Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Executors and Money Laundering
539 views
Skip to first unread message
BillL
Nov 18, 2012, 10:00:04 PM11/18/12
to
I am co-executor organising execution my mother's Will and one banking
group is giving me grief.
After many phone calls, advices of what to do, forms sent, promises
made, they now decide that all the executors need to have their
identities checked for money laundering.
The amount of money involved is just a few thousand.
Surely they are taking the p1ss? We are not putting money into them and
therefore they need to be concerned. If they wanted checks they should
have checked my mother. They cannot have any control over what I do
with the money (my account has been nominated). FWIW the estate is not
subject to probate.
They just seem to be putting obstacle after obstacle in the way and for
reasons that are not relevant here it will not be easy to get one of the
executors to cooperate any further.
Do the money laundering provisions really apply in this case or is the
banking group being over prescriptive.
--
Bill L
group is giving me grief.
After many phone calls, advices of what to do, forms sent, promises
made, they now decide that all the executors need to have their
identities checked for money laundering.
The amount of money involved is just a few thousand.
Surely they are taking the p1ss? We are not putting money into them and
therefore they need to be concerned. If they wanted checks they should
have checked my mother. They cannot have any control over what I do
with the money (my account has been nominated). FWIW the estate is not
subject to probate.
They just seem to be putting obstacle after obstacle in the way and for
reasons that are not relevant here it will not be easy to get one of the
executors to cooperate any further.
Do the money laundering provisions really apply in this case or is the
banking group being over prescriptive.
--
Bill L
Peter Crosland
Nov 19, 2012, 2:45:02 AM11/19/12
to
than £5,000 then AFAIK probate is obligatory. It is possible that this
is the reason the bank are being particularly cautious. Without probate
it may be very difficult for the executors to administer the estate.
Money laundering can involve paying money into a bank as well as
withdrawing it. The checks are also designed to make sure that the funds
are being lawfully withdrawn. IF not the bank would be liable to the
rightful owner of the funds.
The law on money laundering is quite draconian and because of this bank
staff are understandably cautious. In many circumstances the individual
employee can be subject to criminal prosecution if they get it wrong.
This has created a climate of fear that often causes bank staff to be
over cautious. It may be worth going higher up the chain of command at
the bank but the result is not certain.
As for the uncooperative executor he needs to be reminded that having
accepted the executorship he is obliged to carry out his duties which
includes complying with the law where necessary. In some circumstances
executorship can be resigned but there has to be good reason and I doubt
his is sufficient.
--
Regards Peter Crosland
Nightjar
Nov 19, 2012, 3:55:02 AM11/19/12
to
On 19/11/2012 03:00, BillL wrote:
identity of people they deal with. While you know the death is real, it
could be a money laundering scheme, using a false death to transfer
funds from one account to another.
The FSA will accept a government issued document with a photograph and
either a date of birth or an address (passport or photo driving licence
for example) as proof of identity. However, institutions are free to ask
for more, if they need them for anti-fraud protection.
Colin Bignell
BillL
Nov 19, 2012, 5:00:06 AM11/19/12
to
Peter Crosland said the following on 19/11/2012 14:45:
Nonetheless my solicitor does not consider probate as a necessity. The
bank in question has not, in 2 1/2 years, raised the issue of probate.
> Money laundering can involve paying money into a bank as well as
> withdrawing it. The checks are also designed to make sure that the funds
> are being lawfully withdrawn. IF not the bank would be liable to the
> rightful owner of the funds.
>
AFAIU we, the executors, are the rightful owner of the funds.
> The law on money laundering is quite draconian and because of this bank
> staff are understandably cautious. In many circumstances the individual
> employee can be subject to criminal prosecution if they get it wrong.
> This has created a climate of fear that often causes bank staff to be
> over cautious. It may be worth going higher up the chain of command at
> the bank but the result is not certain.
>
They could have expressed their caution before we went to a lot of
trouble to get all executors to sign the necessary forms for the bank.
> As for the uncooperative executor he needs to be reminded that having
> accepted the executorship he is obliged to carry out his duties which
> includes complying with the law where necessary. In some circumstances
> executorship can be resigned but there has to be good reason and I doubt
> his is sufficient.
>
We can force the recalcitrant executor to cooperate. It will involve
our solicitor and their solicitor. Had the bank told us of this "new"
requirement it could have all been dealt with in the first round and
without additional delay and further expense. I had even visited the a
branch of the bank to drop off their completed forms and have them take
a copy of the original of the Will. Nothing was said then about my
proof of identity. Had I been asked to there would have been no problem
for me to take my passport in with my.
Frustrating red tape.
--
Bill L
> On 19/11/2012 03:00, BillL wrote:
>> I am co-executor organising execution my mother's Will and one banking
>> group is giving me grief.
>>
>> After many phone calls, advices of what to do, forms sent, promises
>> made, they now decide that all the executors need to have their
>> identities checked for money laundering.
>>
>> The amount of money involved is just a few thousand.
>>
>> Surely they are taking the p1ss? We are not putting money into them and
>> therefore they need to be concerned. If they wanted checks they should
>> have checked my mother. They cannot have any control over what I do
>> with the money (my account has been nominated). FWIW the estate is not
>> subject to probate.
>>
>> They just seem to be putting obstacle after obstacle in the way and for
>> reasons that are not relevant here it will not be easy to get one of the
>> executors to cooperate any further.
>>
>> Do the money laundering provisions really apply in this case or is the
>> banking group being over prescriptive.
>
> Are you sure about the will not being subject to probate? If it is more
> than £5,000 then AFAIK probate is obligatory. It is possible that this
> is the reason the bank are being particularly cautious. Without probate
> it may be very difficult for the executors to administer the estate.
>
Technically the amount is for just a few pounds over that limit.
