19 Irish travellers arrested in major FBI operation

SEPT 23 1989

You always hear of solicitors offices getting raided when the gardai are taking down a crime gang

Sue Pa Key Pa

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely. The legal system of most democracies.

I guess in the former East Germany, Russia and places, perhaps North Korea today, individuals who were not in the pay of the State had a positive obligation to enquire, to acquire information and turn it over to the authorities. Not here.

It seems to rest easy with you that immoral acts are acceptable because existing laws allow for ambiguity & get out loopholes. I have more of an issue with that aspect than the action itself.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

It seems to rest easy with you that immoral acts are acceptable because existing laws allow for ambiguity & get out loopholes. I have more of an issue with that aspect than the action itself.

There is nothing immoral about buying property, checking title etc. That is the function of a Solicitor in a conveyance. It is not a review of lifestyle.

If you wish to go around questioning or reporting people you think are doing nixers, appear to be living beyond their means, drawing welfare to which they are not entitled etc, that is of course your prerogative. But in a democracy, save where the law provides, there is no obligation to enquire and no obligation to report suspicions/assumptions of "immorality".

As people have mentioned big cars, when you last bought a car, did the salesman ask where you got the money? Do you think they should?

allibastor

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There is nothing immoral about buying property, checking title etc. That is the function of a Solicitor in a conveyance. It is not a review of lifestyle.

If you wish to go around questioning or reporting people you think are doing nixers, appear to be living beyond their means, drawing welfare to which they are not entitled etc, that is of course your prerogative. But in a democracy, save where the law provides, there is no obligation to enquire and no obligation to report suspicions/assumptions of "immorality".

As people have mentioned big cars, when you last bought a car, did the salesman ask where you got the money? Do you think they should?

Not quiet,but recently while buying à car i was told that the garage does not take more than 5K cash for à car. Anything more needs to be à transfer.

Infer from that what you will.

allibastor

allibastor wrote: »

Not quiet,but recently while buying à car i was told that the garage does not take more than 5K cash for à car. Anything more needs to be à transfer.

Infer from that what you will.

Presume nothing more than regulations about amounts of cash received. I wouldn't dream of taking >5k in cash. Tbh think it's not even allowed under the Solicitors regulations.

Still doesn't remotely translate into an obligation to enquire about money received. If a client deposits a million into my client account from a Russian bank account...meh. Have had sums deposited from Switzerland, Romania, Poland, Russia, the Cayman Islands, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man etc. etc. All of which could cause me to wonder...I mean how could someone in Romania have 300k to transfer to my account to buy a house? I dunno...but it's not my concern.

wexandproud

Deleted User wrote: »

Presume nothing more than regulations about amounts of cash received. I wouldn't dream of taking >5k in cash. Tbh think it's not even allowed under the Solicitors regulations.

Still doesn't remotely translate into an obligation to enquire about money received. If a client deposits a million into my client account from a Russian bank account...meh. Have had sums deposited from Switzerland, Romania, Poland, Russia, the Cayman Islands, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man etc. etc. All of which could cause me to wonder...I mean how could someone in Romania have 300k to transfer to my account to buy a house? I dunno...but it's not my concern.

so there is regulation then about the amount cash can be used , why would you not take 5k in cash , and why is it not allowed under solicitors regulations.

last time i changed the car i had sold the old one for 6500 and when i went to garage to try and bargain with half cash i was told to keep the cash or buy bank draft as they didn't want it

wexandproud

wexandproud wrote: »

so there is regulation then about the amount cash can be used , why would you not take 5k in cash , and why is it not allowed under solicitors regulations.

There are many reasons why handling lots of cash is a bad idea, security of office and staff, difficulties if it goes missing etc.

Still no obligation to enquire about the source of funds though.

wexandproud

Deleted User wrote: »

There are many reasons why handling lots of cash is a bad idea, security of office and staff, difficulties if it goes missing etc.

Still no obligation to enquire about the source of funds though.

but why regulations for amounts over 5k? you still have not answered that along with other questions here ,

wexandproud

wexandproud wrote: »

but why regulations for amounts over 5k? you still have not answered that along with other questions here ,

Um...did you miss the first line of my last post?

Simple question, do you say there is an obligation on a Solicitor to ascertain the source of funds?

Phoebas

Deleted User wrote: »

Um...did you miss the first line of my last post?

