 2023 16:48:01 GMT
If this is the case then should impropriety be proven in the Sturgeon case then presumably the banks will close the accounts for her and her hubby and the SNP in terms of reputational damage then Piers Corbyn would be high up my list of fruit cakes and being associated with him or his slightly less nutty brother would put me off banking with whoever. Indeed would many people wish to be associated with the bank that provides services to Andrew Windsor ( formerly known as Prince )however I would say that everyone should have the right to a bank account, as without it getting your state pension, benefits etc is well nigh impossible this is so not my area of expertise, but my understanding is that the "reputational risk" that is in scope here has nothing to do with what others might think of you providing banking services to someone they consider to be a tin foil hat wearing complete nut job. Thankfully. The "reputational risk" that is in play with a client who is a "Politically Exposed Person" is all around the fact that their position or influence makes them more susceptible to being involved in bribery or corruption. And financial services suppliers are therefore going to do more due diligence around that for such an individual. Are they though? Might the cost of such DD exceed the value of the potential client ? Edit: Alternatively, they suck up the cost of some internal DD, and then decide the potential client is at too much risk of receiving say N.Korean money even though the client may have zero intention of doing so or doing so would not be illegal. Its all a bit rotten with the judge/jury/executioner being the banks themselves.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Jun 30, 2023 16:51:01 GMT
this is so not my area of expertise, but my understanding is that the "reputational risk" that is in scope here has nothing to do with what others might think of you providing banking services to someone they consider to be a tin foil hat wearing complete nut job. Thankfully. The "reputational risk" that is in play with a client who is a "Politically Exposed Person" is all around the fact that their position or influence makes them more susceptible to being involved in bribery or corruption. And financial services suppliers are therefore going to do more due diligence around that for such an individual. Are they though? Might the cost of such DD exceed the value of the potential client ? They do, they take it very seriously. The costs are immense. The costs of getting it wrong are far, far greater. (Speaking from experience)
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,710
Likes: 2,985
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Jun 30, 2023 16:53:33 GMT
Are they though? Might the cost of such DD exceed the value of the potential client ? They do, they take it very seriously. The costs are immense. The costs of getting it wrong are far, far greater. (Speaking from experience) What is the cost in saying "NO" ?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 30, 2023 16:58:36 GMT
I suppose the question that needs to be asked ... assuming it is the PEP explanation as no reason has actually been given ... is why now? Hes been a PEP for more than 2 decades and far more exposed previously than he is now as a TV presenter, even an award winning one.
|
|
