A suitcase with a million euros in cash given to Charles

[antelopevalley]

The real question is what the Prime Minister was expecting in return.

"The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing a million euros in cash from a former Qatari prime minister, the Sunday Times has reported.
The paper says this was one of three cash donations from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim totalling three million euros.
Clarence House said donations from the sheikh were passed immediately to one of the prince's charities and all the correct processes were followed.
There is no suggestion the payments were illegal.
According to the Sunday Times, Prince Charles received the three cash donations in person from the former prime minister between 2011 and 2015.
It is claimed that on one occasion the money was handed over in a holdall at a meeting at Clarence House. On another, the paper reported the cash was contained in carrier bags from the department store Fortnum and Mason."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61941113

If a transaction is a legitimate transaction, the fact that it takes place using cash does not make it suddenly illegitimate, it makes it higher risk. That risk can be mitigated by checks and assessments.

And, if you know so much about things work in Qatar and other Middle East countries you will also certainly know that they have an inconvenient belief that the petty rules of other countries don’t apply to them, and if they want to give you a suitcase full of cash to donate to your charity, that is exactly what they will do, and it’s an affront to suggest to them they might want to adopt another form of payment. Try being the money laundering reporting officer dealing with a huge jewel handed over as payment for a commercial invoice…

Are you seriously suggesting that the richest country in the world that is Qatar has accumulated its wealth without access to a SWIFT code?

Of course they have a SWIFT code. But in a culture that is both cash based and has a lot of money circulating amongst its wealthy population, a huge proportion of the population still choose to use cash more or less exclusively. Have a look at some of the anti-money laundering cases taken against global banks operating in the Middle East - you will see from them that people walking into the bank with suitcases stuffed full of cash is completely commonplace. And as I said, that doesn’t mean the suitcase carriers are up to no good. It just means the transactions need to be treated as high risk and checked accordingly.

I’ll repeat Maul Perton’s question for you:

Are you seriously suggesting that the richest country in the world that is Qatar has accumulated its wealth without access to a SWIFT code?

A yes or a no will suffice.

And as pointed out, the money was not given to a charity, but to Charles personally, who gave it to a charity.
At the very minimum, Charles should have said they should give the money directly to the charity.
Funny how Charles keeps getting caught up in these financial scandals.

The Sunday Times, who broke this story have said that there is no suggestion that the payments were illegal, no evidence that the donor did not intend the money to be given to the charity, and that the fact that it was given in cash was the donor’s preference.

An interesting question - if the money had been given by way of a cheque would it have been perfectly fine?

I'm watching the news where I am and I have to say 3 million euros in shopping bags sounds super legal, kosher and above board... specially when you hear about it on tv, it adds this air of legality to the whole thing!

"No evidence" that the money was not intended for charity.
I understand there is no evidence. But if this was a legitimate donation to a charity for no kickbacks, then why not give it ti the charity? Instead they gave the money directly to Charles. He chose at some point to pass that on to the charity/

It is quite clear there is more to this story. The Times simply do not have the evidence to say what they think is probably really happening.

Honestly, I'd be shocked if people who had enough money to buy Harrod's weren't able to afford a P.A. to sort out their donations. They couldn't have got one of the little people to take the shopping bags themselves to whatever charity they wanted? Instead of that, they set up an appointment with Charles, who's super busy and who has such an important and tight schedule he can't find 5 minutes to call his kid, who lives abroad, or even meet him, when he's in the same town as him, yet he's managed to meet a random bunch of strangers and accept 3 shopping bags with cash in them, which I assume he personally took to the charity himself? Otherwise his secretary could have accepted the money himself? Ahhhhh, it sounds better every time doesn't it?

Charles gave the money to his staff who took it straight to Coutts, who counted it and credited it to the charity’s accounts.

Of course the Sheikh could have organised this through his staff. But he wouldn’t have anywhere the opportunity to elevate his personal status and honour by giving the gift directly to the Prince if he did so. This matters hugely in Middle Eastern culture. Again, looking at this through a solely western-centric lens isn’t always helpful.

There is a lot of fun to be had with this...I'm looking forward to other versions 😀

The Sunday Times, who broke this story have said that there is no suggestion that the payments were illegal, no evidence that the donor did not intend the money to be given to the charity, and that the fact that it was given in cash was the donor’s preference.

