Catching criminals by them having to prove where they got their money

[Obelix]

You do have to legally account for where you got your money from, if you get stopped with more than £500 cash on you the police can confiscate it until you prove it is legitimate.

Regarding the shooting suspect I've read online that the Lamborghini was a hire car and the cameras were up because someone made an attempt on his life a bit back.

 

Good isn't it. You've never done anything wrong in your life and the police can have your money until you prove your innocence. Can't see anything wrong with that at all can you?

 

Please note that the minimum amount of cash is £1000 and the police actually have to have sufficient evidence of criminal activity to seize it... they cant just take it if it's there.

Edited January 6, 2017 by Obelix

[Justin Smith]

a) he probably lives in India.

 

b) obviously you aren't going to report your ill gotten gains

 

So I am sure if you are breaking one law you won't mind breaking another so back to my original question do you propose every time we spend money we have to prove where we got it?

 

Do you even know what you are trying to suggest?

 

I`m floating the idea, it`d need tuning, but I`m saying there`s potential in it. Can someone give me an example where anybody couldn`t prove where they legitimately got their money ? If they`re employed it`d be pay slips and stuff, if they`re self employed it`d be invoices.

[Obelix]

Its the problem of having to prove it - that takes a long time, takes expense and causes immense problems.

 

What if you are going to buy a car? Or a caravan? That £2k in your pocket? Gone. Oops.

 

You get it back three months later, but the car has been sold by then of course.

 

I cashed up my change jar about a year ago. £1400 in coins. Prove where that came from - it's excess change from many thousands of transactions dumped out my pocket over the course of a few years.

 

When my grandmother died, we found £27300 in cash hidden through the apartment. Interest from the sale of her house - she used to take it out and keep it for a rainy day. Dementia does that to people. Took us ages to be sure that was where it came from - and we reckon that £6k was never found because it was probably thrown out sewn inside the furniture upholstery before we found the first lot packaged in a load of towels. That was my parents money by inheritance and right - but we could never prove where it came from for sure I wouldn't think.

Edited January 6, 2017 by Obelix

[Justin Smith]

Good isn't it. You've never done anything wrong in your life and the police can have your money until you prove your innocence. Can't see anything wrong with that at all can you?

 

Please note that the minimum amount of cash is £1000 and the police actually have to have sufficient evidence of criminal activity to seize it... they cant just take it if it's there.

 

I don`t think this kind of thing, being found in possession of large amounts of cash, is what I`m talking about. I`m talking about more generally, someone with an expensive car or house, how did they get that money to afford those ? And, as an important side benefit, did they pay their tax on it ? The great majority will have earned it legitimately and could prove it quite easily. But what about the others ? Like the scum bag who knackered my PC ? That SOAB should have to account for where he got his money, it`s probably the only way he`ll ever be caught (or at least prevented from spending his dosh).

If it made a 10% difference to the amount of crime committed, and increased the tax take by even a few percent, it`d be worth it in my book.

Edited January 6, 2017 by Justin Smith

[Obelix]

So because you got jiggered by a low grade crook who made you feel bad you want everyone to take on a massive financial burden to prove their innocence?

 

Doesn't work that way. Sorry but it's generally innocent til proven guilty.

[FriedChicken]

I don`t think this kind of thing, being found in possession of large amounts of cash, is what I`m talking about. I`m talking about more generally, someone with an expensive car or house, how did they get that money to afford those ? And, as an important side benefit, did they pay their tax on it ? The great majority will have earned it legitimately and could prove it quite easily. But what about the others ? Like the scum bag who knackered my PC ? That SOAB should have to account for where he got his money, it`s probably the only way he`ll ever be caught (or at least prevented from spending his dosh).

If it made a 10% difference to the amount of crime committed, and increased the tax take by even a few percent, it`d be worth it in my book.

 

 

I'm still not sure what you are talking about if you are not talking about when we purchase things we have to prove where our money came from?

 

Otherwise you do have to account for where your cash came from in tax returns etc etc. but obviously you wouldn't mention illegal monies unless you are stupid. banks also have anti money laundering checks but then you'd just stash it under your mattress.

 

So what do you mean?

[1bigbhudda]

I'm still not sure what you are talking about if you are not talking about when we purchase things we have to prove where our money came from?

 

Otherwise you do have to account for where your cash came from in tax returns etc etc. but obviously you wouldn't mention illegal monies unless you are stupid. banks also have anti money laundering checks but then you'd just stash it under your mattress.

 

So what do you mean?

 

i think he means when its patently obvious to all that the lifestyle is not condusive to their means of living, i.e if someone lives in a little terrace or council house and runs a kebab shop its unlikely they can afford a great big 4x4 and have staff run the place for them, whilst they swan about drinking coffees and milkshakes???

[FriedChicken]

i think he means when its patently obvious to all that the lifestyle is not condusive to their means of living, i.e if someone lives in a little terrace or council house and runs a kebab shop its unlikely they can afford a great big 4x4 and have staff run the place for them, whilst they swan about drinking coffees and milkshakes???

 

More likely they can afford a big 4x4 if they live in a ****ty house with their parents. Less outgoings.

[Justin Smith]

So because you got jiggered by a low grade crook who made you feel bad you want everyone to take on a massive financial burden to prove their innocence?

 

Doesn't work that way. Sorry but it's generally innocent til proven guilty.

 

Sorry, why is it a massive financial burden ? I run my own business, so proving my income would ne slightly more complicated than for someone employed, but I could prove my income in about 5 minutes flat.

 

And I wouldn`t call someone who comes up with malware like that cretin did, a low grade crook. That SOAB has probably caused great inconvenience, and no little expense, to a hell of lot of people. Though I suppose it depends on your definition of low grade crook I suppose.

What`s so sad is that guy must be fairly smart, it isn`t like he couldn`t make a reasonable amount of money legitimately. What a waste, as well as what a load of hassle for so many people. There`s got to be a better way of dealing with people like that.

[apelike]

Can someone give me an example where anybody couldn`t prove where they legitimately got their money ? If they`re employed it`d be pay slips and stuff, if they`re self employed it`d be invoices.

 

My pension gets paid in cash as I don't have, and refuse to have a bank account. I also have savings in cash that are not in a bank account. It would be hard for me to prove categorically that the money I have is legit. In any case the onus should be on the law to prove that any money a person has in their possession was obtained illegitimately and not the other way around.

 

It should always be the case of innocent until proved guilty but unfortunately the law was changed so that a suspects assets could be seized under the proceeds of crime act. As far as I know criminals or suspected criminals awaiting trial can already have their assets seized.