"Bless" this House

[paswt]

 

I'm stunned that nobody has started a thread on this - or is everyone on here a member??

 

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/bless-this-pastor-with-gift-of-new-home-1-8174537

I think probably because the comments on IOM Today are already so good. I particularly liked the one about the £150,000 funding gap. Personally I only have an £80,000 funding gap between me and a new Audi R8 if anyone is feeling generous. I'll sign anything promising you a life of eternal bliss if you can help me in meeting my funding gap to buy a ridiculous luxury item for my own exclusive personal benefit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

We have laws to prevent pyramid schemes and yet no laws to prevent travesties such as this. I think the entire of the forum is united for once in thinking that scams like this should not be allowed to exist. So err, what can we do to kick this organisation off the island?

But they willingly give their money. You might personally think that's mental (I do too) but I suppose if they agree to do it then it's no different to someone setting up a standing order or direct debit to Christian Aid or Oxfam. However, giving money to someone so they they can specifically buy a house for themselves is maybe different in that there is absolutely no spiritual or charitable reason why that person should live in a £500,000 house rather than a £300,000 house they could afford themselves. It's simply extravagant and indulgent and funded by other people. They shouldn't get preferential tax treatment on those donations as there is no religious or charitable benefit being achieved by that donation whatsoever.

If the gift/s were given by individuals to an individual why is there a problem , if a few idiots decided to put some cash into your car fund as gifts you presumably wouldn't have a problem?

 

If you intend to install a IHUBT in your cave I could advise:flowers:

Oh I forgot you're affiliated with these loonies aren't you. Yes I would object to people paying into my car fund as I'm not a scrounger and I'm not a charity case. I doubt he needs to live in a £500,000 house when he can afford a £300,000 without resorting to begging from people.

 

 

Well make your mind up sunshine .... "WHAT CAN'T SPEAK CAN"T LIE".

 

Your claim that I'm "affiliated to these Loonies" is absolute nonsense.

 

I am not a practicing christian and have absolutely nothing to do with this particular organisation , as can be seen from my approval of some of the "anti posters" and my posts , get an adult to read them to you .

 

I take exception to you throwing out scurrilous accusations/lies because you have been caught out and you have no answer.

 

I seldom resort to using bad language but I'll make an exception this time . YOU ARE A LYING TWAT .

 

Hope this helps

[notwell]

 

 

So a charity can set up bank accounts, receive anonymous or named donations, tax-free, no questions asked?

Not if they use a reputable bank. You have to carry out not just AML but regulatory due diligence on transactions above a certain amount. There is no way a payment of a large size could be sent or received "anonymously" with any reputable bank involved. You would have to establish the source of the funds, or the source of wealth depending on the amount. It could be that below £100,000 requires less info than above £100,00, but it would never be anonymous. Banks have to establish where money comes from or they are breaching financial regulations.

Hm-m, thanks. It's a relief to know that with all the rules and security now in place, our banks and bankers are beyond reproach ...

Aside of people leaving cash on his doorstep and running off I cannot see how anything is anonymous these days.

 

Any electronic payment into a bank account must have a remitted on the payment. It can't be any other way.

 

Alternatively if he has set up some sort of Just Giving style page where donors can remain anonymous you still cannot fund that unless via a bank or credit card etc method. So again a bank is involved.

 

I think the whole set up is a bunch of delusional cult following loons. But I can't really make a case for mass money laundering or the risk of it.

Edited October 15, 2016 by notwell

[quilp]

 

 

 

So a charity can set up bank accounts, receive anonymous or named donations, tax-free, no questions asked?

Not if they use a reputable bank. You have to carry out not just AML but regulatory due diligence on transactions above a certain amount. There is no way a payment of a large size could be sent or received "anonymously" with any reputable bank involved. You would have to establish the source of the funds, or the source of wealth depending on the amount. It could be that below £100,000 requires less info than above £100,00, but it would never be anonymous. Banks have to establish where money comes from or they are breaching financial regulations.

Hm-m, thanks. It's a relief to know that with all the rules and security now in place, our banks and bankers are beyond reproach ...

Aside of people leaving cash on his doorstep and running off I cannot see how anything is anonymous these days.

 

Any electronic payment into a bank account must have a remitted on the payment. It can't be any other way.

 

Alternatively if he has set up some sort of Just Giving style page where donors can remain anonymous you still cannot fund that unless via a bank or credit card etc method. So again a bank is involved.

 

I think the whole set up is a bunch of delusional cult following loons. But I can't really make a case for mass money laundering or the risk of it.

I wasn't suggesting that in this case, money laundering was the standing order of the day.

