4 ms·

This sounds a lot like the "people with significant control" rules in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/people-with-significant-control-pscs https://www.gov.

by twic 6y ago

This sounds a lot like the "people with significant control" rules in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/people-with-significant-control-pscs https://www.gov.uk/guidance/people-with-significant-control-... I am a director of a small and mostly inactive company. We had to fill in a form when these rules came in. We have to fill in a form when we change directors or shareholders, which happens every few years. We have to fill in an annual confirmation that the information is up to date. All of this takes a matter of minutes. The cost is negligible.

csomar 6y ago
> The cost is negligible. It is not. It adds stress. When this was added (where I operate), I had to call in an accountant to do the paperwork because the penalty is prison time, and not a fine. This additional stress and paperwork just keeps compounding (there is a new paperwork every one or two years now). Then you have the small fee for that particular paperwork (should have been free?) and the accountant fee. It just keeps adding up, and for a single or very small business it's becoming unsustainable.
- zepto 6y ago
  “the penalty is prison time“ Penalty for what? There is usually a pretty large distinction between misfiling as part of a crime, and misfiling as mere clerical error. I don’t know where you operate. Perhaps it’s so corrupt that officials will use any excuse to jail people who don’t pay them, but if this is the kind of locale in which you operate, a regulation like this would seem to be the least of your worries.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    You're thinking about this as though the system is free of uncertainty and prosecutors didn't use overcharging to extract plea bargains. If doing something could allow the prosecutor to plausibly charge you with this, even if you wouldn't be convicted, you now have to be counseled in doing it to avoid that possibility, otherwise you could be coerced into pleading guilty to something you didn't do because the alternative is prohibitively expensive legal defense from a questionable charge with a low risk of a high penalty. Businesses are risk averse with things like this, so now, because of the possible implications, they'll hire a lawyer/accountant to deal with it, increasing compliance costs on many innocent people.
    - twic 6y ago
      > You're thinking about this as though the system is free of uncertainty and prosecutors didn't use overcharging to extract plea bargains. In the UK, they don't, because we don't have plea bargains.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > In the UK, they don't, because we don't have plea bargains. Various UK sources seem to think you do, and cite specific government guidelines for the practice, e.g.: https://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/plea-bargaining/ https://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/plea-bargaining/
    - zepto 6y ago
      Not really. I totally agree that if you have committed some kind of crime, then this could be part of overcharging you. My point is that if this is all they have then they don’t have a case, so legitimate businesses don’t need to stress about about clerical errors landing them in jail.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > I totally agree that if you have committed some kind of crime, then this could be part of overcharging you. There is no if. Everybody is committing a crime all the time. There are laws that prohibit doing things that other laws mandate. There are more pages of laws on the books than anyone could read in a lifetime, so there is no feasible way to know that a given action isn't illegal. Businesses are engaged in risk management. They try to avoid knowingly breaking the law. Making that process consume more resources, increases compliance costs.
        zepto 6y ago
        If what you say is true, this law makes no difference, so why bother critiquing it?
        6y ago
- twic 6y ago
  In my experience of doing this, the cost was negligible. If you freaked out and spent a lot of money on it, that's your business. > the penalty is prison time, and not a fine You aren't going to prison for an honest mistake. mens rea, innit. As some solicitors say [1]: > It is a criminal offence not to: > * Take reasonable steps to find out if there is anyone who is a PSC and identify them to Companies House > * Give notice to the registrar of companies of an entry alteration or note in a company’s PSC register within 14 days of any change being made > The sanctions for such offences are a fine or possible imprisonment. > In the event that you do not comply with your PSC requirements Companies House will contact your business and give you an opportunity to rectify the position, before proceeding to enforcement action. https://www.gl.law/insight/news/criminal-effects-psc-regulations/ https://www.gl.law/insight/news/criminal-effects-psc-regulat...
  - generalizations 6y ago
    You seem like someone who isn't risk-averse. Personally, I like to know that what I'm doing doesn't put me at the mercy of an annoyed / overworked bureaucrat. I don't think it's only police officers who sometimes enforce where they shouldn't.

by twic 6y ago

csomar 6y ago

> The cost is negligible. It is not. It adds stress. When this was added (where I operate), I had to call in an accountant to do the paperwork because the penalty is prison time, and not a fine. This additional stress and paperwork just keeps compounding (there is a new paperwork every one or two years now). Then you have the small fee for that particular paperwork (should have been free?) and the accountant fee. It just keeps adding up, and for a single or very small business it's becoming unsustainable.

zepto 6y ago
“the penalty is prison time“ Penalty for what? There is usually a pretty large distinction between misfiling as part of a crime, and misfiling as mere clerical error. I don’t know where you operate. Perhaps it’s so corrupt that officials will use any excuse to jail people who don’t pay them, but if this is the kind of locale in which you operate, a regulation like this would seem to be the least of your worries.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  You're thinking about this as though the system is free of uncertainty and prosecutors didn't use overcharging to extract plea bargains. If doing something could allow the prosecutor to plausibly charge you with this, even if you wouldn't be convicted, you now have to be counseled in doing it to avoid that possibility, otherwise you could be coerced into pleading guilty to something you didn't do because the alternative is prohibitively expensive legal defense from a questionable charge with a low risk of a high penalty. Businesses are risk averse with things like this, so now, because of the possible implications, they'll hire a lawyer/accountant to deal with it, increasing compliance costs on many innocent people.
  - twic 6y ago
    > You're thinking about this as though the system is free of uncertainty and prosecutors didn't use overcharging to extract plea bargains. In the UK, they don't, because we don't have plea bargains.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > In the UK, they don't, because we don't have plea bargains. Various UK sources seem to think you do, and cite specific government guidelines for the practice, e.g.: https://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/plea-bargaining/ https://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/plea-bargaining/
  - zepto 6y ago
    Not really. I totally agree that if you have committed some kind of crime, then this could be part of overcharging you. My point is that if this is all they have then they don’t have a case, so legitimate businesses don’t need to stress about about clerical errors landing them in jail.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      > I totally agree that if you have committed some kind of crime, then this could be part of overcharging you. There is no if. Everybody is committing a crime all the time. There are laws that prohibit doing things that other laws mandate. There are more pages of laws on the books than anyone could read in a lifetime, so there is no feasible way to know that a given action isn't illegal. Businesses are engaged in risk management. They try to avoid knowingly breaking the law. Making that process consume more resources, increases compliance costs.
      - zepto 6y ago
        If what you say is true, this law makes no difference, so why bother critiquing it?
        6y ago
twic 6y ago
In my experience of doing this, the cost was negligible. If you freaked out and spent a lot of money on it, that's your business. > the penalty is prison time, and not a fine You aren't going to prison for an honest mistake. mens rea, innit. As some solicitors say [1]: > It is a criminal offence not to: > * Take reasonable steps to find out if there is anyone who is a PSC and identify them to Companies House > * Give notice to the registrar of companies of an entry alteration or note in a company’s PSC register within 14 days of any change being made > The sanctions for such offences are a fine or possible imprisonment. > In the event that you do not comply with your PSC requirements Companies House will contact your business and give you an opportunity to rectify the position, before proceeding to enforcement action. https://www.gl.law/insight/news/criminal-effects-psc-regulations/ https://www.gl.law/insight/news/criminal-effects-psc-regulat...
- generalizations 6y ago
  You seem like someone who isn't risk-averse. Personally, I like to know that what I'm doing doesn't put me at the mercy of an annoyed / overworked bureaucrat. I don't think it's only police officers who sometimes enforce where they shouldn't.