• You are losing out on amazing benefits because you are not a member. Join for free. Register now.
  • Samsung Pay Giveaway - Win a Samsung Connect & Control Speaker and other prizes. Enter Here.
  • Audi e-tron Giveaway - Win prizes worth R3,000 Enter Here.

The Brexit Thread

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
18,112
Yes, and my understanding is its not the donating(went to brexit campaign), its the source of those donations(2mil+) that are the question mark... ie, its where it came from thats being investigated, so, to me, laundering
In other words, totally unsubstantiated and a mere guess on your part.
 

Temujin

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
3,910
In other words, totally unsubstantiated and a mere guess on your part.
No, they are investigating the source of the funds, ie investigating whether its laundering... thats why I said, being investigated for laundering... it hasn't been proven yet, its under investigation

edit: we don't know where its from, no one does atm, hence, needs to be investigated
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
13,060
Money laundering is taking cash from illegitimate sources, like drug dealing, prostitution etc, and then "laundering" it through supposedly legitimate businesses so you can get it into the official banking/monetary system.
Sort of correct. Money laundering has 3 distinct steps:
- placement (of the ill gotten gains in a legitimate business / account / whatever)
- layering (adding the fund to actual legit funds, expense accounts, investment accounts, transactions and what not, the more the merrier)
- integration (now that the lines are sufficiently blurred, transfer to your normal bank account etc)

Anyone working in fintech should know this, anyone who works for a gambling company or investment company sits through an annual training session on this very topic, per regulations, and does know this.
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
18,112
No, they are investigating the source of the funds, ie investigating whether its laundering... thats why I said, being investigated for laundering... it hasn't been proven yet, its under investigation
No, nothing has mentioned money laundering as far as I can see. Please point it out if I have missed it.

They are investigating the source of funds. The source may be from legitimate funds; simply donated in contravention of the political donation rules.
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
18,112
Sort of correct. Money laundering has 3 distinct steps:
- placement (of the ill gotten gains in a legitimate business / account / whatever)
- layering (adding the fund to actual legit funds, expense accounts, investment accounts, transactions and what not, the more the merrier)
- integration (now that the lines are sufficiently blurred, transfer to your normal bank account etc)

Anyone working in fintech should know this, anyone who works for a gambling company or investment company sits through an annual training session on this very topic, per regulations, and does know this.
All you did was add nuance to what I posted. I don't think there is any disagreement.
 

Temujin

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
3,910
No, nothing has mentioned money laundering as far as I can see. Please point it out if I have missed it.

They are investigating the source of funds. The source may be from legitimate funds; simply donated in contravention of the political donation rules.
Correct... its under investigation. 2.4 or something million of it is 'unknown' atm. My opinion, it laundering... thats what I get from everything I have read so far... make sense?
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
18,112
Correct... its under investigation. 2.4 or something million of it is 'unknown' atm. My opinion, it laundering
Cool. So it is your opinion. You may or may not be proven right in future, but at this point in time I don't think you should argue with others as to it being a point of fact.
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
13,060
All you did was add nuance to what I posted. I don't think there is any disagreement.
Like I said "sort of correct". You called both the placement and layering steps simply "laundering", that is a bit simplistic imo. Nuance is necessary so people understand what it actually means.
 

Dave

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
41,405
I haven't followed the whole thread, but donating money illegally (ito various political laws) is not laundering. In fact, donating money is almost the opposite of it.

Money laundering is taking cash from illegitimate sources, like drug dealing, prostitution etc, and then "laundering" it through supposedly legitimate businesses so you can get it into the official banking/monetary system.
Some sensible thoughts in this thread, whatever next?

Yes, and my understanding is its not the donating(went to brexit campaign), its the source of those donations(2mil+) that are the question mark... ie, its where it came from thats being investigated, so, to me, laundering
It’s not laundering if it’s his own (or his company’s) money that he’s used, but it is breaking the law if he’s using money that hasn’t originated in the UK. It’s currently being investigated from the angle of electoral law breaches, not under money laundering legislation. At least not yet.

Other than in a certain poster’s mind there hasn’t been reference to money laundering.

Here is a basic explanation

On Thursday the Electoral Commission confirmed it had asked the National Crime Agency to investigate whether Rock Holdings Limited, a company controlled by the businessman Arron Banks and registered on the ground floor of that Isle of Man office building, was the illegal source of up to £8m in funding provided to Banks’ Leave.EU campaign group and five other pro-Brexit campaign groups during 2016.

Under British electoral law donors to EU referendum campaigns had to be individuals or companies registered in the UK or Gibraltar. Banks, who uses a complex web of companies across multiple countries for his business and political activities, insists he complied with this rule.

In his telling, all of the millions of pounds of donations and loans came from either his own pocket or one of his British businesses.

The Isle of Man company is owned by a nominee shareholder, Fidecs Nominees, itself based offshore in Gibraltar, an arrangement that has the effect of masking the identity of a company’s true owner or owners.

However, Banks’ involvement has been confirmed by references to his ownership in the accounts of another of his British businesses.

Information about the Isle of Man company’s activities has emerged through various regulatory statements over the years. In 2007 Rock Holdings was used to hold an interest in a wealth management company on behalf of Banks and his then business partner Paul Chase-Gardener. Chase-Gardener withdrew from the Rock Holdings business in 2013 and is not included in the investigation.

