The NAEA has called on the Government to make ownership of property in the UK fully transparent, and deliver on the message that there is no place for dirty money in Britain.
A statement issued jointly by the NAEA and Transparency International UK follows an appearance in Parliament by NAEA boss Mark Hayward last week.
The statement calls on the Government to ensure that agents who break money laundering laws face “meaningful” punishment.
But it makes no reference to the progress of the NAEA’s own inquiry, following the damning TV documentary back in July, From Russia With Cash.
That programme showed estate agents, including NAEA members, apparently happy to help a clearly dodgy Russian buyer, “Boris”, buy a London property with dirty money.
When Hayward last week spoke at the All Party Parliamentary Group on Anti-Corruption, From Russia With Cash was screened again.
A panel discussion followed, with “Boris” – in reality, Roman Borisovich – on the panel.
The new joint statement, issued yesterday, says: “In July the Government committed to tackling corrupt money in UK property, but they are yet to publish plans or a timeline for their consultation on providing more transparency over foreign and offshore ownership of UK property.
“We, as representatives from civil society and the estate agency sector, hope the Government will open this consultation with the urgency it requires.”
The statement quotes Hayward as saying: “The recent documentary From Russia With Cash demonstrated that there is still not absolute clarity in relation to anti-money laundering among those in the property sector, despite the very clear legislation in place and regular training and updates from within the industry.
“It is now time to step up the level of scrutiny that the sector comes under to ensure that a small minority of agents do not support criminal activity and those that do are appropriately sanctioned.”
The statement continues: “London is a magnificent city and its high-end property is amongst the most sought after in the world.
“But it is also attractive to the corrupt as a place to wash dirty cash.
“This dirty cash is very likely to be increasing house prices and – ultimately – stopping ordinary, honest people getting into the property market.
“Anonymous offshore companies hold the titles to over 35,000 properties in London; almost one in ten properties in Westminster.
“Using these companies to hide the true owners of a property is vital for criminals wishing to hide their money.”
The statement calls on the Government to:
- Require all foreign companies to be as transparent as UK companies over their ultimate beneficial ownership if they wish to hold property titles in the UK
- State that anti-money laundering checks should be carried out by estate agents on the purchaser, not just the seller, of high-value property
- Ensure that estate agents who break the rules and support criminal money laundering should face meaningful punishment and sanctions
- Support the sector to ensure that estate agents adhere to anti-money laundering regulations
We asked the NAEA yesterday if there was an update on its own inquiry – almost four months after From Russia With Cash was screened.
Hayward told us this morning: “Following the documentary From Russia with Cash, we have begun an investigatory process with those members that were implicated in the programme. At present we cannot discuss our inquiries any further other than to say it is a thorough investigation. However, [sanctions for] any member found to be in breach of the anti-money laundering regulations could involve expulsion and a fine of up to 5 million euros.”
Comments (8)
Smile, what makes you say the CMA have gone away?? Ros’s arti le back in June which was incorrect?
I have very recenct CMA letters which shows they haven’t gone away and are still monitoring AM/OTM
Smile – Question. Should the NAEA support a anti competitive association of two seperate entities that impose unfair rules on agents types. Afterall, many NAEA agents are online only.
Also INEA and other platforms have had agent members targeted to leave banned portals.
AM is led by 9 directors. OTM has two Companies House listings each with a director listed. No AM director sits on the OTM board. And vice versa.
As such OTM are upholding AM rules. Being seperate colluding entities means AM and OTM directors are acting cartel-like to suppress others in the market.
This is anti competitive which NAEA should NOT be supporting
believe me i have nothing but disdain for the NAEA and i think they are crazy to accept online agents yet still support OTM.
But again you are wrong re the anti competitive.
You have ready a rule book and looked to use the wording to your agenda as opposed to what it is there for. The same way they have said they are not investigation OTM as a cartel you and others have made a big issue out of the “at this time” comment latching onto hope you can be proved right.
I can see over the last week now why you have been so vocal against OTM as they have come out against INEA. But chances are if you kept quite nothing would have been said, unfortuanlty for you, you have kicked a big fuss up, unlike Quirk and Shinerock where they cannot take action they can against you.
NAEA should be calling on CMA and NTSEAT to loom into AM and OTM collusion for AM and OTMs ANTICOMPETITIVE restraints
Trevor that comment is flawed in so many areas.
Leaving to one side OTM is NOT anti-competitive. The NAEA fully support OTM!
This so called “investigation” by the naea has so far taken 4 months, what cods is that!
Instead of concentrating on their own members and showing some regiment of having teeth and authority they have decided to muddy the water by involving all of us in wanting more rules and regs and this lot can’t even handle the R n Reg’s they already have and they have the audacity of having some back up in demanding more red tape for us all.
Once again naea, sort your own house out before lumping us all in on your own fiasco.
More Red Tape. Those that handle the MONEY need regulating, not Estate Agents. Hammer the lawyers and banks.
– estate agents who break the rules and support criminal money laundering should face “meaningful punishment and sanctions
So what punishment do the agents that featured on the channel 4 programme face from the NAEA?