Money Laundering l Newsvine : A Jetpak created by eyocopeland : Jeteye
As one of the leading serious fraud firms in UK, Bark & Co regularly have to advise their clients on the implications of money laundering charges which often accompany investigations and prosecutions of fraud. UK legislation is wide ranging and recent changes to the law have increased the likelihood of money laundering charges being pursued vigorously by the authorities. The team at Bark & Co are experts in the interpretation of the law and in particular the parameters open to the prosecuting authorities in respect of money laundering charges.
In the UK, primary legislation on money laundering includes the Terrorism Act 2000, the Anti-Terrorism Crime & Security Act 2001, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2005 and the Serious Crime and Police Act 2005. Secondary legislation comprises Money laundering Regulations 2003 and 2007. These increasingly stringent regulations put the onus on businesses to ensure that certain controls are in place to prevent them being used for money laundering purposes including customer due diligence measures and internal controls and monitoring systems.
Under UK law, it is a money laundering offence when a person enters into, or becomes concerned in, an arrangement which facilitates by whatever means the requisition, retention, use or control of criminal property (assets or money) by another person. In many cases, the authorities seek to block suspected money laundering activities at an early stage by applying severe constraints even where there is scant evidence of wrong doing. Actions include forfeiture of assets etc.
lunes, 18 de junio de 2012
Money Laundering l Newsvine - The-looser-it-s-me
Money Laundering l Newsvine - The-looser-it-s-me
As one of the leading serious fraud firms in UK, Bark & Co regularly have to advise their clients on the implications of money laundering charges which often accompany investigations and prosecutions of fraud. UK legislation is wide ranging and recent changes to the law have increased the likelihood of money laundering charges being pursued vigorously by the authorities. The team at Bark & Co are experts in the interpretation of the law and in particular the parameters open to the prosecuting authorities in respect of money laundering charges.
In the UK, primary legislation on money laundering includes the Terrorism Act 2000, the Anti-Terrorism Crime & Security Act 2001, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2005 and the Serious Crime and Police Act 2005. Secondary legislation comprises Money laundering Regulations 2003 and 2007. These increasingly stringent regulations put the onus on businesses to ensure that certain controls are in place to prevent them being used for money laundering purposes including customer due diligence measures and internal controls and monitoring systems.
Under UK law, it is a money laundering offence when a person enters into, or becomes concerned in, an arrangement which facilitates by whatever means the requisition, retention, use or control of criminal property (assets or money) by another person. In many cases, the authorities seek to block suspected money laundering activities at an early stage by applying severe constraints even where there is scant evidence of wrong doing. Actions include forfeiture of assets etc.
Bark & Co: Money Laundering l Newsvine
Bark & Co: Money Laundering l Newsvine
As one of the leading serious fraud firms in UK, Bark & Co regularly have to advise their clients on the implications of money laundering charges which often accompany investigations and prosecutions of fraud. UK legislation is wide ranging and recent changes to the law have increased the likelihood of money laundering charges being pursued vigorously by the authorities. The team at Bark & Co are experts in the interpretation of the law and in particular the parameters open to the prosecuting authorities in respect of money laundering charges.
In the UK, primary legislation on money laundering includes the Terrorism Act 2000, the Anti-Terrorism Crime & Security Act 2001, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2005 and the Serious Crime and Police Act 2005. Secondary legislation comprises Money laundering Regulations 2003 and 2007. These increasingly stringent regulations put the onus on businesses to ensure that certain controls are in place to prevent them being used for money laundering purposes including customer due diligence measures and internal controls and monitoring systems.
Under UK law, it is a money laundering offence when a person enters into, or becomes concerned in, an arrangement which facilitates by whatever means the requisition, retention, use or control of criminal property (assets or money) by another person. In many cases, the authorities seek to block suspected money laundering activities at an early stage by applying severe constraints even where there is scant evidence of wrong doing. Actions include forfeiture of assets etc.
