4 ms·

Exactly, just find another Patsy too put down as the beneficial owner and use them as a proxy. Cartels and people with money/power, don't ask you to do this for

Exactly, just find another Patsy too put down as the beneficial owner and use them as a proxy. Cartels and people with money/power, don't ask you to do this for them, they tell you. This bill lacks teeth in so many ways. Requesting honesty from criminals is silly. Expecting the banking industry that has lobbied for this secrecy to play along, is also silly. This is already happening and had been for years. Source; I know people who laundered money for years in the Caribbean. One of the Patsy's is paying a lot of tax debt for the shell that was in his name.

mrkstu 6y ago
But making that 'patsy' the legal owner also increases the actual owner's risk profile. The Patsy has greater control and can redirect the money and is the legal 'owner' of the assets. That forces the non-legal owner to use someone they trust implicitly and someone closer to them generally, making them easier to tie back in a legal case.
jjeaff 6y ago
This law isn't just for money launderers, it's for people hiding assets. For example, there are many criminals and despots that steal huge sums of money and then form shell companies in the US and buy real estate or other assets. If the beneficial owner is falsified, then if that property comes under investigation, they stand to lose it. There are currently multiple $50m+ homes in places like BelAir or Beverly Hills that are owned by anonymous shell companies and they sit vacant year round. Some, after much investigation were found to be owned by foreign politicians. I suspect a large percentage of these properties are also from ill gotten gains.
- nullc 6y ago
  > they stand to lose it. If the source of the funds was unlawful, they'd lose it anyways.
  - jounker 6y ago
    And as a guess, under the new law, if they have a fake owner, then the government can take the property because a documented crime has been committed, as opposed to hitting a brick wall when it encounters the shell company.

mrkstu 6y ago

But making that 'patsy' the legal owner also increases the actual owner's risk profile. The Patsy has greater control and can redirect the money and is the legal 'owner' of the assets. That forces the non-legal owner to use someone they trust implicitly and someone closer to them generally, making them easier to tie back in a legal case.

jjeaff 6y ago

This law isn't just for money launderers, it's for people hiding assets. For example, there are many criminals and despots that steal huge sums of money and then form shell companies in the US and buy real estate or other assets. If the beneficial owner is falsified, then if that property comes under investigation, they stand to lose it. There are currently multiple $50m+ homes in places like BelAir or Beverly Hills that are owned by anonymous shell companies and they sit vacant year round. Some, after much investigation were found to be owned by foreign politicians. I suspect a large percentage of these properties are also from ill gotten gains.

nullc 6y ago
> they stand to lose it. If the source of the funds was unlawful, they'd lose it anyways.
- jounker 6y ago
  And as a guess, under the new law, if they have a fake owner, then the government can take the property because a documented crime has been committed, as opposed to hitting a brick wall when it encounters the shell company.