Last night’s damning TV programme about money laundering featured a number of high-end London estate agents.
In the TV documentary about ‘dirty money’, London was described as being the money laundering capital of the world.
A representative of the National Crime Agency estimated that “hundreds of billions” of pounds were laundered through the UK each year.
Five agents featured included those from Winkworth and Marsh & Parsons, as they took a bent Russian purchaser – in fact an undercover reporter – on viewings of properties.
Each agent denied any wrong doing in statements that were carried in the TV programme.
But one big-name agent, not in the programme but who watched it, told Eye of his reaction late last night.
He simply said: “Dear God. Red faces in the capital.”
However, early this morning, Marsh & Parsons CEO Peter Rollings told Eye that the programme had not shown “unambiguous evidence of a money laundering offence” in a “notoriously difficult area of the law”. He said he was disappointed with how matters were portrayed.
His full statement said: “Following a review of the allegations made in a letter sent to us prior to the broadcast, leading barrister Lord Ken Macdonald QC, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, concluded that the matters referred to in that letter did not appear to amount to unambiguous evidence of a money laundering offence.
“Having now had an opportunity to view the broadcast in full, we agree with this assessment and are disappointed at the way in which matters were portrayed.
“In particular, we do not accept that a desire for confidentiality or the use of offshore trusts is evidence of money laundering.
“We treat all of our clients’ affairs with utmost confidentiality and trust structures are used regularly for completely legitimate purposes, especially in the prime central London market in which we operate.
“Like any company that prides itself on its professional and ethical standards, Marsh & Parsons will continue to observe best practice in terms of training and the application of this notoriously difficult area of the law.
“That said, the issues raised in the programme are a timely reminder that there is no room for complacency. Where appropriate, we will strengthen our procedures to ensure that our staff are in no doubt as to their obligations and that we achieve the highest levels of compliance.”
The NAEA has said it is launching its own inquiry.
Eye will update this story as further reaction to the TV exposure comes in.
Comments (33)
I can spot those of us on here that have actually watched this. Here is the link if you haven’t watched it: http://bit.ly/1HTbVZ7
Also, for those of you who don’t know the law or need a recap, here is the Money Laundering Regulations 2007: Supervision of Estate Agency Businesses from the government website: http://bit.ly/1Jata2X and the Overview of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: http://bit.ly/1RpLYF9
Just a couple of quotes from these:
“The main money laundering offences apply to everyone, and you commit an offence if you know or suspect that the property is criminal property. Under the Proceeds of Crime Act it’s also an offence to fail to report suspicious activity.”
“A person commits an offence if he or she enters in to or becomes concerned in an arrangement which he or she knows or suspects facilitates the acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property.”
There is NO EXCUSE for helping to launder money into the UK – each agent has given ‘Boris’ advice of how to launder the money and details of solicitors of whom could help them get that money into the UK to buy property WITHOUT their identity being known on any records. How could they have contacts or know in detail how to launder money if they had not done it before?
Some of you might say that it’s difficult to say no and leave the situation, yet I know plenty of people who have. It’s not about having balls, it’s about implementing the law, doing your due diligence and having enough brains to realise where a conversation is going. For anyone with enough common sense, having someone buying property that is that expensive whom needs to “have a word” with your in private, should raise a huge red flag and warning signs. Honestly, it’s not that hard!
At the end of the day, if you are in this industry, whether you’re a trainee or a managing director, you have laws and rules to follow. Is a great big fat fee and a new Range Rover Sport worth up to 40 years in prison, your source of income dissolved and your agency being stripped to pieces? Really?
Each one of the agents represented in this documentary has been witness to a potential crime. THAT IS SERIOUS.
Also, on a side note, why would you even try to justify these actions if you have not taken these actions yourself?
What went on at the properties was plain silly, anyone with half a brain being approached in that manor would try to laugh it off and get out of the door.
But to then follow it up by meeting the guy at his office and sending emails and making calls claiming that they want to be complicit is also plain silly!
The whole thing was silly!
