<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Money Laundering Compliance</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com/index.php/comments/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com</link>
	<description>For expert help with AML Compliance &#039;for Professionals by professionals&#039;</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:01:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 31.03.10 HMRC Announce Penalties for non-registration by mc</title>
		<link>http://www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com/index.php/hmrc-news/31-03-10-hmrc-announce-penalties-for-non-registration/comment-page-1#comment-4136</link>
		<dc:creator>mc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:01:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com/?p=397#comment-4136</guid>
		<description>Is a 70% reduction the maximum for a voluntary discloure or do HMRC have further discretion? For example turnover for MLR purposes of usually less than £400 per year and a turnover of £2400  in 2010/11. Would they reduce or even waive a penalty for this level of income?

Thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is a 70% reduction the maximum for a voluntary discloure or do HMRC have further discretion? For example turnover for MLR purposes of usually less than £400 per year and a turnover of £2400  in 2010/11. Would they reduce or even waive a penalty for this level of income?</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 31.03.09 SOCA Issues Warning To Drug Traffickers by Prophet</title>
		<link>http://www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com/index.php/soca-latest-news/310309-soca-issues-warning-to-drug-traffickers/comment-page-1#comment-4130</link>
		<dc:creator>Prophet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:22:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com/?p=225#comment-4130</guid>
		<description>Caribbean Airlines, Ticket, Gate and Baggage Handlers are making it easy for the famous to smuggle, traffic, and participate in criminal activity.  They travel there and do concerts and always loose luggage.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Caribbean Airlines, Ticket, Gate and Baggage Handlers are making it easy for the famous to smuggle, traffic, and participate in criminal activity.  They travel there and do concerts and always loose luggage.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 29.01.11 Pilot scheme to give law enforcement agencies access to MSB register by Investigation Services</title>
		<link>http://www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com/index.php/hmrc-news/29-01-11-pilot-scheme-to-give-law-enforcement-agencies-access-to-msb-register/comment-page-1#comment-4123</link>
		<dc:creator>Investigation Services</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Jan 2011 07:20:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com/?p=445#comment-4123</guid>
		<description>The primary purpose of organised crime is to make profits. Like any business, the purposes of profit are to enjoy it and re-invest it in future activity. For the organised criminal, however, profit close to the source of the crime represents a particular vulnerability and unless the criminal can effectively distance himself or herself from the crime which is the source of the profit they remain susceptible to detection and prosecution.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The primary purpose of organised crime is to make profits. Like any business, the purposes of profit are to enjoy it and re-invest it in future activity. For the organised criminal, however, profit close to the source of the crime represents a particular vulnerability and unless the criminal can effectively distance himself or herself from the crime which is the source of the profit they remain susceptible to detection and prosecution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 10.08.09 JMLSG to Update AML Best Practice by AML Exam</title>
		<link>http://www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com/index.php/aml-legislation/10-08-09-jmlsg-to-update-aml-best-practice/comment-page-1#comment-4106</link>
		<dc:creator>AML Exam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:07:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com/?p=263#comment-4106</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m wondering what made them add the new category to the chapter 5. Just wondering about the real reason here...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m wondering what made them add the new category to the chapter 5. Just wondering about the real reason here&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 31.03.10 HMRC Announce Penalties for non-registration by BTC</title>
		<link>http://www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com/index.php/hmrc-news/31-03-10-hmrc-announce-penalties-for-non-registration/comment-page-1#comment-4105</link>
		<dc:creator>BTC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:58:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com/?p=397#comment-4105</guid>
		<description>Estate agents should be registered with the OFT. This should have been by 31 January 2010, a business under OFT supervision which trades without being registered is in breach of the Regulations and could be subject to civil penalties or prosecution.

I would suggest registering before they find you, since a full disclosure at present will more than likely still attract a nil penalty. 