Bark & Co Solicitors London: Deferred Prosecution Agreements l Newsvine : A Jetpak created by eyocopeland : Jeteye
Bark & Co Solicitors London: Deferred Prosecution Agreements l Newsvine : A Jetpak created by eyocopeland : Jeteye
The director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC, have recently made no secret of the fact that they consider the criminal justice system to be incapable of dealing with corporate prosecutions in a way that refects commercial realities. The blunt impact of a prosecution of a company has the impact of damaging innocent parties including employees, shareholders and creditors. Garnier cited the cautionary example of the ill-effects of prosecution caused to Arthur Andersen, eventually acquitted on charges of obstruction of justice by the US Supreme Court, many years after the allegations had destroyed the company. US prosecutors have a tool at their disposal, the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which is being touted as a viable alternative to the present options of either prosecution or civil recovery. Much of the impetus for the reform has been caused by the difficulties faced by the SFO when they sought to prosecute Innospec. The SFO effectively had already agreed with the company, pre-sentencing, the nature of the sentence in return for a guilty plea. This was criticized by Thomas LJ who reminded the SFO that it is for the Judge to determine sentence at his discretion and especially that any plea must be “rigorously scrutinized in open court”.
The director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC, have recently made no secret of the fact that they consider the criminal justice system to be incapable of dealing with corporate prosecutions in a way that refects commercial realities. The blunt impact of a prosecution of a company has the impact of damaging innocent parties including employees, shareholders and creditors. Garnier cited the cautionary example of the ill-effects of prosecution caused to Arthur Andersen, eventually acquitted on charges of obstruction of justice by the US Supreme Court, many years after the allegations had destroyed the company. US prosecutors have a tool at their disposal, the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which is being touted as a viable alternative to the present options of either prosecution or civil recovery. Much of the impetus for the reform has been caused by the difficulties faced by the SFO when they sought to prosecute Innospec. The SFO effectively had already agreed with the company, pre-sentencing, the nature of the sentence in return for a guilty plea. This was criticized by Thomas LJ who reminded the SFO that it is for the Judge to determine sentence at his discretion and especially that any plea must be “rigorously scrutinized in open court”.
Bark & Co Solicitors London: Deferred Prosecution Agreements l Newsvine - The-looser-it-s-me
Bark & Co Solicitors London: Deferred Prosecution Agreements l Newsvine - The-looser-it-s-me
The director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC, have recently made no secret of the fact that they consider the criminal justice system to be incapable of dealing with corporate prosecutions in a way that refects commercial realities. The blunt impact of a prosecution of a company has the impact of damaging innocent parties including employees, shareholders and creditors. Garnier cited the cautionary example of the ill-effects of prosecution caused to Arthur Andersen, eventually acquitted on charges of obstruction of justice by the US Supreme Court, many years after the allegations had destroyed the company. US prosecutors have a tool at their disposal, the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which is being touted as a viable alternative to the present options of either prosecution or civil recovery. Much of the impetus for the reform has been caused by the difficulties faced by the SFO when they sought to prosecute Innospec. The SFO effectively had already agreed with the company, pre-sentencing, the nature of the sentence in return for a guilty plea. This was criticized by Thomas LJ who reminded the SFO that it is for the Judge to determine sentence at his discretion and especially that any plea must be “rigorously scrutinized in open court”.
The director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC, have recently made no secret of the fact that they consider the criminal justice system to be incapable of dealing with corporate prosecutions in a way that refects commercial realities. The blunt impact of a prosecution of a company has the impact of damaging innocent parties including employees, shareholders and creditors. Garnier cited the cautionary example of the ill-effects of prosecution caused to Arthur Andersen, eventually acquitted on charges of obstruction of justice by the US Supreme Court, many years after the allegations had destroyed the company. US prosecutors have a tool at their disposal, the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which is being touted as a viable alternative to the present options of either prosecution or civil recovery. Much of the impetus for the reform has been caused by the difficulties faced by the SFO when they sought to prosecute Innospec. The SFO effectively had already agreed with the company, pre-sentencing, the nature of the sentence in return for a guilty plea. This was criticized by Thomas LJ who reminded the SFO that it is for the Judge to determine sentence at his discretion and especially that any plea must be “rigorously scrutinized in open court”.
