Woman spends over 4 thousand in Harrods every day for 10 years

[FarrahMoan]

AIBU to ask how the fuck? Surely you can only replace furniture, gadgets etc so quickly. Maybe if you bought a brand new outfit everyday? A £1k bottle of champagne? I'm amazed and disgusted in equal measure

(she spent £16mil over 10 years - the equivalent of over £4k per day)

Do you think she had a stall at Brick Lane market in a Sunday?

Nah. She shopped at Horrads so she's far too klassy for Brick Lane. It would have to be Portobello Road.

I think you'd be thinking "hang on, something's not right" when he went to jail. Come off it she knew full well that the money was dodgy

But he gave her THIRTY FIVE credit cards to use

This is all well and good but how on earth did she remember all those PINs? I have three main cards, the main account, the savings account and the joint account and all three are the same PIN because otherwise I stand in Sainsburys asking them to remove the mustard from the shopping so it's under £30 and able to be paid for via contactless.

BitOutofPractice: And I know that there have been checks on any amount of money coming in from abroad for very many years so I cannot understand why this woman has got away with this for years yet grandparents are being stopped from putting 50 quid in their DGC's building society accounts.

The banks which issued her husband and her the credit cards would have had to conduct money laundering checks when they first opened their bank account. I am guessing that once approved, they would have more leeway to spend. Maybe that is why she had 35 credit cards. That way, she could put amounts on them that are not too big to attract too much attention, also known as smurfing in money-laundering parlance. It will be interesting to know what checks the banks did. It could be that they did report her to the money laundering authorities, especially once her dh was convicted. I haven't read anything in the news.

Husband worked for bank. Dont think there was a problem getting cards.

Blueshoes if I spend more than expected in a department store I get a call from the bank saying: was this you? You cannot honestly tell me that these spending / income patterns triggered no sort of alarm bells for ten years.

You seem very keen to defend the banks / authorities. I assume you work for them? I'm just saying that it feels like ordinary law abiding customers are being penalised by draconian laws while criminals get away with it for years.

I'll give you an example. I run a small business but my customers are often large international corporations. One client paid me (low thousands) from their head off in the Netherlands. Goodness you'd have thought that I'd just done an arms deal with the Russians. The bank froze the money and I had to jump though hoops to get it back. And that's money from a large, respectable corporation.

Yet this woman is the associate of s known, convicted felon, with strange and lavish spending habits, and money coming in from lord only knows where. And nothing was done for ten years.

Harrods is always fun for a mooch but that is partly because it is so ridiculously tacky. For a proper shop selfridges is much better in every way.

it is so ridiculously tacky

Absolutely.

This is a funny thread.

Harrods is tacky and naff. It used to be a lot nicer. It has to appeal to the super rich (and tourists) from around he world so reflects different cultures ideas of good taste. What I see as gaudy and ostentatious someone else might see as the height of good taste.

@Juells - but wasn't that really shooting yourself in the foot?

I get that you'd be annoyed she'd borrowed it rather than bought it. But surely it's a good thing that she was wearing it at all? She wears it, her rich friends see it, ask where she got it, potentially she gets photographed in it.

It's a great form of free advertising and it doesn't stop someone else buying it when it goes back in the shop. In fact it makes it (and your other pieces) more likely to sell.

If I made jewellery, I'd be delighted if it caught the eye of a billionaire who wanted to wear it, even if only temporarily.

I don't believe for one minute that she bothered to find out my name, she jetted off somewhere and threw my necklace in the luggage just in case, probably with lots of other borrowed stuff. 'Publicity' only works if it's red carpet stuff where the makers are going to be credited.

It's exploitation masquerading as doing you a favour.

But all that is pure speculation of yours. And at the very least, she (and her rich friends) will know very well what shop the jewellery is going to be from: the shop where your pieces would have been on sale... if you hadn't withdrawn them.

I understand that you are angry that a rich woman got something (temporarily) for nothing. But you weren't actually harmed at all by this, and potentially stood to gain by it. The last thing I would have done in that situation is withdraw the piece from the store.

It's exploitation masquerading as doing you a favour

Totally agree - these types are experts at it, and loads of people fall for it and are then disappointed when nothing is paid back. It's in Harrods' interest to keep them on side by indulging them with free stuff but it's delusional to think that her friends asked about the jewellery piece, that she knew your name, that you were going to get anything back... at the very least Harrods should have given you a loan fee.

BitOutofPractice, no I don't work for a bank or the authorities. It is a shame you had such a bad experience with AML checks and I understand your frustration where it is not proportionately applied. There is a lot of political and international pressure to ensure that playing field is leveled.

I am merely explaining the process and why it may be applied unfairly, but by no means defending it. You can therefore calm down.

The whole thing about exposure is absolute BS, and used by cheeky fuckers to screw over artists and other creative types. It encourages a race to the bottom and people being expected to give up time and money for free. If she liked it so much, she can pay for it and actually help out the artist.

Best summed up by this: goo.gl/images/Lqqh89

But you weren't actually harmed at all by this, and potentially stood to gain by it.

Yes, she was harmed. Someone got use of her work for free, without paying a fair price for use. She didn't consent to that.

Liberty is a great place to burn money

I love Liberty. I went to kill a couple of hours in there a few years ago and was browsing in the oriental carpet department. There was a lovely salesman there who practically gave me a tutorial in understanding and appreciating oriental carpets.

If I suddenly found myself in possession of an obscene amount of money, I'd be back there like a shot, buying rugs.

Oh, yes. Liberty's has lovely rugs.