DRIVER Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 On the iom it is the safest way, you know what happens to banks over here,at least if any more banks have problems you can trade your cash for gold bullion or diamonds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodolite Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) Maybe Mark Moroney surely got out while the going was good! He's certainly had the freedom to 'Freedom to Flourish' since being a defendant in the Savings and Investment Bank trial all those years ago. Quite ironic as he was the sacrificial lamb when the SIB went tits up, Mr Moroney being (I think) younger than Ms Holt at the time He took much of the flack whilst his two co-nominee directors got away relatively unscathed, one of them having a stroke, or as many put it "a stroke of luck" When the Savings and Investment Bank collapsed, Mark Moroney was in his mid-thirties but would have been in his 40s when the case eventually came to trial. His experience and knowledge from the SIB would have no doubt stood him in good stead for all those people wanting to invest money and stuff like that on the Isle of Man. Maybe that is why Bainesy used Moroneys? After reading out the verdict, Acting Deemster David Turner said to Holt: "It is a very sad day for you but it is a long life. You might think everything is in ruins but it isn't." Source It is a pity that Mark (now retired) couldn't have done more for the staff of his firm but I would say that Ms Holt may have an excellent future in front of her. After his not dissimilar experiences it certainly did Mr Moroney no harm. Edited January 26, 2011 by Theo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 hmm, what about if you've saved your money over the years in cash under the mattress then? How d'ya prove that one. With these new AML regs the onus is on the alleged money-launderer to DISPROVE that the money was gotten by illegal means. If you can't prove where you got it, then you can't get it back once they confiscate it. That law puts everyone who deals in cash at risk, because these days cash is consdiered a risk! when it was once the only form of currency... If that is the case then you will have pay slips, tax returns, business accounts or whatever showing the cash you earned and did not bank. Or there will be bank records showing that you took the cash out of the bank as soon as cheques cleared etc cos you did not trust the bank. Most times if the funds are legitimate it should be fairly straight forward to prove how you got them. I understand though what you saying in principle is that you are treated as guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Yeah but you only need keep them for 6 years, so what if it was wages from 7 years ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Yeah but you only need keep them for 6 years, so what if it was wages from 7 years ago? It may be possible to think of potential scenario's where a case may arise but the chances are you have not kept the wages under your bed if they were earned more than 7 years ago but not if they are earned since. If they are wages even if you have no records the chances are the tax office will. Generally in the modern world these days somebody somewhere has a related record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhumsaa Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Presumably the new offence of 'Money Laundering' does not carry a greater sentance than whatever it used to be known as? Money laundering is now a great catch all the way the laws have developed following interference over the last few years. I see a lot more people in the papers over the last few weeks caught transporting more than £10k in cash without reporting it (as you are required to do now) being charged under the anti money laundering legislation. It seems to be easier than catching someone doing something to just cite AML legislation and then let them disprove the charge. well... I imagine it'll be the proceeds of crime act that came in 2008/9 that you're really talking about here.... at the end of the day if you have gained your money (cash or bank account) by legitimate means you have nothing to fear from such legislation as you can prove you have the right to have it.... simple really? hmm, what about if you've saved your money over the years in cash under the mattress then? How d'ya prove that one. With these new AML regs the onus is on the alleged money-launderer to DISPROVE that the money was gotten by illegal means. If you can't prove where you got it, then you can't get it back once they confiscate it. That law puts everyone who deals in cash at risk, because these days cash is consdiered a risk! when it was once the only form of currency... well you can't have your cake and eat it criminals deal in cash mostly too.... and again if you have earned your income honestly and legitimately you should have records to show where you have earned your cash regardless no one is interested in small value stuff either so realistically if you have nothing to hide you have no concerns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhumsaa Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Presumably the new offence of 'Money Laundering' does not carry a greater sentance than whatever it used to be known as? Money laundering is now a great catch all the way the laws have developed following interference over the last few years. I see a lot more people in the papers over the last few weeks caught transporting more than £10k in cash without reporting it (as you are required to do now) being charged under the anti money laundering legislation. It seems to be easier than catching someone doing something to just cite AML legislation and then let them disprove the charge. well... I imagine it'll be the proceeds of crime act that came in 2008/9 that you're really talking about here.... at the end of the day if you have gained your money (cash or bank account) by legitimate means you have nothing to fear from such legislation as you can prove you have the right to have it.... simple really? how do you have a 'right' to stolen property/funds? if my TV turns out to be stolen and the original owner turns up with a receipt i don't think i would be keeping it in law somehow?? my brother nicked it, i gave him a tenner. its mine now cos i paid for it?? no doubt the lawyers are entitled to be paid for their failure, but by the bainses, not someone they robbed. maybe I wasn't clear in my statement, apologies for that - I believe we share the same opinion from your post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhumsaa Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Yeah but you only need keep them for 6 years, so what if it was wages from 7 years ago? It may be possible to think of potential scenario's where a case may arise but the chances are you have not kept the wages under your bed if they were earned more than 7 years ago but not if they are earned since. If they are wages even if you have no records the chances are the tax office will. Generally in the modern world these days somebody somewhere has a related record. also the Data Protection act (which I assume is where the 6/7 years thing has come from) applies to the businesses not your own personal records which you can keep for as long as you choose also if your funds relate to earnings over time it is reasonable to show a pattern over time which shows saving gradually increasing..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) Is there a full report of this case anywhere? You know, one that sets out the facts, arguments and thinking that led to the decision rather than some soundbites. On the face of it, the defendant has been a scalp, but on deeper reading there may well be useful stuff. Does the IOM have a formal court reporting process? By the by, I think there should have been two threads on this as, although related, there are very different considerations in each situation. Edited January 27, 2011 by Gladys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhumsaa Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 from a professional point of view Gladys... aka not something I'd seriously discuss on here.... I think this case will have ramifications for years to come in the IOM for AML... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Suspect you are right Rhumsaa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 There is a judgments online section of the Courts website: http://www.judgments.im/Content/home.mth It's not there yet but I expect it will be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodolite Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Is there a full report of this case anywhere? You know, one that sets out the facts, arguments and thinking that led to the decision rather than some soundbites. Don't expect the judgment to necessarily reflect what happened in court (which might be fair enough because some will say that a judge will inevitably need to condense proceedings into what he/she believes is relevant to a written judgment). but especially don't expect the online judgment to reflect the judgment handed down by the judge... This is, remember, the Isle of Man. The courts and the employees are cosily situated within the highly lucrative web of the Isle of Man Legal Industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 but especially don't expect the online judgment to reflect the judgment handed down by the judge... They tend to in my experience, because they write them out in advance nowadays and it's easier just to paste the judgment on the website than to amend it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 This is, remember, the Isle of Man. The courts and the employees are cosily situated within the highly lucrative web of the Isle of Man Legal Industry. That may or may not be the case but remember it was not the courts or the employees who found the defendants guilty it was a Jury and the defendants have ample opportunity to defend themselves in court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.