Posted on 07/09/2023 2:38:47 AM PDT by RandFan
Jeremy Hunt denied bank account by Monzo
Chancellor is among multiple politicians to have accounts denied and cards cancelled because of 'disproportionate' money laundering rules
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
But if true this is quite clearly ridiculous.
And a bit of a scandal.
I’m guessing Hunt is a “PEP” (Politically Exposed Person).
This is a new type of designation found in Communist China.
Seems ironic!
But Jeremy Hunt is Chancellor of the Exchequer, a bigwig in the Tory party, not some outsider dissident.
All very strange.
Not that it is a perfect solution, but this is one reason we must keep using cash. Yes, I know it is printed by government but big business drives government and if big business sees cash being used, it could back off demanding a cashless society.
PEP in USA and UK:
https://www.ffiec.gov/press/PDF/Politically-Exposed-Persons.pdf
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7376/
UK law recognises the risk of PEPs abusing their positions for private gain and using the financial system to launder the proceeds of this abuse. PEPs, as well as their families and close associates, must therefore go through enhanced scrutiny when using the services of certain firms that act as ‘gatekeepers’ to the financial system, such as banks.
Ironically it was the conservative party that put the rules in place in the UK but with the likes of Farage, Rees Mogg, Lamont all betting against the pound while putting their business interests into the European Union while campaigning for Brexit.
The “conflict of interest” aspect of PEP came into play. They were obviously exploiting a national short term negative impact of Brexit for personal financial gain.
Then there’s the COVID issue - a lot of Tories have investments in companies that profited immensely from the COVID response and not just with PPE but with shifting work from the NHS to the private sector. So there are MPs who invested in the growth of the private hospital network while passing legislation and signing contracts that gave them kickbacks.
The same is happening with the defense sector. Politicians with investments in the sector are doing very nicely marking their own homework and signing contracts that the British taxpayer cops the bill for, at the expense of companies they’re not investors in.
These rules are meant to be there to stop the grifting, block politicians from exploiting their own governance for personal profit, and reduce exposure to money laundering and Kompromat. The origin in the UK was with the Hinduja Brothers, Barclay brothers, several oligarchs like Oleg Derepaska, and others, schmoozing the Blair government. Then you had Corbyn (allegedly) taking money from Russia and Iran, then shilling for anti Israel groups.
Ukraine would’ve been signed up to similar laws 9 years ago if Putin hadn’t put Yanukovych and the Azarov government in an arm lock...
The funny thing is, the very people who demanded an end to political corruption, grifting and money laundering, unexplained payoffs from Russia, and risk of Kompromat, are the people now being hit by the legislation they insisted on - because they all thought that only the leftist tankies would be investigated.
Were you born a slave or did you become one?
Excellent..! :)
Based on that criteria, no one in Congress would be allowed to have a bank account, and about the only significant person who would still be allowed an account is Trump.
Yes, I agree.
It’s well worth remembering that the EU and USA regimes for anti money laundering (AML) are so ridiculously over engineered and complicated that eventually they’d get in the way of regular business... Primarily to prevent hostile regimes and organised crime from hijacking the levers of government.
I have to do comprehensive audit and compliance stuff every six months and 90% of it is just utterly pointless.
My favorite example of that is when a specific agency keeps insisting on updated information about my birth family (because I’m adopted) as if the financial affairs of people with familial DNA who had no relationship with me and who are now dead EVER mattered.
Yup, they’re still just as dead this year as they were last year. No they don’t affect my personal circumstances. Moronic questions.
And I’m not even a PEP. I’m just a guy who works in some very sensitive fields, who could in theory be blackmailed or bribed if I hypothetically had a dead uncle who hypothetically might’ve been a crime boss paid by the Russkies.
I’m not a fan of overregulation at all! It’d be a lot easier to do business in other continents without this ludicrous overkill.
All that being said, I reckon politicians who’re clearly making laws or majorly impactful national security decisions to line their own pockets and whose actions benefit a foreign power over their own really should be audited.
So while 90% of it is dumb, you need that 10%. It’s essential to ensure government of a country remains “of, for and by” the people of that country.
If governments can be controlled by industries/businesses/nations/WEF/Globohomo syndicates then they’re no longer “of, for and by” their people.
The Bidens, the Blairs, the Bushes, the Bilderberger politicians, and many others, don’t serve their electorates, they serve other masters.
excerpt from MalPearce post upthread:
“UK law recognises the risk of PEPs abusing their positions for private gain and using the financial system to launder the proceeds of this abuse. PEPs, as well as their families and close associates, must therefore go through enhanced scrutiny when using the services of certain firms that act as ‘gatekeepers’ to the financial system, such as banks.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“PEP” - new word for me in today’s political corruption lexicon.
altough this is a UK law, who would it apply to in the USA?
What does the USA link in my post say?
PEP was coined in Federal regulations as well as EU regulations. In fact the American regime makes the British one look tame.
Interesting. Thanks for the ping.
I hope this is trending worldwide.
What does the USA link in my post say?
Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
I didn’t click into your FFIEC exam link prior to quoting YOUR comments upthread about the PEP news that was based on law in the UK.
Afterall, it was a british chancellor being denied a bank account that was the subject of the thread.
I guess I’m guilty of skimming as until you pointed it out, I had no idea the USA had similar PEP laws as the brits.
Too bad we don’t enforce it
But if we did, who do you think would be on the PEP list in DC today?
With over 1,500 SAR on the bidens, one would think that would get someone’s attention here??
“Bank’s Expensive Mistake: Christian Charity Gets $17,000 for Closed Account”
“A London bank has settled a three-year legal case after it caved to LGBT activists and closed a Christian ministry’s bank account in an alleged case of viewpoint discrimination.”
[snip]
“Meanwhile, more than 72,000 people signed a petition calling on Barclays to reinstate the account and to stop discriminating against the Christian ministry.
Then, right before the case was scheduled to be heard at the High Court last week, Barclays made a settlement offer of £21,500 (a little more than $16,937 U.S. Dollars) in compensation, including legal fees that Davidson accepted.”
100%+
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.