Changing Money

Find a sum that they will change and get a few friends or family members to stand in line with you. Make sure you note the name(s) of the cashier(s). After a couple they might get suspicious and refuse to serve the next one. You then get out your mobile phone and call the tabloid of your choice and tell them how "Big Brother is alive and well..." etc Take some photos perhaps, and if you can make sure that the one they stop is likely to be a little old lady so much the better. Would probably work best if you are in a major city where they can get a photographer and journalist out to you quickly.

"Pretty standard stuff"? Well, it is done, but one runs the risk of the cash being stolen, be it en route or by the recipient who then claims not to have received it. That's why it's "dodgy".

Ask parliament. They made the rules.

But she doesn't *need* to do it that way. She could send him pounds and get *him* to fight whatever rules they might have over there!

It isn't denied. She could purchase from someone who doesn't require to see a passport, such as her bank.

What has making a profit got to do with it? Are you saying that a business that doesn't make a profit is exempt from regulations?

This example you gave is pretty weird. First there is a simple purchase, then there is a introduction of a much larger amount to pay for it, and thirdly there is the difference made up in foreign currency.

All this is a long way from comparing it to a bureau de change who I suggest should follow the anti-money laundering regulations because money launders routinely use them to launder money.

The whole point of these regulations are to "know your customer". You never know when somebody who initially may appear unimportant but will attempt to do something suspicious and at that stage they will be reluctant to disclose their identity. I have to confirm the identity and details of new clients who want a straight forward tax return prepared but I may come across something that should be reported and if I haven't carried out proper checks I could be unable to provide enough information.

Do you really think stories like that sell newspapers?

I regularly see the display of papers outside petrol stations and to be frank none of the stories sell any off them to me. but somebody buys them. If you could find a Dianna angle I'm sure the Express would be interested. :-)

Well, you don't need a passport to go to Ireland, and the last time I was there they used a different currency. Most shops in Ireland will happily accept pounds at 1:1 to the euro. A cash machine is likely to give a better rate than a bureau de change and won't ask for your passport.

So what if you are? Next you'll say that you be vetted for spending your money on anything that can be sold on to someone else.

Yes, in the same way that you do not *need* to buy your wife flowers and instead could give her a fiver and tell her to go the the petrol station to get them herself.

That isn't answering the point made as you well know. :-)

It would be pretty stupid if money launderers were able to evade detection simply by dividing transactions into smaller amounts.

No I won't

You romantic fool you!

It is. The point is that your MSB needs to be able to know their customer.

"PeterSaxton" wrote

Then why have the "High Value Dealer" limit of

Instead of making a single purchase of over Euro15K, money launderers can easily make several purchases of under Euro15K. Do you think the HVD limit should be set to *zero* instead?

It wouldn't make sense if you had a high value dealer limit as a low value!

It would be as sensible as award a prize for the faster runner in a race to the slowest runner.

No.

"PeterSaxton" wrot

But why have a high value dealer limit at all?

"PeterSaxton" wrote

Then why did you say (exact quote) "It would be pretty stupid if money launderers were able to evade detection simply by dividing transactions into smaller amounts."?

Whatever the "high value" limit is set to, the money launderer can evade it simply by making more, but smaller, purchases.

For required reporting purposes. That doesn't mean that smaller value deals shouldn't be recorded to help in investigations.

You don't have to say "exact quote" because sensible people realise that quotation marks mean an exact quote!

The money launder can evade the high value deals but they would still have to prove who they were which would help with any investigations.

"PeterSaxton" wrote

"PeterSaxton" wrote

If there's already sufficient regulation for "under-limit" purchases, then why do you need anything extra for "over-limit" ones?

But if you think that something more is required for "over-limit" purchases, then shouldn't that be done also for "under-limit" ones?

Most sensible people think it is reasonable to look at larger amounts more closely.

The smaller amounts are still recorded in case they are required to be looked at.

"PeterSaxton" wrote

Of course - but that means that you look at the smaller amounts *less* closely! Which means that the money launderers can evade this "closer inspection" (of high-value amounts) by making more, but smaller, purchases.

If that doesn't reduce the risk of detection, then what's the point in the extra regs for high-value?

On the other hand, if it does reduce the risk of detection, then (in reply to Yellow's question "So what if you are? [making many of these smaller transactions]"), why did you say the following? :- > "PeterSaxton" wrote >> It would be pretty stupid if money launderers were able to evade >> detection simply by dividing transactions into smaller amounts.

They evade the closer inspection of high value amounts but if they have to prove who they are they will be spotted by the sheer quantity of their deals of a lower value.

Because they would do fewer high value deals and be less likely to get spotted if there werent extra regulations.

See my above exlanation which makes it clear.