Awareness of criminality in money-laundering case.

political analyst

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2020/1215/1184551-harding-davis-court/

48-year-old Jonathan Harding, of Kerdiff Avenue, Naas, Co Kildare, a convicted drug dealer and gunrunner for the gang, used two of his own bank accounts and three accounts belonging to his partner and the mother of his child.

45-year-old Carol Davis, from Clonmacnoise Road in Crumlin, also pleaded guilty to money laundering offences, although the court heard she did not know what Harding had been doing.

Harding was jailed for five years and three months while Davis, a mother-of-two who cares for her elderly father and aunt, was given a three-year suspended sentence.

Carol Davis told gardaí that she believed Harding when he told her he worked as a mobile mechanic and thought the money moved through her accounts was from his business.

"I didn't know anything was criminal," she said. "I just thought Jonathon was working away."

The court accepted she was reckless in giving Harding access to her accounts.

Harding and Davis were in a relationship since 2010 and have a daughter together.

The father-of-five accepted responsibility for money laundering and using his unwitting partner's accounts.

Given that Harding took responsibility for using his partner's accounts without her knowing where the money was from, how was it in the public interest to also charge her? It's not as if the woman was drink-driving or left her child unsupervised.

Besides, isn't the obligation to report suspicious transactions on the management and staff of financial institutions?

Allinall

She committed an offence. Why shouldn't she be charged?

If you're allowing money flow through your bank account, it's up to you to make sure it's legit.

The fact that the bank didn't report suspicious transactions ( if they didn't) is a completely separate matter.

seamus

It's in the public interest to make people aware that "holding" money for someone else without knowing where it comes from can land you in trouble. And for criminals so they don't operate on the belief that there'll be no harm if they use their partner/parent/childs bank accounts for their money.

It would be a different matter if there was an account opened in her name that she knew nothing about. But she saw the money coming in and going out. She also had 3 accounts, no doubt opened at his request, so at the very least she knew something dodgy was going on - tax evasion if nothing else. So she can't claim complete ignorance.

It's the very essence of money laundering that the criminal doesn't keep possession of the funds so they can't be caught red-handed. If those facilitating it can't be charged, then you can't prevent it.

neris

Given that Harding took responsibility for using his partner's accounts without her knowing where the money was from

These ones arent thick they know what their fellas are up to in some way.

3DataModem

political analyst wrote: »

Given that Harding took responsibility for using his partner's accounts without her knowing where the money was from, how was it in the public interest to also charge her?

Because then every account holder who allows the account to be controlled by a third party could avoid being charged by claiming "they didn't know"... therefore there is no risk.

I know a little about ML liability, and allowing your bank account to be used by another entity exposes you big time.

She allowed her accounts to be used by someone else, of course she should be charged

Allowing money that's not yours to flow through your account, that's money laundering!