>> I am co-executor organising execution my mother's Will and one banking
>> group is giving me grief.
>>
>> After many phone calls, advices of what to do, forms sent, promises
>> made, they now decide that all the executors need to have their
>> identities checked for money laundering.
>>
>> The amount of money involved is just a few thousand.
>>
>> Surely they are taking the p1ss? We are not putting money into them and
>> therefore they need to be concerned. If they wanted checks they should
>> have checked my mother. They cannot have any control over what I do
>> with the money (my account has been nominated). FWIW the estate is not
>> subject to probate.
>>
>> They just seem to be putting obstacle after obstacle in the way and for
>> reasons that are not relevant here it will not be easy to get one of the
>> executors to cooperate any further.
>>
>> Do the money laundering provisions really apply in this case or is the
>> banking group being over prescriptive.
>
> Are you sure about the will not being subject to probate? If it is more
> than £5,000 then AFAIK probate is obligatory. It is possible that this
> is the reason the bank are being particularly cautious. Without probate
> it may be very difficult for the executors to administer the estate.
>
Nonetheless my solicitor does not consider probate as a necessity. The
bank in question has not, in 2 1/2 years, raised the issue of probate.
> Money laundering can involve paying money into a bank as well as
> withdrawing it. The checks are also designed to make sure that the funds
> are being lawfully withdrawn. IF not the bank would be liable to the
> rightful owner of the funds.
>
> The law on money laundering is quite draconian and because of this bank
> staff are understandably cautious. In many circumstances the individual
> employee can be subject to criminal prosecution if they get it wrong.
> This has created a climate of fear that often causes bank staff to be
> over cautious. It may be worth going higher up the chain of command at
> the bank but the result is not certain.
>
trouble to get all executors to sign the necessary forms for the bank.
> As for the uncooperative executor he needs to be reminded that having
> accepted the executorship he is obliged to carry out his duties which
> includes complying with the law where necessary. In some circumstances
> executorship can be resigned but there has to be good reason and I doubt
> his is sufficient.
>
our solicitor and their solicitor. Had the bank told us of this "new"
requirement it could have all been dealt with in the first round and
without additional delay and further expense. I had even visited the a
branch of the bank to drop off their completed forms and have them take
a copy of the original of the Will. Nothing was said then about my
proof of identity. Had I been asked to there would have been no problem
for me to take my passport in with my.
Frustrating red tape.
--
Bill L
BillL
Nov 19, 2012, 5:05:03 AM11/19/12
to
Nightjar said the following on 19/11/2012 15:55:
>While you know the death is real, it
> could be a money laundering scheme, using a false death to transfer
> funds from one account to another.
>
Isn't a Certified Copy of a Death Certificate sufficient?
> The FSA will accept a government issued document with a photograph and
> either a date of birth or an address (passport or photo driving licence
> for example) as proof of identity. However, institutions are free to ask
> for more, if they need them for anti-fraud protection.
>
Yes I know what they require - they even accepted the forms at a Branch
office without telling me. They subsequently asked for some proof such
as a Bank Statement and a Utility Bill, which I supplied and they
returned with acknowledgement. Now they want more. So they failed on
many occasions to adhere to their own rules.
> Colin Bignell
--
Bill L
> On 19/11/2012 03:00, BillL wrote:
>> I am co-executor organising execution my mother's Will and one banking
>> group is giving me grief.
>>
>> After many phone calls, advices of what to do, forms sent, promises
>> made, they now decide that all the executors need to have their
>> identities checked for money laundering.
>>
>> The amount of money involved is just a few thousand.
>>
>> Surely they are taking the p1ss? We are not putting money into them and
>> therefore they need to be concerned. If they wanted checks they should
>> have checked my mother. They cannot have any control over what I do
>> with the money (my account has been nominated). FWIW the estate is not
>> subject to probate.
>>
>> They just seem to be putting obstacle after obstacle in the way and for
>> reasons that are not relevant here it will not be easy to get one of the
>> executors to cooperate any further.
>>
>> Do the money laundering provisions really apply in this case or is the
>> banking group being over prescriptive.
>
> They have to follow FSA requirements, one of which is to check the
> identity of people they deal with.
They've had numerous earlier dealings with me and failed to tell me that.
>> I am co-executor organising execution my mother's Will and one banking
>> group is giving me grief.
>>
>> After many phone calls, advices of what to do, forms sent, promises
>> made, they now decide that all the executors need to have their
>> identities checked for money laundering.
>>
>> The amount of money involved is just a few thousand.
>>
>> Surely they are taking the p1ss? We are not putting money into them and
>> therefore they need to be concerned. If they wanted checks they should
>> have checked my mother. They cannot have any control over what I do
>> with the money (my account has been nominated). FWIW the estate is not
>> subject to probate.
>>
>> They just seem to be putting obstacle after obstacle in the way and for
>> reasons that are not relevant here it will not be easy to get one of the
>> executors to cooperate any further.
>>
>> Do the money laundering provisions really apply in this case or is the
>> banking group being over prescriptive.
>
> They have to follow FSA requirements, one of which is to check the
> identity of people they deal with.
>While you know the death is real, it
> could be a money laundering scheme, using a false death to transfer
> funds from one account to another.
>
> The FSA will accept a government issued document with a photograph and
> either a date of birth or an address (passport or photo driving licence
> for example) as proof of identity. However, institutions are free to ask
> for more, if they need them for anti-fraud protection.
>
office without telling me. They subsequently asked for some proof such
as a Bank Statement and a Utility Bill, which I supplied and they
returned with acknowledgement. Now they want more. So they failed on
many occasions to adhere to their own rules.