Bark & Co: Bark & Co Solicitors London: Deferred Prosecution ...
Bark & Co: Bark & Co Solicitors London: Deferred Prosecution ...
The director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC, have recently made no secret of the fact that they consider the criminal justice system to be incapable of dealing with corporate prosecutions in a way that refects commercial realities. The blunt impact of a prosecution of a company has the impact of damaging innocent parties including employees, shareholders and creditors. Garnier cited the cautionary example of the ill-effects of prosecution caused to Arthur Andersen, eventually acquitted on charges of obstruction of justice by the US Supreme Court, many years after the allegations had destroyed the company. US prosecutors have a tool at their disposal, the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which is being touted as a viable alternative to the present options of either prosecution or civil recovery. Much of the impetus for the reform has been caused by the difficulties faced by the SFO when they sought to prosecute Innospec. The SFO effectively had already agreed with the company, pre-sentencing, the nature of the sentence in return for a guilty plea. This was criticized by Thomas LJ who reminded the SFO that it is for the Judge to determine sentence at his discretion and especially that any plea must be “rigorously
scrutinized in open court”.
The director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC, have recently made no secret of the fact that they consider the criminal justice system to be incapable of dealing with corporate prosecutions in a way that refects commercial realities. The blunt impact of a prosecution of a company has the impact of damaging innocent parties including employees, shareholders and creditors. Garnier cited the cautionary example of the ill-effects of prosecution caused to Arthur Andersen, eventually acquitted on charges of obstruction of justice by the US Supreme Court, many years after the allegations had destroyed the company. US prosecutors have a tool at their disposal, the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which is being touted as a viable alternative to the present options of either prosecution or civil recovery. Much of the impetus for the reform has been caused by the difficulties faced by the SFO when they sought to prosecute Innospec. The SFO effectively had already agreed with the company, pre-sentencing, the nature of the sentence in return for a guilty plea. This was criticized by Thomas LJ who reminded the SFO that it is for the Judge to determine sentence at his discretion and especially that any plea must be “rigorously
scrutinized in open court”.
martes, 5 de junio de 2012
Bark & Co: Bark & Co Solicitors London News: HMRC Crackdown o...
Bark & Co: Bark & Co Solicitors London News: HMRC Crackdown o...: http://barkcosolicitorslondon.com/hmrc-crackdown-on-offshore-accounts/ It has recently come to our attention that two Britons have been a...
Bark & Co Solicitors London News: HMRC Crackdown on Offshore Accounts
http://barkcosolicitorslondon.com/hmrc-crackdown-on-offshore-accounts/
It has recently come to our attention that two Britons have been arrested on suspicion of using Swiss Bank accounts held with HSBC to evade UK taxes. This could lead to the first criminal prosecutions in a three year clampdown on offshore tax evasion by HMRC.
According to our source, HMRC made the arrests late last year and both individuals have been released on bail pending charges. These arrests are thought to have resulted from the review of the information stolen from HSBC’s private bank in Zurich by Herve Falciani, a French software engineer, which contained account information pertaining to 6,600 accounts held by UK residents.
This significant development once again underlines HMRC’s desire to stamp out tax evasion linked to funds retained in offshore accounts and signals a hardening of HMRC’s attitude. News of these arrests may counter the concerted criticism of HMRC’s crackdown on tax evasion. Some commentators have accused the taxman of shying away from mounting criminal prosecutions and the deterrent message that they convey to the tax-paying population. We will of course keep you updated on this development.
In a similar vein, news reached us yesterday that the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks has been provided with a raft of information concerning 2,000 wealthy individuals and corporations that held accounts with Bank Julius Baer in the British Virgin Islands tax haven. Rudolf Elmer, who was previously employed by Julius Baer to oversee the Caribbean operations of the Swiss Bank for eight years until he was dismissed in 2002, handed over the discs to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange during a press conference. Mr Assange has promised to publish the details once the information has been verified. WLH understands that WikiLeaks is taking legal advice on what information they can release, but it is likely that the website will not hold back as evidenced during previous high profile “leaks.”