Follow the link below for full details

http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/aml/money-laundering/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Estate agents should be registered with the OFT. This should have been by 31 January 2010, a business under OFT supervision which trades without being registered is in breach of the Regulations and could be subject to civil penalties or prosecution.</p>
<p>I would suggest registering before they find you, since a full disclosure at present will more than likely still attract a nil penalty. </p>
<p>Follow the link below for full details</p>
<p><a href="http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/aml/money-laundering/" rel="nofollow">http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/aml/money-laundering/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 31.03.10 HMRC Announce Penalties for non-registration by steven sherman</title>
		<link>http://www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com/index.php/hmrc-news/31-03-10-hmrc-announce-penalties-for-non-registration/comment-page-1#comment-4104</link>
		<dc:creator>steven sherman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 04:58:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com/?p=397#comment-4104</guid>
		<description>Can you please advise if Estate Agents have to register and the penalties due if they do not. Thank you. Steven Sherman FCA CTA TEP</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can you please advise if Estate Agents have to register and the penalties due if they do not. Thank you. Steven Sherman FCA CTA TEP</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 05.11.09 HMRC MLR Registration Fee level remains unchanged for 2010-2011 by BTC</title>
		<link>http://www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com/index.php/hmrc-news/05-11-09-hmrc-mlr-registration-fee-level-remains-unchanged-for-2010-2011/comment-page-1#comment-4062</link>
		<dc:creator>BTC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 14:40:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com/?p=368#comment-4062</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-4061&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;@Steve Norris&lt;/a&gt; 
I understand your concerns about the cost of supervision, my concern is the flat rate fee, whether it is HMRC or the ICAEW for example, does not really reflect the size of the firm being supervised. You may have the situation where a small bookkeeper with a £2k turnover pays the same fee as a larger tax firm with a £1m turnover firm. 

When it comes to penalties it is a different matter, the formula for calculating penalties takes into account the number of clients and the turnover of the business, therefore the larger the firm, in theory, the larger the penalty.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="#comment-4061" rel="nofollow">@Steve Norris</a><br />
I understand your concerns about the cost of supervision, my concern is the flat rate fee, whether it is HMRC or the ICAEW for example, does not really reflect the size of the firm being supervised. You may have the situation where a small bookkeeper with a £2k turnover pays the same fee as a larger tax firm with a £1m turnover firm. </p>
<p>When it comes to penalties it is a different matter, the formula for calculating penalties takes into account the number of clients and the turnover of the business, therefore the larger the firm, in theory, the larger the penalty.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 05.11.09 HMRC MLR Registration Fee level remains unchanged for 2010-2011 by Steve Norris</title>
		<link>http://www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com/index.php/hmrc-news/05-11-09-hmrc-mlr-registration-fee-level-remains-unchanged-for-2010-2011/comment-page-1#comment-4061</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Norris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 11:32:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com/?p=368#comment-4061</guid>
		<description>According to HMRC, registration can be required even before you start trading as an Accounting Services Provider.  
Whilst I understand the need for ML measures, it is grossly unfair to charge the very people who the HMRC expect to help them, by charging us a fee at all.  Do we get commission on cases we expose?
Once again it seems that small business is being hammered in the interests of the beaurocrats generating departmental revenues.
Surely we can register with just a nominal fee and do our bit without financing it?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to HMRC, registration can be required even before you start trading as an Accounting Services Provider.<br />
Whilst I understand the need for ML measures, it is grossly unfair to charge the very people who the HMRC expect to help them, by charging us a fee at all.  Do we get commission on cases we expose?<br />
Once again it seems that small business is being hammered in the interests of the beaurocrats generating departmental revenues.<br />
Surely we can register with just a nominal fee and do our bit without financing it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 05.11.09 HMRC MLR Registration Fee level remains unchanged for 2010-2011 by Mrs S Bowers</title>
		<link>http://www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com/index.php/hmrc-news/05-11-09-hmrc-mlr-registration-fee-level-remains-unchanged-for-2010-2011/comment-page-1#comment-4022</link>
		<dc:creator>Mrs S Bowers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:13:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com/?p=368#comment-4022</guid>
		<description>This £120 annual fee is outrageous for me who provides book-keeping and payroll services for five small local businesses.  My turnover is less than £7,000 pa and £120 is 14 hours unpaid work! The fee should be a percentage of turnover. I will probably cease trading next year because of this and suggest to my clients that if they still want my services that they employ me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This £120 annual fee is outrageous for me who provides book-keeping and payroll services for five small local businesses.  My turnover is less than £7,000 pa and £120 is 14 hours unpaid work! The fee should be a percentage of turnover. I will probably cease trading next year because of this and suggest to my clients that if they still want my services that they employ me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 10.08.09 JMLSG to Update AML Best Practice by JMLSG to Update AML Best Practice &#124; Anti-Money Laundering Blog &#124; ilegal money</title>
		<link>http://www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com/index.php/aml-legislation/10-08-09-jmlsg-to-update-aml-best-practice/comment-page-1#comment-3477</link>
		<dc:creator>JMLSG to Update AML Best Practice &#124; Anti-Money Laundering Blog &#124; ilegal money</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 05:22:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com/?p=263#comment-3477</guid>
		<description>[...] View original post here:  JMLSG to Update AML Best Practice &#124; Anti-Money Laundering Blog [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] View original post here:  JMLSG to Update AML Best Practice | Anti-Money Laundering Blog [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