> Colin Bignell
--
Bill L
Fredxx
Nov 19, 2012, 8:35:09 AM11/19/12
to
On 19/11/2012 10:00, BillL wrote:
> Peter Crosland said the following on 19/11/2012 14:45:
>>
> Peter Crosland said the following on 19/11/2012 14:45:
>>
>> Are you sure about the will not being subject to probate? If it is
>> more than £5,000 then AFAIK probate is obligatory. It is possible
>> that this is the reason the bank are being particularly cautious.
>> Without probate it may be very difficult for the executors to
>> administer the estate.
>>
>
> Technically the amount is for just a few pounds over that limit.
> Nonetheless my solicitor does not consider probate as a necessity.
> The bank in question has not, in 2 1/2 years, raised the issue of
> probate.
I'm surprised at that, one of the purposes of probate is to ensure tax
>> more than £5,000 then AFAIK probate is obligatory. It is possible
>> that this is the reason the bank are being particularly cautious.
>> Without probate it may be very difficult for the executors to
>> administer the estate.
>>
>
> Technically the amount is for just a few pounds over that limit.
> Nonetheless my solicitor does not consider probate as a necessity.
> The bank in question has not, in 2 1/2 years, raised the issue of
> probate.
and other liabilities are sorted before the distribution of monies.
>> Money laundering can involve paying money into a bank as well as
>> withdrawing it. The checks are also designed to make sure that the
>> funds are being lawfully withdrawn. IF not the bank would be
>> liable to the rightful owner of the funds.
>>
>
> AFAIU we, the executors, are the rightful owner of the funds.
cases.)
>> The law on money laundering is quite draconian and because of this
>> bank staff are understandably cautious. In many circumstances the
>> individual employee can be subject to criminal prosecution if they
>> get it wrong. This has created a climate of fear that often causes
>> bank staff to be over cautious. It may be worth going higher up
>> the chain of command at the bank but the result is not certain.
>>
>
> They could have expressed their caution before we went to a lot of
> trouble to get all executors to sign the necessary forms for the
> bank.
>
>> As for the uncooperative executor he needs to be reminded that
>> having accepted the executorship he is obliged to carry out his
>> duties which includes complying with the law where necessary. In
>> some circumstances executorship can be resigned but there has to
>> be good reason and I doubt his is sufficient.
>>
>
> We can force the recalcitrant executor to cooperate. It will
> involve our solicitor and their solicitor. Had the bank told us of
> this "new" requirement it could have all been dealt with in the
> first round and without additional delay and further expense. I had
> even visited the a branch of the bank to drop off their completed
> forms and have them take a copy of the original of the Will. Nothing
> was said then about my proof of identity. Had I been asked to there
> would have been no problem for me to take my passport in with my.
>
the bank in question, or having a copy of your passport certified by
your solicitor. Surely that is the easiest way, and far cheaper and
quicker than getting a solicitor to write even one letter?
Money laundering rules are draconian, and I don't blame branches and
staff using "due diligence" to confirm the identity of anyone putting
money in, or withdrawing money from an account.
BillL
Nov 19, 2012, 9:40:02 AM11/19/12
to
Fredxx said the following on 19/11/2012 20:35:
> On 19/11/2012 10:00, BillL wrote:
>> Peter Crosland said the following on 19/11/2012 14:45:
>>>
>>> Are you sure about the will not being subject to probate? If it is
>>> more than £5,000 then AFAIK probate is obligatory. It is possible
>>> that this is the reason the bank are being particularly cautious.
>>> Without probate it may be very difficult for the executors to
>>> administer the estate.
>>>
>>
>> Technically the amount is for just a few pounds over that limit.
>> Nonetheless my solicitor does not consider probate as a necessity.
>> The bank in question has not, in 2 1/2 years, raised the issue of
>> probate.
>
> I'm surprised at that, one of the purposes of probate is to ensure tax
> and other liabilities are sorted before the distribution of monies.
>
Reading up on this it seems that between £5k and £15k there is some
flexibility by the organisations. We had to pay for a waiver for a
handful of shares.
>>> Money laundering can involve paying money into a bank as well as
>>> withdrawing it. The checks are also designed to make sure that the
>>> funds are being lawfully withdrawn. IF not the bank would be
>>> liable to the rightful owner of the funds.
>>>
>>
>> AFAIU we, the executors, are the rightful owner of the funds.
>
> Wouldn't that be the beneficiaries? (Though could be the same in many
> cases.)
>
I guess I meant to say that the executors have control of the funds.
The first problem is that I am overseas and do not return within the 14
days that they have asked for a reply. The second problem is that they
knew this. The third problem is that they asked for other information
from me, which I sent, and they returned without comment. The fourth
problem is that the recalcitrant executor completed the necessary papers
as a result of court action. They are not going to rush to complete
further papers and will be laughing at the rigmarole in process.
> Money laundering rules are draconian, and I don't blame branches and
> staff using "due diligence" to confirm the identity of anyone putting
> money in, or withdrawing money from an account.
I'm not blaming them though it still seems an overkill for an elderly
woman who put some money with the savings bonds and wants her children
to execute and receive it. But as said over and over again, if they had
said that from the outset then it all could have been dealt with a
couple of months ago.
--
Bill L
> On 19/11/2012 10:00, BillL wrote:
>> Peter Crosland said the following on 19/11/2012 14:45:
>>>
>>> Are you sure about the will not being subject to probate? If it is
>>> more than £5,000 then AFAIK probate is obligatory. It is possible
>>> that this is the reason the bank are being particularly cautious.
>>> Without probate it may be very difficult for the executors to
>>> administer the estate.
>>>
>>
>> Technically the amount is for just a few pounds over that limit.
>> Nonetheless my solicitor does not consider probate as a necessity.
>> The bank in question has not, in 2 1/2 years, raised the issue of
>> probate.
>
> I'm surprised at that, one of the purposes of probate is to ensure tax
> and other liabilities are sorted before the distribution of monies.
>
flexibility by the organisations. We had to pay for a waiver for a
handful of shares.