Heard of libel? I expect that the Qataris would have found enough carrier bags of cash to engage an expensive QC to due the Sunday Times if they had said what most people are thinking.

I wonder how the Qataris forked over the 1 billion euros to buy PSG? Do you think that they used a camel train to transport the notes? Mr Google tells me that a camel can carry 400 kg for 25 miles a day. A million euros in 50 euro notes weighs 22 kilos. So to transport 22,000 kilos of euros, for 1 billion, you’d need 55 camels. I bet that caused a stir on the Champs Elysees.

Or maybe they, er, paid by bank transfer and didn’t hand cash over to any French aristocrats peripherally linked to the football club? That would be more sensible, eh? If so, what was their reason for handing bags of cash to ol’ Charles?

To SUE the Sunday Times, not DUE them!

The Times -
After the heir to the throne accepted the small suitcase, it was given to two advisers in the royal household who hand-counted the money. It was said to be in the form of €500 notes — a denomination dubbed the “bin Laden” because of its link to terrorist financing, and which has since been discontinued. Palace aides then asked Coutts to collect the cash. The private bank, which is headquartered in the Strand in central London, and has served the royal family for centuries, is understood to have retrieved the suitcase from Charles’s London residence.

MaulPerton
I'm getting the popcorn out (and keeping some in stock), Charles is like the gift that keeps on giving! He won't learn, will he?!

@Serenster The Times say different. The staff did not take it straight to the bank where the bank counted it.
Two advisors counted the money by hand. And then the bank were called who collected the cash from Charles house.

I am also reading allegations that Charles lobbied for the Sheikhs business interests.

Wow, there’s some really racist views being expressed on this thread.

Serenster
Where's the racism?! Charles is going to be King! When the Queen's gone, he's next in line! This has nothing to do with who gave him the money!
On the contrary, those like you stating they do things differently in Qatar, are talking nonsense. They're all royals, not he pleb, they all shop from the same places, eat the same caviar, drink the same champagne and chances are they went to the same schools!!! They all have advisors. This has nothing to do with the money coming from Qatar as such. You look at this story and you say the money came from a different random British person and it still sounds dodgy.
If Charles had got 3 bags of bags from Waitrose from your neighbour in Yorkshire, this would still sound bad. This whole story stinks and the fact he's got money before in similar circumstances doesn't make it sound any better. On the contrary, he's got form for thinking he's above the law.

Well yes but mainly by you, I’m afraid. The idea that the Sheik gave Charles cash because he’s from the Middle East and therefore blind to the connotations of suitcases of banknotes is as offensive as it is naive.

I enjoy identifying the Mumsnet stereotypes, especially when they are losing an argument and are scrabbling around for a handhold on the moral high ground.

Here, we see poor old Serenster giving us a demo. She is clearly a monarchist who cannot abide criticism of her beloved Prince Charles. Gawd bless him and his charitable endeavours. She also has some slight experience of the Middle East, which might be a holiday to Dubai or perhaps she worked there tax free. This enables her to adopt the ‘wise world traveller’ guise that we see so often on Mumsnet. Anybody disagreeing with the wise world traveller knows nothing because they haven’t experienced other cultures like she has.

Serenster’s pearls of wisdom about the Middle Eastern way of life have been cast before swine, so now she has to start throwing the word ‘racist’ around. Not unlike her earlier post in which she accused anyone who smelt a rat over the carrier bags full of cash of ‘throwing dirt around’.

All these dodgy or criminal matters involving Johnson and Royal Family are being completely swept under the carpet like nothing has happened. However, if any of us have done it then we would have felt the full force of law.

The Sheikh is making a grand gesture using bags instead of bank transfer. He's showing off.

The money will have been audited. Charities can't accept dodgy money.

The big question here is who has advised Charles that it's morally / ethically ok to accept money from Qatar - who have been using slave labour to build stadiums for the world cup that they will be holding?! Not a good look!!!!

In 2012 Coutts Bank who collected this cash from Charles private house was charged for failing to audit high-risk accounts properly.
www.acamstoday.org/lessons-learned-from-coutts-8-75-million-fine-aml-control-failings/

Just shit stirring donations will be traceable . Can't believe for one minute the press haven't checked this out and where the money ended up .
You would expect headline saying that the donations haven't appeared anywhere.
Instead basically he paid in cash .

.Normally large amounts of cash mean money laundering.

Or for Saudi’s annoying small change😂.