[llap]

But that is the very question people are asking in this instance. Everyone knows how obsessed the banks are here in terms of AML as they are required by law to do a lot of checks on source of funds and the source of the wealth that created those funds. A few years a go I sold a car for cash and it was a nightmare trying to pay a few grand in cash over the counter at Barclays. Yet this person seems to have been able to receive nearly £70k in cash in brown envelopes anonymously from his congregation and to be able to pay it into his personal bank account with apparently not having a clue where any of it came from. This shouldn't be able to happen here anymore if the FSA is to be believed. Who is saying that the next person to rock up to a bank with £70k of cash from selling heroin isn't also able to get away with saying they were mystery donations from people at my church?

I've spoke to a few people who do this sort of stuff daily and it honestly does not seem to stack up to anyone who is used to dealing with banking and AML in the IOM. How you can just get £70k of anonymous cash straight into your bank account without getting a visit from the plod?

 

 

I was just saying how things are supposed to be operated in a financially regulated jurisdiction such as the Isle of Man.

 

Every bank has people employed specifically to monitor and ensure no dodgy transactions are allowed and all staff are supposed to receive appropriate training in detecting things and escalating to an appropriate person in the company.

 

For me, it would raise ear-shattering alarm bells. Collection of large amounts of cash under the auspices of a charity can be used to "blend funds" (e.g. mix legitimate donations with cash derived from other, not so legitimate sources) during the initial "placement" stage in money laundering. To then buy an expensive asset such as a house could then be the "integration" stage. Then, at a later date, selling a house would be the "integration" stage, as the money would now be clean and financial institutions generally don't look further back than a legitimate sale to explain the source of wealth.

 

I'm not saying that's what has happened here. I'm talking generally: it's what a bank would or should look into as a potential risk if receiving a large amount of cash or "anonymous" donations from a charity. I think the bank would need to see a break-down of the donations, to check that everything is in order, and not just accept it all as a bulk deposit with no questions asked.

Edited October 15, 2016 by llap

[Gladys]

To launder money there has to be a crime which gave rise to the money, so presumably the bank is satisfied that the source is not arising from such an activity.

[llap]

To launder money there has to be a financial crime, so presumably the bank is satisfied that the source is not arising from such an activity.

 

Yes. Hypothetically, what if 50% > of the donations (of any large charity deposit) came from a single donor, who happens to be a drug dealer? How would you know, if it was all anonymous? How could the bank know, if the depositor doesn't even know? Can anyone who works in a bank let us know what would happen in that circumstance. I can't see that being accepted by any bank I've ever been involved with.

[quilp]

2 Years ago, I borrowed five grand from Black Horse to buy a motor. I was banking with RBS at the time. The money was transferred from BH into my account. When I went to draw it out I had to fill out a lengthy question form regarding the source of the money and what it was intended for, even though I had my headed-paper application for the loan on me which stated the reason for the money going into my account the questions were still being asked. I felt even more intimidated when RBS told me they wanted a copy of the invoice from the local car dealership which supplied the car!

 

Legitimate source for a legitimate transaction and yet for a while it was obvious from the attitude of the teller that it was considered 'suspicious'. Any protestations from me were met with stoney silence.

[the stinking enigma]

Keep the small guy in line. Gives the impression that it's that strict for everyone. They stole the idea from the police

[llap]

The only difference is that rich people use intermediaries who will already have all their rich clients' KYC and financial details so they can streamline the process on their behalf. And if they're a financially regulated intermediary, the banks don't require all the background details, because there's an understanding that the intermediary should (unless they're in breach of regulations) hold all their clients' details.

[llap]

Legitimate source for a legitimate transaction and yet for a while it was obvious from the attitude of the teller that it was considered 'suspicious'. Any protestations from me were met with stoney silence.

 

Maybe they were just pissed off that you went to another company for a loan.....

[quilp]

Keep the small guy in line. Gives the impression that it's that strict for everyone. They stole the idea from the police

Who knows but it was a busy day in the bank that day and the huffing tut-tutter's standing in the queue behind me were obviously directing their ire at me. I felt the junior teller was a bit embarrassed by the attitude of the Rosa Klebbe supervisor towering over her and glowering at me.

[Mr. Sausages]

The teller wouldn't have had that attitude if he/she was part of your flock.

[Gladys]

But you do look a bit dodgey, Quilp.

[quilp]

Damn! Sussed!

[llap]

The only difference is that rich people use intermediaries who will already have all their rich clients' KYC and financial details so they can streamline the process on their behalf. And if they're a financially regulated intermediary, the banks don't require all the background details, because there's an understanding that the intermediary should (unless they're in breach of regulations) hold all their clients' details.

 

This may be the case with Living Hope? According to the Companies Registry, their limited company has an agent - TURNSTONE (ISLE OF MAN) LIMITED of DOLBERG HOUSE, 9 ATHOL STREET, DOUGLAS, IM1 1LD, Isle of Man. Their website is oddly down at the moment but I've been on it before and they're part of a South African company.