>>> Money laundering can involve paying money into a bank as well as
>>> withdrawing it. The checks are also designed to make sure that the
>>> funds are being lawfully withdrawn. IF not the bank would be
>>> liable to the rightful owner of the funds.
>>>
>>
>> AFAIU we, the executors, are the rightful owner of the funds.
>
> Wouldn't that be the beneficiaries? (Though could be the same in many
> cases.)
>
days that they have asked for a reply. The second problem is that they
knew this. The third problem is that they asked for other information
from me, which I sent, and they returned without comment. The fourth
problem is that the recalcitrant executor completed the necessary papers
as a result of court action. They are not going to rush to complete
further papers and will be laughing at the rigmarole in process.
> Money laundering rules are draconian, and I don't blame branches and
> staff using "due diligence" to confirm the identity of anyone putting
> money in, or withdrawing money from an account.
woman who put some money with the savings bonds and wants her children
to execute and receive it. But as said over and over again, if they had
said that from the outset then it all could have been dealt with a
couple of months ago.
--
Bill L
Roland Perry
Nov 19, 2012, 10:20:28 AM11/19/12
to
In message <k8dccf$ffa$1...@dont-email.me>, at 13:35:09 on Mon, 19 Nov
2012, Fredxx <fre...@nospam.com> remarked:
--
Roland Perry
2012, Fredxx <fre...@nospam.com> remarked:
>I don't see the problem of showing your passport or driving licence to
>the bank in question
Isn't the problem here getting one of his co-executors to do the same?
>the bank in question
--
Roland Perry
Peter Crosland
Nov 19, 2012, 10:30:11 AM11/19/12
to
resolved then you are probably going to jump through the hoops. Getting
formal probate is a sensible thing to do since, provided you follow the
procedure correctly, it will protect the executors from action for any
undiscovered liabilities. It would also put you in a much stronger
position with the bank since they can then be much more certain the at
they are handing over the funds to the legitimate people. It really
should not be too arduous to do.
--
Regards Peter Crosland
Chris R
Nov 19, 2012, 11:30:04 AM11/19/12
to
>
>
> "Peter Crosland" wrote in message
> news:WeGdnZCo1YmezTfN...@brightview.co.uk...
> I can well understand your frustration but if you want the situation
> resolved then you are probably going to jump through the hoops. Getting
> formal probate is a sensible thing to do since, provided you follow the
> procedure correctly, it will protect the executors from action for any
> undiscovered liabilities. It would also put you in a much stronger
> position with the bank since they can then be much more certain the at
> they are handing over the funds to the legitimate people. It really should
> not be too arduous to do.
>
which case applying for probate would seem to be a wise precaution.
--
Chris R
========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======
Periander
Nov 19, 2012, 11:20:02 AM11/19/12
to
On 19-Nov-2012, BillL <intot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> After many phone calls, advices of what to do, forms sent, promises
> made, they now decide that all the executors need to have their
> identities checked for money laundering.
prove your identity to all the banks etc involved or you get a solicitor to
do it all for you in which case you only have to prove your identity once -
to your solicitor. The MLR are pretty damned comprehensive and if a
financial service provider or a solicitor doesn't comply with them then
they're in the sh one t.
It may appear to be a PITA, indeed it is at times but there is at present no
way of getting around them, at least honestly.
--
All the best,
Periander
Message has been deleted
BillL
Nov 19, 2012, 12:25:01 PM11/19/12
to
Periander said the following on 19/11/2012 23:20:
It is starting to seem easier to get our solicitor to write to them. He
knows who we are and will be FSA regulated.
Well I hope I have adequate grounds for a formal complaint and can
recoup any additional costs. The group even boasts a "bereavement
service" and all they've done is add a new hurdle at every step.
Note that the bank that our mother had her current account with(not the
same as this one) handed over all monies after funeral expenses to the
recalcitrant executor without question or requesting agreement from us.
OK only a thousand or so but nonetheless. Perhaps we should engage
with them as well.
--
Bill L
knows who we are and will be FSA regulated.
Well I hope I have adequate grounds for a formal complaint and can
recoup any additional costs. The group even boasts a "bereavement
service" and all they've done is add a new hurdle at every step.
Note that the bank that our mother had her current account with(not the
same as this one) handed over all monies after funeral expenses to the
recalcitrant executor without question or requesting agreement from us.
OK only a thousand or so but nonetheless. Perhaps we should engage
with them as well.
--
Bill L
BillL
Nov 19, 2012, 12:35:02 PM11/19/12
to
Chris R said the following on 19/11/2012 23:30:
assets and is now resolved by a Consent Order through the Court. Part
of the agreement was for that person to sign form we had at the time for
release of the monies from this bank into my name and that person would
have no further claim on those monies or any distribution. Had we known
the additional requirements then we would have had those incorporated
into the agreement. Whilst that doesn't change the agreement there is
no incentive for that person to comply other than by threat of
presumably Contempt of Court. The situation is simply now more messy
than it need be simply because the bank involved did not tell us, at the
many opportunities it had, what it now requires. It was none of their
business that there was a dispute - all co-executors had signed the
forms. This is the last asset (of not a lot) that is left to finalise.
Baring in mind that it is 30 months since our mother died it is
unlikely that any unknown creditors lurking.
--
Bill L
>>
>>
>> "Peter Crosland" wrote in message
>> news:WeGdnZCo1YmezTfN...@brightview.co.uk...
>
>> I can well understand your frustration but if you want the situation
>> resolved then you are probably going to jump through the hoops. Getting
>> formal probate is a sensible thing to do since, provided you follow the
>> procedure correctly, it will protect the executors from action for any
>> undiscovered liabilities. It would also put you in a much stronger
>> position with the bank since they can then be much more certain the at
>> they are handing over the funds to the legitimate people. It really should
>> not be too arduous to do.
