Why is our solicitor so unreasonable and intrusive?

[Alexiaa]

Hello,

I think I'm posting in a wrong section but I really need as many answers as possible.. So... Me and my partner are buying a house in Scotland. Offer accepted, mortgage offer received, purchase should be completed after 5 days. However… Last Friday our solicitor asked for bank statements showing the money with which we will fund our purchase. We sent them to him, and now he is having a problem with a credit to my account made at the end of July. The credit is 2500 pounds. This money originally came from my partner’s uncle who lives in the USA. So the uncle sent the dollars to my partner’s brother, my partner’s brother then sent it to my partner, my partner converted dollars to pounds and then sent them to me. Here are my questions:

1. The dollars were originally a birthday gift for my partner; after receiving it we went on holiday and spent about 2000 pounds already, so just a small portion of this money is now left. We can very easily fund our purchase even without the uncle’s money because we have nearly a six-figure sum in savings. We have explained everything to our solicitor, we said like ‘we have lots of savings, these couple thousands do not even matter, we were never going to fund our purchase with it, it was for holidays…’ but the solicitor kind of refused to hear it and asked to see my partner’s bank statement showing him sending the money to me and his brother sending the money to him. He also asked to see brother’s bank statement and requested that his brother signed a gifting paper. Also, the solicitor was even upset as to 'why we waited until the last minute to inform him about receiving any gifts.' But it has nothing to do with the purchase, come on... :(

1. My partner’s brother provided his bank statement and signed gifting papers; what would have happened if he had point blank refused? Also, he originally received the money from the uncle living in the USA, so will the uncle have to sign gifting papers even though he never sent anything to my partner directly? Is this money legally a gift from the uncle or from my partner’s brother? Tomorrow is Monday, so the solicitor will be open and we don't know what to expect.

1. Our completion date is September 9th and the uncle is not in the USA at the moment, so he cannot go to a lawyer there and sign anything; he is flying back home only September 25th. What will happen if we are asked to provide any documents from the uncle but are unable to? The uncle is old and has never used any online banking, he just has a couple cards; if he wants statements, he must go to a branch to get them printed, and now it is impossible of course.

The solicitor is right to ask. Not saying the solicitor should ignore it. It is the level of evidence to get comfortable that I am referring to re: 'detailed investigation'.

On another note, I am glad so many posters are enthusiastic in combatting financial crime.

Another one who thinks everyone over 50 can’t use a computer…

Yes, the uncle is in another country but it’s the US, not a remote desert island. Banking here is, in my experience, a lot easier and more customer friendly than the UK. We still Writer checks and many people still go to banks and do face-to-face transactions. That might sound old-fashioned but it works well alongside blind banking. Even if this uncle can’t use a computer, the bank teller will be able to make the transfers for him. If he can transfer it to the brother, as he is doing, he can transfer it to everyone else.

online banking, not blind banking

I agree. That would be relevant for bank transfers.

The way criminals launder money through solicitors is different from the way they would launder through banks. Criminals would typically launder sums through solicitors via instructing them on transactions like conveyancing where they launder big sums at a go. Can you imagine trying to launder 2,500 per conveyance. The legal fees would probably exceed that!

To be very clear, the solicitor IS required to enquire about the 2,500. She has to do it legally under the ML Regs. All I am saying is there is flexibility on what evidence to require if the explanation is reasonable.

But the problem is, every time the OP answers a question on this thread they just end up looking even dodgier. If they're giving similar answers to the solicitor, then I can't see how that would be allaying the concerns raised.

FYI, there are several of us on this thread in positions where we have to consider MLR on a professional basis. We know what looks suspicious. The OP mostly looks amateurish with the money handling, but it's odd enough to need to be addressed. And I think it's also pretty clear there's more to this than the OP is describing. It's not going to be a single one-off £2500 transaction that's attracted the solicitors interest.

Yes it would certainly raise red flags on this side too. It is wonderful that this uncle is so wealthy from his pension (possibly a private pension or 401(k) that he made maximum contributions to and with generous employer matchings) that he can afford £2500 gifts to multiple nieces and nephews multiple times a year (including Easter which is a total non-event here, it’s not even a public holiday).

I imagine this kind of scenario is one of the reasons Biden considers it necessary to hire an additional 87,000 IRS agents to audit individual tax payers.

I am not sure why you are reading suspicions into what the OP said. I re-read her posts. I agree it is amateurish and the OP was taking a sceptical approach which is not helpful. If I think of how my father (professional in his 80s) handles money, I am not surprised if it is slightly shambolic.