Rudolf Elmer is currently standing trial accused of coercion and breaching banking secrecy laws in Switzerland and his motive in supplying this information is to expose mass potential tax evasion. He told the Observer newspaper last weekend that those named in the documents come from “the US, Britain, Germany, Austria and Asia, and include business people, politicians, people who make their living in the arts and multinational companies-from both sides of the Atlantic.” It is unclear whether HMRC has been passed this information, however it is clear that the taxman will be monitoring developments very closely. It is also likely that those individuals who might be affected and have tax issues stemming from the ownership of such accounts may be seeking urgent professional advice.
This development reinforces the message that if you have an undeclared offshore account, then you should come forward voluntarily and resolve the issue before HMRC comes calling. It is no longer an option to bury your head in the sand and hope it will all go away.
We will update this story as it develops, however should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to get in touch.
Bark & Co: Abbey Forwarding v Richard Hone and Others, Bark &...
Bark & Co: Abbey Forwarding v Richard Hone and Others, Bark &...: http://barkcosolicitorslondon.com/abbey-forwarding-v-richard-hone-and-others-bark-co-solicitors-reports/ In a two week trial in the High ...
Abbey Forwarding v Richard Hone and Others, Bark & Co Solicitors reports
http://barkcosolicitorslondon.com/abbey-forwarding-v-richard-hone-and-others-bark-co-solicitors-reports/
In a two week trial in the High Court, Bark & Co successfully defended the former directors of Abbey Forwarding Limited in the High Court in an action brought by the liquidator of the company against them for breach of fiduciary duty.
Abbey Forwarding Limited was a reputable and established bonded warehouse which operated from premises in east London from 1971 until the beginning of 2009. In February of 2009 Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) raised assessments against the company for approximately £6 million and at an ex parte hearing successfully applied to have the company placed into provisional liquidation on the basis that the company had actively participated in diversion fraud.
The HMRC appointed liquidator immediately brought proceedings against the directors for breach of fiduciary duty alleging fraud against 3 of the directors. The basis for the claim and provisional liquidation by HMRC was that the directors fraudulently, or in the alternative negligently, allowed loads of duty suspended alcohol to be illegally diverted and sold onto the UK market.
The claim was dismissed in its entirety. In his judgement Mr Justice Lewison determined that not only was there insufficient evidence of any fraudulent behaviour on the part of the directors, but that the loads of alcohol had in fact reached their destinations and there was insufficient evidence to show any fraudulent diversion at all. The directors were fully exonerated and the liquidator was ordered to pay damages to the directors as well as their costs.
In a two week trial in the High Court, Bark & Co successfully defended the former directors of Abbey Forwarding Limited in the High Court in an action brought by the liquidator of the company against them for breach of fiduciary duty.
Abbey Forwarding Limited was a reputable and established bonded warehouse which operated from premises in east London from 1971 until the beginning of 2009. In February of 2009 Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) raised assessments against the company for approximately £6 million and at an ex parte hearing successfully applied to have the company placed into provisional liquidation on the basis that the company had actively participated in diversion fraud.
The HMRC appointed liquidator immediately brought proceedings against the directors for breach of fiduciary duty alleging fraud against 3 of the directors. The basis for the claim and provisional liquidation by HMRC was that the directors fraudulently, or in the alternative negligently, allowed loads of duty suspended alcohol to be illegally diverted and sold onto the UK market.
The claim was dismissed in its entirety. In his judgement Mr Justice Lewison determined that not only was there insufficient evidence of any fraudulent behaviour on the part of the directors, but that the loads of alcohol had in fact reached their destinations and there was insufficient evidence to show any fraudulent diversion at all. The directors were fully exonerated and the liquidator was ordered to pay damages to the directors as well as their costs.
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)