>>
> It now sounds as if there have been court proceedings flying around, in
> which case applying for probate would seem to be a wise precaution.
>
No - there was a dispute over elements of the Will and who owned what
>>
>> "Peter Crosland" wrote in message
>> news:WeGdnZCo1YmezTfN...@brightview.co.uk...
>
>> I can well understand your frustration but if you want the situation
>> resolved then you are probably going to jump through the hoops. Getting
>> formal probate is a sensible thing to do since, provided you follow the
>> procedure correctly, it will protect the executors from action for any
>> undiscovered liabilities. It would also put you in a much stronger
>> position with the bank since they can then be much more certain the at
>> they are handing over the funds to the legitimate people. It really should
>> not be too arduous to do.
>>
> It now sounds as if there have been court proceedings flying around, in
> which case applying for probate would seem to be a wise precaution.
>
assets and is now resolved by a Consent Order through the Court. Part
of the agreement was for that person to sign form we had at the time for
release of the monies from this bank into my name and that person would
have no further claim on those monies or any distribution. Had we known
the additional requirements then we would have had those incorporated
into the agreement. Whilst that doesn't change the agreement there is
no incentive for that person to comply other than by threat of
presumably Contempt of Court. The situation is simply now more messy
than it need be simply because the bank involved did not tell us, at the
many opportunities it had, what it now requires. It was none of their
business that there was a dispute - all co-executors had signed the
forms. This is the last asset (of not a lot) that is left to finalise.
Baring in mind that it is 30 months since our mother died it is
unlikely that any unknown creditors lurking.
--
Bill L
Peter Crosland
Nov 19, 2012, 2:55:02 PM11/19/12
to
they have no protection against being sued for up to six years. I have
to say that the advice you seem to have received from a solicitor has
not been very good. Unfortunately you have only given a part of the
story so it is difficult for anyone to advise in more detail.
Nevertheless it does still seem that applying for probate would be a
prudent move for the executors.
--
Regards Peter Crosland
Andy Champ
Nov 19, 2012, 3:10:02 PM11/19/12
to
On 19/11/2012 03:00, BillL wrote:
> After many phone calls, advices of what to do, forms sent, promises
> made, they now decide that all the executors need to have their
> identities checked for money laundering.
I opened a dollar account a few years ago with my bank. (I wanted to
> made, they now decide that all the executors need to have their
> identities checked for money laundering.
transfer some dollars, but not use their ruinous exchange rates). They
wrote back to me and told me that due to the IoM regulations I needed to
provide this and that **** to prove my identity. I wrote back, quoting
them a couple of paragraphs from the IoM regulations (off the net),
pointing out that I'd had an account with them for many years (so they
already knew who I was) and asking for information on which section of
the regulations this was in.
They didn't answer. But a couple of days later the account was open.
So it could just be BS from the bank.
Andy
Peter Crosland
Nov 19, 2012, 4:40:01 PM11/19/12
to
solicitor and IFA and they are both sick to death with the constraints
that the money laundering legislation imposes on them. In particular it
imposes extra costs on clients often those who are long standing
customers. Unfortunately the regulations are so tightly drawn they need
to do repeat checks from time to time.
--
Regards Peter Crosland
BillL
Nov 19, 2012, 5:20:02 PM11/19/12
to
Peter Crosland said the following on 20/11/2012 02:55:
>
> Unless the executors have advertised using the approved publications
> they have no protection against being sued for up to six years. I have
> to say that the advice you seem to have received from a solicitor has
> not been very good. Unfortunately you have only given a part of the
> story so it is difficult for anyone to advise in more detail.
> Nevertheless it does still seem that applying for probate would be a
> prudent move for the executors.
>
In part that is because we have digressed from my original question. I
really wasn't asking for advice how to proceed though some input has
been useful. Where is the specific legislation that says an executor
*must* be subject to money laundering? What I have read is vague. Or
are financial institutions able to apply their own interpretation?
--
Bill L
>
> Unless the executors have advertised using the approved publications
> they have no protection against being sued for up to six years. I have
> to say that the advice you seem to have received from a solicitor has
> not been very good. Unfortunately you have only given a part of the
> story so it is difficult for anyone to advise in more detail.
> Nevertheless it does still seem that applying for probate would be a
> prudent move for the executors.
>
really wasn't asking for advice how to proceed though some input has
been useful. Where is the specific legislation that says an executor
*must* be subject to money laundering? What I have read is vague. Or
are financial institutions able to apply their own interpretation?
--
Bill L
Fredxx
Nov 19, 2012, 5:35:02 PM11/19/12
to
On 19/11/2012 20:10, Andy Champ wrote:
an account I had for 20 years previous. I naturally ignored the request
and in typical banking style the problem went away.
Thought I'd just say because being belligerent with a bank can just
cause more issues than you bargained for like a frozen bank account!
Fredxx
Nov 19, 2012, 6:00:07 PM11/19/12
to
the regulations. It depends on how much ass-covering their legals desire.
BillL
Nov 19, 2012, 11:10:02 PM11/19/12
to
Peter Crosland said the following on 20/11/2012 02:55:
>
>
> Unless the executors have advertised using the approved publications
> they have no protection against being sued for up to six years. I have
> to say that the advice you seem to have received from a solicitor has
> not been very good. Unfortunately you have only given a part of the
> story so it is difficult for anyone to advise in more detail.
> Nevertheless it does still seem that applying for probate would be a
> prudent move for the executors.
>
And I guess also because the situation would not be a non-contentious
> they have no protection against being sued for up to six years. I have
> to say that the advice you seem to have received from a solicitor has
> not been very good. Unfortunately you have only given a part of the
> story so it is difficult for anyone to advise in more detail.
> Nevertheless it does still seem that applying for probate would be a
> prudent move for the executors.