Simple question, do you say there is an obligation on a Solicitor to ascertain the source of funds?

There are some obligations on solicitors under the AML legislation to perform due diligence and to report suspicious transactions.

Phoebas

Phoebas wrote: »

There are some obligations on solicitors under the AML legislation to perform due diligence and to report suspicious transactions.

Yep, referred to previously on here. The identification is a big deal now, standard question in the 5 yearly Law Society office inspections.

If you're a Solicitor, and you have a client who looks like a member of the Roma community, and he wants to lodge €200,000 to your account from a Romanian bank...what would you say or do?

Phoebas

Deleted User wrote: »

Yep, referred to previously on here. The identification is a big deal now, standard question in the 5 yearly Law Society office inspections.

If you're a Solicitor, and you have a client who looks like a member of the Roma community, and he wants to lodge €200,000 to your account from a Romanian bank...what would you say or do?

I'd doubt that simply being a member of the Roma community would pass any test, but their are obligations on solicitors beyond simple identification.

The document posted earlier makes it clear that a solicitor has some obligation to report suspicious transactions.

However, in certain limited circumstances, where the solicitor suspects that the transaction involves the transfer of assets that are ‘tainted’ and represent the proceeds of criminal conduct, the solicitor has a legal obligation to report the matter to the Revenue Commissioners and the Garda Siochana. For this reason, clients should ensure to clarify the source of their assets with their solicitor at an early opportunity, to allay any fears that the assets may be ‘tainted’.

Phoebas

Phoebas wrote: »

I'd doubt that simply being a member of the Roma community would pass any test, but their are obligations on solicitors beyond simple identification.

The document posted earlier makes it clear that a solicitor has some obligation to report suspicious transactions.

Again, it was addressed a few pages back. That is absolutely correct, eg. if a Solicitor believes that a fraud is being committed, or believes funds are obtained from crime.

That is very different to an obligation to enquire.

A client giving money to a Solicitor is the opposite of suspicious. In fact, it's kinda central to the conveyancing process.

Phoebas

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, it was addressed a few pages back. That is absolutely correct, eg. if a Solicitor believes that a fraud is being committed, or believes funds are obtained from crime.

That is very different to an obligation to enquire.

A client giving money to a Solicitor is the opposite of suspicious. In fact, it's kinda central to the conveyancing process.

There is an explicit obligation for a solicitor to do Customer Due Diligence (which goes beyond simple identification). Due diligence involves enquiry.

The Law Society have provided some guidance for solicitors on their obligations.

Phoebas

Phoebas wrote: »

There is an explicit obligation for a solicitor to do Customer Due Diligence (which goes beyond simple identification). Due diligence involves enquiry.

The Law Society have provided some guidance for solicitors on their obligations.

I am perfectly aware of the Law Society requirements.

We have to be, Solicitors are audited by the LS every few years and they will ask for files to be produced and will check on compliance.

Phoebas

Deleted User wrote: »

I am perfectly aware of the Law Society requirements.

We have to be, Solicitors are audited by the LS every few years and they will ask for files to be produced and will check on compliance.

And being aware of the requirements on you, are you saying that there are no circumstances whatsoever where you would have any obligation to enquire at all as to the source of funds that you handle?

Phoebas

Phoebas wrote: »

And being aware of the requirements on you, are you saying that there are no circumstances whatsoever where you would have any obligation to enquire at all as to the source of funds that you handle?

Oh not at all.

There are circumstances in which a Solicitor must enquire and indeed must report. Again, as I have said in other posts, if I believe a conveyancing transaction involves fraud, then clearly that raises serious issues.

There is no general obligation to enquire or report, and certainly not one based on whether someone is a member of the travelling community, drives a car that seems to be beyond their means, or any of the other suggestions earlier in the thread.

Phoebas

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh not at all.

There are circumstances in which a Solicitor must enquire and indeed must report. Again, as I have said in other posts, if I believe a conveyancing transaction involves fraud, then clearly that raises serious issues.

There is no general obligation to enquire or report, and certainly not one based on whether someone is a member of the travelling community, drives a car that seems to be beyond their means, or any of the other suggestions earlier in the thread.

The regulations list over 100 indicators of potentially suspicious transactions (a list which they say is non exhaustive).

