h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Actually, that's a bit unfair. The last time it happened he was moved from a school (a senior school - all kids gone home and he's no threat to kids anyway) where he was cleaning to the local fire station instead. So at least that's one company who don't just sack people for making mistakes.

Pearl (hi - long time no see ). Seeing as no one else has bothered to answer the question;

Money Laundering. One of the problems of running a successful criminal enterpise is that it tends to result in a lot of ready cash which isn't easy to dispose of - certainly since the introduction of the Proceeds of Crime Act, which essentially means that the onus is on you to prove where the money for your seven bedroom house and four Jags came from when you are claiming the dole.

A *very* popular, and profitable way of 'washing' the money so it becomes 'legitimate' is to move it in and out of property deals, for example, or to invest it in legitimate businesses. I would guess that up to half of the independant Chinese and Japanese restaurants in London have some form of Triad ivestment, for example.

So concommitent to the PoCA, they introduced a money laundering bill which required banks and solicitors to pay just a little more attention to who and why money is coming from. The reason they tend to want proof of address within the last six months is actually pretty common sense - someone may have stolen my identity, but they atre unlikely to be in recipt of post for my address. It's a very quick and easy way of eliminating the more opportunistic fraudsters out there.

I can see the point of it all. But it is bloomin' awkward.

For example, when moving house, I had to send ID off to the lawyers (not using local ones). So thats utility bills and passport and driving licence. And they wanted from last 3 months for some reason. But I also wanted to hire a van to move. And they wanted utility bills as well, so I had to wait for the ones from the solicitors to come back.
So for me the problem is that they all seem to want a fairly restrictive set of documents.

What I have also done in the past is once I have moved I have used documents from my previous address and given my previous address since there was no way to identify myself at my current address.

One I feel sorry for is a friend who a) doesn't drive and b) hasn;t got a passport so seemingly doesn't exist!

Yeah, it is important, but it is darn awkward and it certainly is not set up with the individual in mind.

>I had to wait for the ones from the solicitors to come back<

This is why a wise and munificent Bod invented photocopiers...

Pity most companies insist on seeing the originals though

BS is right though, this is mainly about money laundering. The measures set up are deterring the small-timers and the chronically stupid. It's also further marginalised those who prefer the cash economy. The new laws have severely impacted on everybody's day to day affairs and the red tape has increased business costs. Which of course they pass on to us. It's highly debateable whether the perhaps mythical Mr Bigs have been seriously discomfited by the new regulations.

I read somewhere that the Police unit set up to pursue seizing the assets of criminals had been quietly wound up recently. They had certainly recovered a few millions, but unfortunately managed to spend two or three times as much in admin.

"Pity most companies insist on seeing the originals though"

Indeed, although in my experience 'most' means 'all'.

Passports yes, utility bills I've never had a problem with sending copies. On the other hand I do get mine certified by the lawyers who have damn all else to do in our office.

nd it's the small-timers and criminally stupid that cause most of the problems, so taking them out of the equation is a good move.

It's eaxactly the same with ID cards - it won't deter the professionals, but most benefit fraud, for example, is carried on on a small, opportunistic scale and it could all be stamped out overnight with a photo ID.

>I read somewhere that the Police unit set up to pursue seizing the assets of criminals had been quietly wound up recently. They had certainly recovered a few millions, but unfortunately managed to spend two or three times as much in admin.<

Shouldn't believe everything you read. Enforcement of the POCA regulations lie in the control of each individual police force. They may have wound up a wholly unneccessary 'central office' but it was always anticipated that the initial outlay against recoveries was likely to be a negative equation, but now the whole system is bedded in, it should be beginning to bite. Certainly seems to be in my neck of the woods.

Pleased to hear it

I don't know why there seems to be an assumption knocking about that this recovery of preecs from crime has to be cost effective.
Surely it's about recovering ill gotten gains from those who don't deserve it. If it costs money then that's money well spent in my book - obviously with scrutiny of course.

for preecs read proceeds

As someone said earlier of course, all this irritating id'ing has more than a whiff of treating *everyone* like a criminal. I'm not particularly convinced that the world would have caved in without this being introduced.

It has to be cost effective because legislation is designed so that the money seized under PoCA regs goes to the Police, not central government.

Doesn't make much sense if you are Chief Constable of Diddyshire to spend more money than you are getting in.

Well, I doubt the world would have 'caved in', but it would be safer for criminals to dispose of their ill-gotten gains which you seem quite keen on taking away from them...

">I read somewhere that the Police unit set up to pursue seizing the assets of criminals had been quietly wound up recently. They had certainly recovered a few millions, but unfortunately managed to spend two or three times as much in admin.<"

Think you might be referring to the Assets Recovery Agency.
This has been merged with the SOCA and was announced back in Jan. The website (http://www.assetsrecovery.gov.uk/) and other officialdom glosses over the monetary aspects and presents this as policy of furthering the effectiveness. But I remember a proggy on telly a year or so ago and they had indeed only recovered a fraction of their operational costs, and they were supposed to pay for themselves within a year or so.

has been/will be - couldn;t find any dates so may not have happened yet, but it will.

The ARA/SOCA merger was always on the cards when the old NCIS got rolled up. Most of the information needed by the ARA (responsible for dealing with the Mr Bigs of this world) was coming from NCIS in any event, so shortening the lines of communication by making them all part of the same body was pretty much a given.

And yes, people were wildly over-optimistic about the time scales involved in mounting prosections under the new legislation and getting the Judges 'on boaqrd' and such like, but it is coming together these days.

Yes I am keen on a society that as well as possible deals with crime without resorting to the 'throw everybody in jail' tactic.

There has to be a balance between individual liberties and dealing with crime. We can't eradicate it but we can do so much to stop and limit it. I think the line has been crossed here. Recovery of the proceeds of crime does not directly impinge on my privacy and liberties so I'm fully in favour.
I'm also fully in favour of trying to at least limit money laundering but they haven't got the balance right in this case in my opinion.

So what would you suggest?

>.It has to be cost effective because legislation is designed so that the money seized under PoCA regs goes to the Police, not central government.<<

Ah, fair enough. In thas case, my feeling is that it should indeed come from treasury money. This is more than a good cause I think and so should get full weight of public money. The proceeds of course should go back to the treasury also unless victims from the individual crimes may be directly compensated.

I don't have all the answers but frankly at the moment I'd rather it went back to the way it was before.
Has there been any tangible reduction in money laundering detected?