>
probate application.
Out of interest, if there is an outstanding debt on the estate then who
is liable for it?
--
Bill L
Chris R
Nov 20, 2012, 4:55:01 AM11/20/12
to
Where is the specific legislation that says an
> > executor *must* be subject to money laundering? What I have read is
> > vague. Or are financial institutions able to apply their own
> > interpretation?
> >
>
> Each financial institution will have it's own guidelines to carry out
> the regulations. It depends on how much ass-covering their legals desire.
But they are supposed to know who the beneficial owners of all accounts are
> > executor *must* be subject to money laundering? What I have read is
> > vague. Or are financial institutions able to apply their own
> > interpretation?
> >
>
> Each financial institution will have it's own guidelines to carry out
> the regulations. It depends on how much ass-covering their legals desire.
at all times, so it's not at all surprising.
Peter Crosland
Nov 20, 2012, 3:55:09 AM11/20/12
to
On 19/11/2012 22:20, BillL wrote:
find the rules as obstructive as anyone else. All financial institutions
have to decide what are appropriate levels of checks on identity are
required for their business. The regulations make individual employees
personally liable to criminal prosecution if they fail to apply the
rules properly. As I said before this has led to a climate of fear, some
might say paranoia, amongst the staff concerned. It has also undoubtedly
led to significant amount of overkill but the legislators are the ones
to blame not the banks. The banks don't get any satisfaction from
applying the law and it costs them money that gets passed on to
customers in higher fees.
The money laundering regulations apply to everyone where large sums are
beinbg exchanged through banks and other organisations such as
solicitors handling money for third parties are concerned. There is no
specific reference to executors because they are not treated differently
from anyone else. In any case executors are in a position of significant
trust. Nobody should accept the post of executor without being prepared
to follow the constraints it imposes. Anyone who is not willing to
accept those constraints should not accept the job.
--
Regards Peter Crosland
Peter Crosland
Nov 20, 2012, 4:05:01 AM11/20/12
to
deceased owed and to pay those before distributing balance or residue of
the estate. Which publish an easy to follow book on the subject. If the
executors apply for probate and publish the required statutory notices
then they are protected against any future claims not made within the
deadline. If they don't do this then they can be personally liable.
--
Regards Peter Crosland
Nightjar
Nov 20, 2012, 4:30:06 AM11/20/12
to
On 19/11/2012 22:20, BillL wrote:
2007, as amended, are the relevant legislation. While executors are not
specifically mentioned, they do fall within the general grouping of
customers and financial institutions have a duty to have in place
procedures to forestall and prevent money laundering, whether or not any
actually does occur. That includes, but is not limited to, identifying
customers from independent sources.
The Joint Money Laundering Steering Group gives guidance as to the
minimum requirements that institutions have to achieve, but they are
free to have more stringent procedures in place. As they may also be
addressing the possibility of fraud, most do apply more than the minimum
requirements.
http://www.jmlsg.org.uk/industry-guidance/article/guidance
Colin Bignell
Peter Crosland
Nov 20, 2012, 5:20:02 AM11/20/12
to
with an organisation is an effective negotiating strategy. Belligerence
literally means waging war that is not the way to get the bank to do
what you want.
--
Regards Peter Crosland
BillL
Nov 20, 2012, 5:35:09 AM11/20/12
to
Peter Crosland said the following on 20/11/2012 16:05:
Yes I've understood that bit. Again, if there are any outstanding debts
that come to light within 6yrs of probate being granted who, if anyone,
is responsible for payment? Surely probate and an advert doesn't
absolve the estate?
--
Bill L
that come to light within 6yrs of probate being granted who, if anyone,
is responsible for payment? Surely probate and an advert doesn't
absolve the estate?
--
Bill L
Martin Bonner
Nov 20, 2012, 8:15:03 AM11/20/12
to
On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 10:35:09 AM UTC, BillL wrote:
> if there are any outstanding debts
> that come to light within 6yrs of probate being granted who, if anyone,
> is responsible for payment?
Nobody. The person owed the money looses out.
> if there are any outstanding debts
> that come to light within 6yrs of probate being granted who, if anyone,
> is responsible for payment?
> Surely probate and an advert doesn't absolve the estate?
Message has been deleted
fred
Nov 20, 2012, 8:05:02 AM11/20/12
to
Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote in
news:HvednaiGg5oI0TbN...@giganews.com:
Executors do get a mention there I see, in Part 1 of JMLSG Guidance:
"5.3.86
In the case of an estate of a deceased person in the course of
administration, the beneficial owner is
o
in England and Wales, the executor, original or by representation, or
administrator for the time being of a deceased person; and
o
in Scotland, the executor for the purposes of the Executors (Scotland)
Act 19004.
In circumstances where an account is opened or taken over by executors
or administrators for the purpose of winding up the estate of a deceased
person, firms may accept the court documents granting probate or letters
of administration as evidence of identity of those personal
representatives.
Lawyers and accountants acting in the course of their business as
regulated firms, who are not named as executors/administrators, can be
verified by reference to their practising certificates, or to an
appropriate professional register."
Quoted under fair use.
I'm not sure whether the o/p's quoted court approved documents count as
'letters of administration' and so meet the guidance requirements for
identity verification, but as the wording says, "firms _may_ accept . .
".
--
fred
news:HvednaiGg5oI0TbN...@giganews.com:
>
> The Joint Money Laundering Steering Group gives guidance as to the
> minimum requirements that institutions have to achieve, but they are
> free to have more stringent procedures in place. As they may also be
> addressing the possibility of fraud, most do apply more than the
> minimum requirements.
>
> http://www.jmlsg.org.uk/industry-guidance/article/guidance
>
Interesting link thanks.