I might still be trying to figure out who shot JR but jeez. When a dude says he’s buying with dirty money, can’t be linked to it and wants you in then I’m guessing your next move is dialling my number and not calling or meeting the guy again to sort solicitors. Ouch! Ok so we can break it down but hiding behind no formal offer is spreading sincerity a little thin, it is what it is and thats not a good look for agency. A wiser man than me once said “I got chills they’re multiplying.” Ok scratch that, wrong dude but look they need to get in front of this. Trouble is, even putting a distance a thousand kisse deep from this is gonna be rough. Dang, I’m a sucker for agency and we go ways back but this really ain’t cool.
It seems some may be under the impression that money laundering only takes place once the property is sold (ie the money has then changed by laundering). A person involved/assisting in money laundering activity is guilty. If one follows the guidelines issued by HMRC all should have continued as nothing was untoward but then reported the matter to with a SAR to NCA. The sale process would continue until such time as NCA stoped it.
I must admit i am embarrassed by some of the comments from individuals in the industry this morning.
Just because they did not make a formal offer does not mean its okay!
If the Russian fella had said he was going to kill somebody, would you not report him to the police?
The agents knew what was happening and thought “Well not my problem, i cant see anybody being hurt in all this and after all all i am doing is selling a property, i am not to blame”
Then they hide behind “Oh no formal offer was made so not a problem!” – Err yes you have been privy to a conversation of embezzling money. Even if you thought it was a joke (which i don’t believe they did) you should report it.
No wonder the public have such a bad opinion of us, if you have done wrong put your hands up and admit it and rectify it.
Obviously a massive training need for the companies and if i hope the individuals have learned this is not acceptable behavior and is a warning to others.
As for the NAEA – yesterday saying how concerned they were …… Hello ….. Where are you? – Don’t just jump on the band wagon for publicity do something about it! Even eye have published a guide on ANTI Money Laundering today. … Are you awake NAEA???
“If the Russian fella had said he was going to kill somebody, would you not report him to the police?”
Agreed! But likewise would you not agree that: you would not tell said “Russian fella” you were going to tell the police there and then would you?
I would just nod, ensure I walked out of the room facing him and tell the police afterwards – Being good at MLR I suspect is like being a grass/snitch call it what you will, but run off and tell tales later!
Where the industry was let down, was in the fact the EA’s in this program seemed to encourage ways around it, rather than say “yes brilliant, well contact the office, make an offer and we will do the rest” (the rest being a SAR)
The QC’s that were contributing were appalling putting anti estate agency at the top of their agenda.
The “estimated” fees were probably supplied by an online agent.
The acting was so dreadful, and the applicants so un believable. You could see on every agents’ face that that they were uncertain as to whether this was true or not. How many times do we have to humour applicants who come out with weird and wonderful stories about stuff? Its a preferable and safer option than saying “listen Mr Russian government minister, you are a thief and a crook and instead of playing along with you whilst I’m here I’m straight off to report you to the authorities”
I definitely wouldn’t have said that on the spot, but would have humoured him in the same way the agents did whilst making sure due diligence(in partnership with a solicitor) was carried out if the bloke turned out to actually be who he said he was.
Another 1 sided piece of nonsense tv.
It is down to us to seize the opportunity of saying this has been going on, it has been happening since (I’ll look that up on EAT, dictator’s relatives story) and making the media aware that the legal firms are the ones driving the work arounds and company shell schemes.
In 2011/2012 spoke directly to 2 MP’s about money laundering and as I posted yesterday it’s not one for either the Treasury or HMRC!
For sure single out the agents but root out all the wrongdoers while we’re about it.
When the OFT disbanded. AML was passed to HMRC and CPRs and BPRs was passed to Trading Standards (NTSEAT)
All come under BIS
It was the suggestion where funds where coming from and that their names would not be used and that he was on a low wage. AML suspicion works on hearing or seeing triggers/warning signs. Not where an offer was made or not.
its was just fantasy no offers were made as far as I can see and the AML dont come in until they do make an offer.