Despite the lack of transparency over its activities, the company is not dormant. This year Rock Holdings’ former nominee directors resigned and were replaced by Banks’s brother Jonathan, a lawyer based in Hong Kong, and Timothy Revill, a retired accountant who lives in Guernsey, another offshore base.

The Electoral Commission said that owing to the launch of the criminal investigation it was unable to publish all of its evidence. But some of the material it has released appears to raise questions about how Banks’s British companies could have provided his £8m of Brexit funding.

Confusingly, Banks’s business associate Liz Bilney told the commission that the Isle of Man company had no involvement in the £8m funding for pro-Brexit political activities, despite the figure being recorded in its accounts.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...mpany-allegations-arron-banks-leave-eu-brexit
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
39,804
Yes, and my understanding is its not the donating(went to brexit campaign), its the source of those donations(2mil+) that are the question mark... ie, its where it came from thats being investigated, so, to me, laundering
Different electoral jurisdictions have different laws about how money is spent, too. Not just the source of funds.
 

Dave

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
41,405
Correct... its under investigation. 2.4 or something million of it is 'unknown' atm. My opinion, it laundering... thats what I get from everything I have read so far... make sense?
To clarify, iirc, the Electoral Commission statement doesn’t reference 2.4m, it says “up to 8m” which it doesn’t believe his UK company had to spend, but that it came from the IoM holding company.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
1,341
By the looks of it they will keep on whining till it happens. Which it's not. So Dave and his Leave buddies and stop complaining and get on about making the transition easier for them. Seems like it's going to be a bit traumatic for them.
The Remainers seem to be afraid. They may be too young to remember the days before we joined the EU. Life was perfectly good for me then. It disrupted my work life, in part because of the required introduction of VAT. We had considered VAT in the UK at least twice at Parliamentary sub committee level, and both advised against on the grounds that it was more expensive to administer than VAT. They were correct, but it was the price we had to pay to join. The decision to join was not made with my explicit consent, although there was a referendum some while later, in which many like myself took the view that 'now we are in we might as well stay in and make a go of it'.
Life went on.
The Remainers will find that life will go on under the new set up as well. We will not however have to contend with some of the stupid wishes of the EU. I was in Bavaria with German friends when the EU announced an intention to ban the exposed cleavages of the Dirndl on health and safety grounds, and my German friends would have walked out of the EU on the spot! But there were many more serious issues of concern, which many EU countries resolved by ignoring the EU wishes. That was not the way we do things in Britain.
For me the chief issues were and remain the expansionist tendencies of the EU, which led to the embarrassing invasion of the Ukraine as Putin reacted, and the massive corruption in the EU, benefitting both apparatchiks and gangsters such as the mafia.
I do not overlook the achievements of the EU. France and Germany are no longer at each other's throats, although that is lessened by what went on in the Ukraine. I have met refugees from there, working for example as nurses, and seen people in tears as they tell me of their experiences. If the EU carries on expanding (and there are a number of candidate countries), there will almost certainly be other flash points as they tread on what Putin considers to be his sphere of interest.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
1,341
Cool. So it is your opinion. You may or may not be proven right in future, but at this point in time I don't think you should argue with others as to it being a point of fact.
Unlike most people on this forum I have seized or detained large sums of money under anti money laundering legislation. Most people do not have any idea of what is involved, nor of how complicit some banks are or have been. As fast as you close one opening, another is created by those who are non compliant (a polite name for crooks). I am not prepared to even consider whether the case in question involved money laundering as I do not have enough information to speculate usefully.
I do not see it as relevant to the fundamental issue of the validity of the referendum. The funding of the pro brexit campaign may possibly have been suspect, but the expenditure was as nothing compared to the taxpayer funded garbage put out - at public expense!!!! - by HMG. Such expenditure is largely wasted in terms of the efficiency of opinion forming, although advertising companies would have you believe otherwise (well they would wouldn't they?). (With acknowledgements to Randy Mice Davies!!) None of the propaganda affected my judgement. From friends in the UK, I was not alone in this. I do not know of anyone who changed their minds because of the propaganda circulated by both sides.
Remainers, you lost the argument, so cut your losses and walk away to make the best of it, as I had to do over 40 years ago. The alternative would be to end up being bitter and twisted as life passes you by. Think Nicola Sturgeon for an example of what you may become.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
39,804
A $240-Billion-a-Day Market Is Leaving London Ahead of Brexit

The City of London is being dealt another Brexit blow.

CME Group Inc. is moving its European market for short-term financing, the largest in the region, out of London because the exchange operator wants to guarantee continental firms can continue to use it if there is a no-deal Brexit.

The decision, which was taken before CME took over the business from NEX Group Plc last week, is the first example of a major financial market leaving the U.K. While every sizable trading venue has set up a regulated entity in the EU because of Brexit, BrokerTec -- as the business is known -- is the first to move an existing market from London to a continental European city: Amsterdam.
 

Dave

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
41,405
What will Boris think about this?

Jo Johnson resigns as transport minister and calls for new Brexit referendum

Jo Johnson has resigned as a transport minister, saying the UK is "barrelling towards an incoherent Brexit" and calling for another referendum.

The Orpington MP said said the reality of Brexit had "turned out to be so far from what was once promised" and the "democratic thing to do is to give the public the final say".
He promised a new vote would not be a re-run of the 2016 referendum but ask people whether they want to go ahead with Brexit "now that we know the deal that is actually available to us".
More
https://news.sky.com/story/jo-johnson-resigns-as-transport-minister-over-incoherent-brexit-11549402
 
Top