Which is why I suggested that the OP have a chat with the solicitor about what the solicitor needs to get comfortable. Less room for misunderstanding if both sides know where the other is coming from, including anything else that is pique-ing the solicitors' suspicions. Otherwise, on the face of it, seems ok to me.

Again, from a big picture point of view, 2,500 is a trifling amount in the world of organised crime

Whilst it’s hardly Pablo Escobar levels of money, we are talking about £2500 to multiple nieces and nephews (I counted at least 4 in the OP’s posts), plus someone’s mother (the uncle’s sister?), at least three times a year. That’s one generous uncle. And this done with this bizarre practice, several times a year, of transferring money through various accounts. At what point would you say it starts to look suspicious? Disability doesn’t pay anywhere near that much here.

The solicitor does not know what disability payments in the US are. As for paying nieces and nephews, well that is not relevant for the 2,500 and the OP will do well to focus on the 2,500. There is also the uncle's pension not just disability.

To be honest, these are really small sums. And if a childless uncle wants to be generous throughout the year, why not?

I am not sure why it is so important to eek this into a ML situation. Have we all become paranoid?

PS I am all for ML Regs hitting the US shores. Right now, US attorneys do not have to apply ML checks to their clients, unlike UK solicitors.

That in itself is a red flag. This money isn't even needed so why is it being transferred to the solicitor? That's another way of laundering money.

Think of it this way, OP. If you're going to work with vulnerable people, you need ato get a PVG. That's not because they believe you're a dodgy person, it's just to prove that you're not. Same situation here. Solicitor isn't saying you're a money launderer, but to comply with the law they need you to provide the documents to prove that you're not.

Tbh the fact they have a lot of savings might be making them look worse. Do they have lots of money because they have good jobs and live within their means or did they obtain it illegally through money laundering? That's what the solicitor needs to prove for the money laundering regulations. One dodgy transaction could signal more dodgy transactions.

And here we have a childish ‘friendly’ solicitor. (rude or what?)

So @TheLassWiADelicateAir you don’t charge people per minute, per phone call etc, etc?

All done on a friendly basis?

Maybe you do everything Pro Bono?

It's only a 'palaver' if it's a burden AND you're not charging for it, otherwise it's money in the bank.

Solicitors cannot charge for ML checks unless they have client consent. Most clients will not be too pleased to be charged for ML checks so it is not hourly charging for ML. ML compliance checks are generally an administrative cost for the firm, as it should be.

The question of whether the OP and her dh got savings from their good jobs can easily be cleared up with their pay slips. I am sure that is much easier for OP to provide to the solicitor (who should have asked for it already) than their uncle's source of wealth and funds for 2,500. OP probably had to provide it to the mortgage bank anyway so it is a simple thing to dig it up.

You have so little idea of what you're talking about it's barely worth replying but here goes.

I don't do residential conveyancing but residential transactions are almost always on the basis of a fixed fee.

As others have said, the palaver of dealing with an uncooperative client who thinks money laundering rules don't apply to them and argue about giving information isn't chargeable.

It may well come to the point that the solicitor says to such a client "you know what, I don't want to act for you- take your business elsewhere". And unbeknownst to the uncooperative client make a report to the relevant authorities. In fact the MLRO has to seriously consider if they should make a report because they can be sanctioned, criminal and financial penalties and risk losing their practicing certificate if they don't report when they should.

Goodness only knows why you think solicitors should not charge for their work.

ML compliance checks are generally an administrative cost for the firm, as it should be.

Indeed they are. I have vetoed clients from even being taken on in the first place because the background of the client compared to the value of the transaction means it's not worth the amount of time which would be spent on admin.

I have also pulled the plug on clients who were taken on but refuse to co-operate with AML requirements.

Solicitors with comprehension problems.

Seeing things that aren't there. Golly...

You really have no idea what you're talking about. You posted a rant under the delusion that AML checks are billed. They aren't- clients like the OP run up time which isn't billable but can't be avoided if there is to be proper compliance with AML.

Anti- money laundering and proceeds of crime are extremely serious. Solicitors' files are subject to spot checks which can pick up failures to follow proper client due diligence. They can be disciplined for that failure even if there wasn't money laundering by the client.

You have been told repeatedly that the scenario the OP has posted is full of red flags.

All the posters who are saying "it's only £2,500 and they didn't need that money anyway" are missing an obvious red flag. Why is this money being used ? That's a very easy way to get dirty money into the system.

Perfectly put