> The Joint Money Laundering Steering Group gives guidance as to the
> minimum requirements that institutions have to achieve, but they are
> free to have more stringent procedures in place. As they may also be
> addressing the possibility of fraud, most do apply more than the
> minimum requirements.
>
> http://www.jmlsg.org.uk/industry-guidance/article/guidance
>
Executors do get a mention there I see, in Part 1 of JMLSG Guidance:
"5.3.86
In the case of an estate of a deceased person in the course of
administration, the beneficial owner is
o
in England and Wales, the executor, original or by representation, or
administrator for the time being of a deceased person; and
o
in Scotland, the executor for the purposes of the Executors (Scotland)
Act 19004.
In circumstances where an account is opened or taken over by executors
or administrators for the purpose of winding up the estate of a deceased
person, firms may accept the court documents granting probate or letters
of administration as evidence of identity of those personal
representatives.
Lawyers and accountants acting in the course of their business as
regulated firms, who are not named as executors/administrators, can be
verified by reference to their practising certificates, or to an
appropriate professional register."
Quoted under fair use.
I'm not sure whether the o/p's quoted court approved documents count as
'letters of administration' and so meet the guidance requirements for
identity verification, but as the wording says, "firms _may_ accept . .
".
--
fred
Peter Crosland
Nov 20, 2012, 8:40:02 AM11/20/12
to
a procedure every executor would have to wait six years before
distributing the estate. I would respectfully suggest that you get hold
of the Which book on wills and read it before proceeding any further as
you don't seem to know enough to administer the estate correctly. Your
fellow executors need to do the same.
--
Regards Peter Crosland
BillL
Nov 20, 2012, 8:50:30 AM11/20/12
to
Peter Crosland said the following on 20/11/2012 17:20:
Well I did lose some patience, in writing, when told of the previous new
hurdle that was required. Whether that sparked the new demand for money
laundering requirements is open for conjecture. But I have documented
their every increasing obstacle course and would hope that it will go
towards any subsequent formal complaint.
Meanwhile I am requesting a meeting with a representative of theirs at
one of our local branches on my return and a pre-agreed list of what
will be acceptable to them in terms of documentation. If that proves
problematic I see no alternative but to get my solicitor, who can vouch
for our identities, to write to them.
--
Bill L
hurdle that was required. Whether that sparked the new demand for money
laundering requirements is open for conjecture. But I have documented
their every increasing obstacle course and would hope that it will go
towards any subsequent formal complaint.
Meanwhile I am requesting a meeting with a representative of theirs at
one of our local branches on my return and a pre-agreed list of what
will be acceptable to them in terms of documentation. If that proves
problematic I see no alternative but to get my solicitor, who can vouch
for our identities, to write to them.
--
Bill L
BillL
Nov 20, 2012, 11:25:01 AM11/20/12
to
fred said the following on 20/11/2012 20:05:
Many thanks for digging this out. I started to try but am on an
internet speed a little faster but not that much than dial-up on a less
than full blown computer. The bank would have to be treading on very
dodgy ground if they did not accept the Court stamped Consent Order as
sufficient, especially if we present it personally to a branch office.
Anyhow we'll find out in a few weeks time and I'll keep this for reference.
--
Bill L
internet speed a little faster but not that much than dial-up on a less
than full blown computer. The bank would have to be treading on very
dodgy ground if they did not accept the Court stamped Consent Order as
sufficient, especially if we present it personally to a branch office.
Anyhow we'll find out in a few weeks time and I'll keep this for reference.
--
Bill L
BillL
Nov 20, 2012, 11:30:10 AM11/20/12
to
Peter Crosland said the following on 20/11/2012 20:40:
shortly on my return and will ask why he is not advocating probate.
However I have all my mothers papers and AFAI can see things are very
straightforward and the executors are between them beneficiaries. If
mother owed somebody something it will be paid.
--
Bill L
>>
>> Yes I've understood that bit. Again, if there are any outstanding debts
>> that come to light within 6yrs of probate being granted who, if anyone,
>> is responsible for payment? Surely probate and an advert doesn't
>> absolve the estate?
>
> That is exactly what publishing the statutory notices does. Without such
> a procedure every executor would have to wait six years before
> distributing the estate. I would respectfully suggest that you get hold
> of the Which book on wills and read it before proceeding any further as
> you don't seem to know enough to administer the estate correctly. Your
> fellow executors need to do the same.
>
Yes I will when I return to the UK. I also am meeting with my solicitor
>> Yes I've understood that bit. Again, if there are any outstanding debts
>> that come to light within 6yrs of probate being granted who, if anyone,
>> is responsible for payment? Surely probate and an advert doesn't
>> absolve the estate?
>
> That is exactly what publishing the statutory notices does. Without such
> a procedure every executor would have to wait six years before
> distributing the estate. I would respectfully suggest that you get hold
> of the Which book on wills and read it before proceeding any further as
> you don't seem to know enough to administer the estate correctly. Your
> fellow executors need to do the same.
>
shortly on my return and will ask why he is not advocating probate.
However I have all my mothers papers and AFAI can see things are very
straightforward and the executors are between them beneficiaries. If
mother owed somebody something it will be paid.
--
Bill L
Chris R
Nov 20, 2012, 3:30:01 PM11/20/12
to
>
>
> "BillL" wrote in message news:k8gaqs$nmp$1...@dont-email.me...
> > In circumstances where an account is opened or taken over by executors
> > or administrators for the purpose of winding up the estate of a deceased
> > person, firms may accept the court documents granting probate or letters
> > of administration as evidence of identity of those personal
> > representatives.
> >
> > Lawyers and accountants acting in the course of their business as
> > regulated firms, who are not named as executors/administrators, can be
> > verified by reference to their practising certificates, or to an
> > appropriate professional register."
> >
> > Quoted under fair use.