How many dreamers come in thinking they can afford a property but cant. Untill and actual office is put in why waste time before then. Once an offer comes in you then verify it.
If your in a room with a Russian oligarch and his two 6.4ft bodyguards surely the last thing you would do is want to **** them off. Id simply smile, nod then make my excuses to leave the appointment.
Were offers actually made?
Paul you made me smile but you did forget to mention his cliche Babestation blonde.
I met a chap like Boris in Maldives a few years back, all Speedos, belly and shillbut.
The blonde also looked quite dangerous judging by her champagne taste!
I concur Trevor. I haven’t watched the programme but would think that any agent featured would have an automatic “not-tipping-off” defence.
They would not have a ‘not tipping off’ defence unless they raised their concerns immediately with their MLRO. The programme, as Trevor rightly notes, did not say whether they did so or not.
Yes Mark.
Section 333 creates the offence of making a disclosure likely to prejudice a money laundering investigation being undertaken by law enforcement authorities. It replaces S.53 Drug trafficking Offences Act 1994 and S.93D of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
This is an either way offence with a maximum penalty on indictment of 5 years imprisonment or a fine or both.
In a webinar 3-4 weeks ago by HMRC on AML they revealed only just over 8,000 agents were registered for AML. This means around 60%+ of agents are not and therefore trading unlawful under UK gov rules.
All sales agents need a AML compliance officer and in place training recorded to all staff and a proceedure of what to do in the event of suspicions.
If an agent is suspicious of money laundering, correct proceedure is to ask a few more questions if need be, to be able to make better judgement.
In the programme ‘Boris’ the actor, gave the intel away.
The programme failed to show 2 main bits:
1. After the viewing and what the agents internally did next. Correct proceedure would be to raise with the companies nominated AML officer, who would have confidentially collected evidence. To then complete a SAR.
2. There is an offence called ‘Tipping Off’ ie making aware to the applicant that their laundering intension is unlawful and reportable.
As a fly on the wall programme. Ch 4 needed to give the agents chance to **** up post the viewing. Its the what happened next bit, that wasnt shown.
The laundering doesn’t take place with the purchase Trevor having the cash invested in the property is a passive thing until the property is sold or rented out.
You can steal a washing machine or buy it with crime money but it isn’t doing any laundry till it is switched on.
I have to say I am suspicious about that program; the fantastically planned sniper shots of convenient balconies and the emphasis on the agent’s fees plus missing the obvious opportunity to uncover mal practice by solicitors.
One has to be aware of the subliminal messages put out in that program as well as 5 hapless agents being confronted rather un naturally by an admit all crook wearing a stripy suit and carry a bag labelled SWAG. I have to say I wondered what involvement or influence the passive intermediary and FSBO friends of Channel 4 had in setting all this up.
SORRY Robert your wrong on that one.
HMRC and Treasury brought sales agents under the regulation, based not only on making checks at the right time. BUT ALSO RAISING suspicions.
Agents have to have compliance processes in place and a dedicated Compliance Officer. The dedicated AML officer has to train staff.
On suspicious clients OR applicants coming to light, the staff have to report to the dedicated officer who then has to complete a SAR (suspicious activity report) to the powers that be.
Correct PeeBees 🙂
** suspicious clients OR applicants coming to light, the staff have to report to the dedicated officer who then has to complete a SAR (suspicious activity report) to the powers that be.
I appreciate all you have said but logic dictates that everyone one is suspicious and without requesting a generational audit trail of sales purchases, inheritances, earnings saving and expenditure what has been created is an inefficient system that bogged down sorting the chaff from the wheat.
Crooks are devious, unlike sweaty Boris they don’t go about bragging about what they have been up to.
Spot on Trevor!
Option 1: Tell said Mafia Russian Hit man at viewing, no way am I getting involved in this, it’s money laundering (then duck and hope the rest of the conversation goes well, knowing you may have just upset the Russian government and Boris now fears for his High Prof position as some EA is about to blabber to the world)
Option 2: Do viewing, be normal, go along with scenario BUT go back, tell your MLR officer this is wrong and we would be wise to complete a SAR and more so complete a SAR, job done, move on and if found guilty Boris will be non the wiser to the fact the hungry EA for a deal was the one who turned out not to be that hungry after all.