Included in these are:
- Client seeks to conduct large transactions with cash.
- The stated occupation of the client is not in keeping with the level or type of transaction involved.

Obviously an indicator of a suspicious transaction doesn't necessarily mean that the transaction is suspicious, and therefore reportable, but it does seem clear that a solicitor cannot simply ignore someone doing a transaction that checks some of the boxes.

Going back to your earlier example (and maybe ignoring the Roma bit, but say someone who isn't in employment):

If you're a Solicitor, and you have a client who looks like a member
of the Roma community, and he wants to lodge €200,000 to your account from a Romanian bank...what would you say or do?

Looking at the regulations, do you think that someone without visible means (the 'Roma') conducting a large cash transaction, might fall into the category of a 'suspicious transaction'?

Phoebas

Phoebas wrote: »

Looking at the regulations, do you think that someone without visible means (the 'Roma') conducting a large cash transaction, might fall into the category of a 'suspicious transaction'?

When a client sits in front of me, what means are visible?

I have a number of clients who are involved in trades, look scruffy, park battered vans outside the office, and I know would not be adverse to doing a job for cash. If I was to enquire about the source of their money, ask if they have obtained it by defrauding revenue, I'd be out of work in a week.

Phoebas

Deleted User wrote: »

When a client sits in front of me, what means are visible?

I have a number of clients who are involved in trades, look scruffy, park battered vans outside the office, and I know would not be adverse to doing a job for cash. If I was to enquire about the source of their money, ask if they have obtained it by defrauding revenue, I'd be out of work in a week.

I think it's clear that you are willing to ignore your responsibilities under the AML regulations for your own self interest.

Deleted User wrote:

Still doesn't remotely translate into an obligation to enquire about money
received. If a client deposits a million into my client account from a Russian
bank account...meh. Have had sums deposited from Switzerland, Romania, Poland, Russia, the Cayman Islands, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man etc. etc. All of which could cause me to wonder...I mean how could someone in Romania have 300k to transfer to my account to buy a house? I dunno...but it's not my concern.

- Transaction involves a country known for highly secretive banking and corporate law.

I think any fair reading of the regulations would make this your concern, but you're willing to turn a blind eye.

Johngoose

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

Are you implying that if the relevant authorities went into Rathkeale to investigate the financial legitimacy of members of the Travelling community....that because of who they are and where they are....it would fail on discriminatory grounds as the next town had not been subject to the same investigation?

So to sum up, professionally, as a member of the legal system, you are against Travellers being investigated and potentially "done" for their possible illegal activities.

How do you personally feel about it?

At Christmas time Porsches and other very high end performance car whizz up and down the Main Street of Rathkeale.A lot of ornate houses in Rathkeale are left empty for many months of the year,because their owners are in Europe for those months.These are facts,not made up bigoted views.

wexandproud

Johngoose wrote: »

At Christmas time Porsches and other very high end performance car whizz up and down the Main Street of Rathkeale.A lot of ornate houses in Rathkeale are left empty for many months of the year,because their owners are in Europe for those months.These are facts,not made up bigoted views.

your wasting your time pointing out facts like that , numerous questions have been asked on here but never given a straight answer about people living beyond their means .
A friend of mine who is a real solicitor told me that if anybody produces cash in their office they refuse to take it and insist on a bank transfer or draft , reason being , it looks legit in their records and takes the onus off them to ask any questions

Phoebas

Phoebas wrote: »

I think it's clear that you are willing to ignore your responsibilities under the AML regulations for your own self interest.
...
I think any fair reading of the regulations would make this your concern, but you're willing to turn a blind eye.

Well, our interpretation of the laws that bind Solicitors has passed the regular Law Society audits of accounts and files.

But the lectures on how to do my job by people relying on Google is always entertaining!

allibastor

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well, our interpretation of the laws that bind Solicitors has passed the regular Law Society audits of accounts and files.

But the lectures on how to do my job by people relying on Google is always entertaining!

Conor,

You actually answered the question i asked à while back. You dont take cash ......

You take à transfer, which means that before the money got to you it was somewhere. So there is à small paper trail.
You dont need to or have to enquire beyond this, but it does exist.

FutureGuy

I think four to five of the most expensive looking cars I have ever seen in Ireland were all when I was travelling in and around Rathkeale.

I really need to reexamine my life choices.