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

[FriedChicken]

If you end up in court, silence would presume some guilt?

 

What are you guys talking about. If the court can prove your money or any assets are from illegal activities they can fine you or give you a sentence already. I really don't understand what we are talking about.

[El Cid]

What are you guys talking about. If the court can prove your money or any assets are from illegal activities they can fine you or give you a sentence already. I really don't understand what we are talking about.

 

Although the suspect is not compelled to answer questions after formal arrest, failure to give information may now be prejudicial at trial.

 

---------- Post added 06-01-2017 at 18:56 ----------

 

If the court can prove your money or any assets are from illegal activities they can fine you or give you a sentence already. I really don't understand what we are talking about.

 

Someone living benefits, that goes on foreign holidays and has a couple of nice motors parked outside their house. Would you be suspicious?

[Guest makapaka]

I admit that`s a good question, but surely not unanswerable ?

Let me ask an open question, what would be the best procedures that would catch as many criminals (and tax avoiders whilst they`re at it) whilst affecting as few law abiding people as possible ?

 

---------- Post added 06-01-2017 at 16:13 ----------

 

 

Yes but that`s not perfect is it ? Surely the police working with decent accountants and the banks could see through that ?

 

So a guy goes to buy a £50k Beamer from sytners in cash he has withdrawn from his own business and they're going to call the police and accountants to investigate whether he is actually a crook and is laundering bad money through his business......do me a favour.

[apelike]

Surely if you get a pension there`s paperwork for that ?

 

Yes there is but there is no paperwork showing how much I have saved up from it. I have also bought and sold legit items at a profit and there is no paperwork for those either. As said the law already has the criminal aspect covered when it comes to criminals and assets, and they already have to account for their money. Why make it applicable to every person when it is not necessary?

 

---------- Post added 06-01-2017 at 20:18 ----------

 

If you end up in court, silence would presume some guilt?

 

You have the right to remain silent so silence implies nothing. Remaining silent, despite what any caution may imply, is not prejudicial at trial. Its used as a trick to try and make you incriminate yourself as the second part of the caution actually contradicts the first part.

Edited January 6, 2017 by apelike

[ECCOnoob]

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.

 

I am totally at a loss to understand why on earth you would choose to exclude yourself from huge aspects of the modern world, let alone basic security by refusing to have even a basic bank account.

 

The lengths you must have to go to just to do simple things such as pay bills and transfer funds arounds must be tedious. It must be nearly a decade since I had any reason to step into a physical bank branch for anything.

Edited January 6, 2017 by ECCOnoob

[Robin-H]

I have a job full time, but that only accounts for just over half of income. I buy things and sell them on for profit and also provide services to clients. I also gamble quite a lot and make decent money from that.

 

So how would I possibly track all of that.

 

Well presumably you track them, for tax purposes?

[Cyclone]

I suppose most people must have heard about the shooting incident on the M62 the other day, a man was shot dead by the Police. There are many reports on the TV and in the papers that he was (allegedly) a drug dealer. His Dad was being interviewed on Look North last night and saying his son was a good boy and stuff, as you`d probably expect. What would have been interesting is if the BBC reporter had asked what job his son did (to be able to afford all those big flash cars and a house with 10 CCTV cameras on it).

This led me on to something I`ve considered before, when my PC got some malware on it demanding money for the release key*.

 

Is there not an argument that everyone should legally have to account for where they got their money ?

 

Surely that`d make catching criminals easier, and even if it didn`t it`d make it much harder for them to actually spend their ill gotten gains ! This would also apply to tax dodging traders and similar, so would save all us honest tax payers some tax dollars.

 

* I didn`t pay, obviously, but that criminal who set up the scam will almost certainly never be brought to justice, which is infuriating.

 

How do you even imagine this working?

 

When you spend money at the shop? When you pay the tram conductor? When you buy a flight on your credit card, or just when you buy a lambo or a house?

 

---------- Post added 06-01-2017 at 20:39 ----------

 

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.

 

That would show an income, but without potentially going back years there's no way to prove a particular balance. And that's going back years including expenditure as well.

[apelike]

I am totally at a loss to understand why on earth you would choose to exclude yourself from huge aspects of the modern world, let alone basic security by refusing to have even a basic bank account.

 

My son has a bank account and from the security point of view he lost over £5000 on an online phishing scam so so much for security. Do you know how much fraud there is because of bank accounts and the internet? Why does a bank account suddenly enrich my life when I can perfectly cope without having one. I don't like acting like a sheep and following trends just because others cant cope without doing so. Its also one of the reasons I don't have a mobile phone and that is simply down to the fact that I don't need one.

 

The lengths you must have to go to just to do simple things such as pay bills and transfer funds arounds must be tedious.

 

I don't have any problems at all as I always pay in cash and that is called choice.

[Cyclone]

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???

 

If someone has a lifestyle that might be indicative of criminal behaviour then the police should apply for a warrant and investigate if the court grants one. That's how it works.

 

---------- Post added 06-01-2017 at 20:41 ----------

 

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.

Can you prove your current bank balance is legitimate though? How would you do that?

 

---------- Post added 06-01-2017 at 20:43 ----------

 

I admit that`s a good question, but surely not unanswerable ?

Let me ask an open question, what would be the best procedures that would catch as many criminals (and tax avoiders whilst they`re at it) whilst affecting as few law abiding people as possible ?

 

---------- Post added 06-01-2017 at 16:13 ----------

 

 

Yes but that`s not perfect is it ? Surely the police working with decent accountants and the banks could see through that ?

 

Hahahaha.

Money laundering is a massive financial problem, and incredibly difficult to detect.

Once detected it's probably easy enough to then prove, but detecting it in the first place, that's difficult.

[Jpeters]

Well presumably you track them, for tax purposes?

 

No, absolutely not. I pay about 3.5k tax and NI per month from my salary, I think that's more than enough.

 

Does anyone on here track any extra money they get? For instance, if someone paid you £20 to do something for them, would you report to the tax man?