That programme I would have thought will simply make it harder now for London Agents with the top end stuff to know if it is money laundering…. as they (the criminals) will now know to come forward, say less and let their off shore companies and solicitors deal with the rest.
great programme though, hope they bring a box set out.
Agree Ric.
Robert – I was at the Treasury and HMRC consultation meets last year. I have pages of notes on AML
and? That was last year trevor what is happening? it is 4 years since this was raised to my local MP (at the time a minister) the upshot was they are not interested.
You can sit at all the meeting you like, if they don’t do anything they might as well sit there and watch the cricket!
HMRC ran a webinar for stakeholders just 2-3 weeks ago. Theyve done more behind the scenes bits. I have a few pages of recent notes, but it appears they are progressing in AML being better organised.
Any agency should be treating Anti Money Laundering with these sub titles:
Nominated Officer/s
Training
Policies and Procedures
Customer Due Diligence (be it a client or applicant)
Risk Assessment
Making SARs (where need be)
Secure Record Keeping
Not ‘Tipping Off’ suspected AML contacts
Please. It was obvious what was happening and obvious the negs knew what they were doing. The truth is they turned a blind eye or did not think it was as serious as it was. They like many other estate agencies do not take anti money laundering seriously. Hopefully this will show this blind eye turning will not be accepted.
The thing is the laundering doesn’t stop on completion, the solicitors who have pushed through company shell purchases in the past will no doubt be concerned that each and every company shell purchase ought to be investigated.
It is all well and good trying to lay the whole responsibility for identifying money laundering with Agents but there are obviously legal professional who are actively facilitating these transactions
I watched the programme and have to say over playing the fat sugar daddy/ daughter age gold digger bit tended to makes Boris’s story a bit too far fetched. I got the impression the film makers failed to take into account the natural discretion that applies to all sales. It isn’t an Agents role to judge extra martial arrangements and throwing that into the mix would have cause confusion.
Yes they made a programme about a serious subject, but failing to extend it to the solicitors, MP’s and Government departments who are facilitating the on going laundering of cash long after completion is an opportunity missed. At 5% yield that £15,000,000 property would happily be cleaning £750,000/ annum like an up market 24/7 cash Laundromat.
I was told yesterday I have got hold of the wrong end of the stick, I haven’t at all, by failing to efficiently monitor rental income through section 19 HMRC are the hapless blindest of the blind eyes in this whole carry on.
I agree it does not stop on completion but that was not the subject of the programme.
They wanted to expose the greedy and “Turn a blind eye nature” of estate agents and they succeed.
As far fetched as the story may have been, even if they did think they were not true buyers (they were creaming themselves at the thought of a sale) they still should have reported them.
I agree with that Smile but the bit I object to is the limit of the programme and how the programme wouldn’t have been possible at all with FSBO properties, passive intermediaries or with agents that only process offers and don’t have any pre-amble with applicants prior to an offer.
There was a very specific focus to the programme which rightly highlighted wrong doing, let’s hope it is catalyst for the law society to do a full audit of every transaction since the bottom of the market in April 2009 and perhaps HMRC could look closely at all CNR/ company lets in London.
By lunch time today just short of half of all letting agents could run off CNR and Section 19 reports for the past few fiscal years and have them emailed over to HMRC in a CSV format. (That is something else I’ve done Outsider, Tax compliance vigilante, super hero!) If there is a problem give the authorities all the evidence they need, all the assistance they require and all the reports they are supposed to collect and process
Robert all very valid points but does not detract from the subject of estate agents turning a blind eye to dirty money so they can obtain a sale.
Thats what the story set out to do and it succeeded.
Not 1 in 5 estate agents reported them straight away. Sad state of affairs and damaging to our industry.
I do not disagree.