> >
> > I'm not sure whether the o/p's quoted court approved documents count as
> > 'letters of administration' and so meet the guidance requirements for
> > identity verification, but as the wording says, "firms _may_ accept . .
> > ".
> >
>
> Many thanks for digging this out. I started to try but am on an internet
> speed a little faster but not that much than dial-up on a less than full
> blown computer. The bank would have to be treading on very dodgy ground
> if they did not accept the Court stamped Consent Order as sufficient,
> especially if we present it personally to a branch office. Anyhow we'll
> find out in a few weeks time and I'll keep this for reference.
>
isn't relevant to the requirement quoted above; nor is it any kind of
evidence of identity. Unless the court order is addressed to the bank, I
can't see them having any interest in it.
The best approach with all these ID requirements is just to be patient, do
as they ask, and if you can't, explain why. It's certainly frustrating:
today I had a copy document certified by a solicitor returned because the
bank decided it was just a photocopy - in fact it was an original
certificate signed in black ink.
That is doubly so when you are asking the bank to exercise discretion in
your favour. Someone getting shirty with them and waving a court order
around is likely to get the reaction "well it seems there is doubt about the
rights to the account or the ID of the executors so let's require a grant of
probate".
Peter Crosland
Nov 20, 2012, 3:50:01 PM11/20/12
to
evidence of probate and identity of the executors that strictly speaking
they have no legal authority to hand over the funds? In my experience
having probate makes the job much easier.
--
Regards Peter Crosland
Francis Davey
Nov 20, 2012, 6:00:06 PM11/20/12
to
Le lundi 19 novembre 2012 18:55:07 UTC, August West a écrit :
>
> Until distributed the estate is onwed by the executors, in trust for the
>
> beneficiaries.
>
In England (and this is bound to be different in Scotland) there is no trust. The obligation of executors though fiduciary is not that of a trustee, arising as it did out of the old probate courts rather than in chancery.
A mistake the majority of law students make in equity and trusts lectures (and, I am sad to say many tutors and lecturers) is to confuse those cases dealing with executorial obligations and those with trustees.
Of course the executors may end up creating trusts out of the estate and they may be trustees of those trusts, but that's another matter.
Francis
>
> Until distributed the estate is onwed by the executors, in trust for the
>
> beneficiaries.
>
In England (and this is bound to be different in Scotland) there is no trust. The obligation of executors though fiduciary is not that of a trustee, arising as it did out of the old probate courts rather than in chancery.
A mistake the majority of law students make in equity and trusts lectures (and, I am sad to say many tutors and lecturers) is to confuse those cases dealing with executorial obligations and those with trustees.
Of course the executors may end up creating trusts out of the estate and they may be trustees of those trusts, but that's another matter.
Francis
Message has been deleted
Francis Davey
Nov 21, 2012, 5:55:01 PM11/21/12
to
Le mardi 20 novembre 2012 23:27:49 UTC, August West a écrit :
>
> Oh, right, yes, I'm Scottish trained. It's a executory trust up here, as
>
> explicitly stated in the Executors (Scotland) Act 1900, s2. I assumed
I guessed it might be. While I'm English trained, I think its useful for me to try to understand how Scotland deals with the same questions.
>
> that England would be much the same, given English law's tendency to
>
> see, and create, trusts everywhere!
>
Right. Its a bad habit - brought on partly by law students not paying attention I suspect (see below). The trust invented by English law is too useful a device and is therefore used to deal with situations which ought to perhaps have some other tool to address them.
We had the same problem for a long time with implied contracts. Common law understood (without analysis) that money paid by mistake had to be returned. When our lawyers got academics they couldn't work out _why_ this was and invented an implied contract for return. It wasn't until relatively recently that we've got over that illusion and use unjust enrichment (as I understand the Scots have for rather longer) to do the trick.
>
> Ah, I had put 2+2 together to get 5 - I assuemd that the fiduciary duty
>
> arose as a trustee. We have never had those wild and hairy distinctions
>
> betwen courts (we're also free of the utter madness that is "equity").
>
No, indeed. The practical application here is that the legatees don't have a proprietary interest until the execution of the will is completed.
>
> But, as you note, it's not a mistake in Scotland.
>
> I apologiae to anyone I may have misled!
>
I think everyone here now knows you are giving the Scots law position. You usually say so I think anyway, which is very useful. More of us ought to say expressly the jurisdictional point of view we are adopting.
Francis
>
> Oh, right, yes, I'm Scottish trained. It's a executory trust up here, as
>
> explicitly stated in the Executors (Scotland) Act 1900, s2. I assumed
I guessed it might be. While I'm English trained, I think its useful for me to try to understand how Scotland deals with the same questions.
>
> that England would be much the same, given English law's tendency to
>
> see, and create, trusts everywhere!
>
Right. Its a bad habit - brought on partly by law students not paying attention I suspect (see below). The trust invented by English law is too useful a device and is therefore used to deal with situations which ought to perhaps have some other tool to address them.
We had the same problem for a long time with implied contracts. Common law understood (without analysis) that money paid by mistake had to be returned. When our lawyers got academics they couldn't work out _why_ this was and invented an implied contract for return. It wasn't until relatively recently that we've got over that illusion and use unjust enrichment (as I understand the Scots have for rather longer) to do the trick.
>
> Ah, I had put 2+2 together to get 5 - I assuemd that the fiduciary duty
>
> arose as a trustee. We have never had those wild and hairy distinctions
>
> betwen courts (we're also free of the utter madness that is "equity").
>
No, indeed. The practical application here is that the legatees don't have a proprietary interest until the execution of the will is completed.
>
> But, as you note, it's not a mistake in Scotland.
>
> I apologiae to anyone I may have misled!
>
I think everyone here now knows you are giving the Scots law position. You usually say so I think anyway, which is very useful. More of us ought to say expressly the jurisdictional point of view we are adopting.
Francis
0 new messages