7 ms·

But at least you do get to explain it.

tialaramex 4y ago
That's correct. Unexplained Wealth Orders target amounts in excess of £50 000 (usually far in excess, they've been used four times so far, with total targets of 143 million pounds). The UWO must target an individual who is either: Politically exposed (e.g. (ex)leaders and senior officials of a country and their families) or Reasonably Believed to be involved in Serious Crime (e.g. bank robbers) and whose wealth lacks an apparent explanation. If the target either can't or won't explain their wealth it may be seized. UWOs are supposed to be reformed to make them work even when you've paid lawyers to make the apparent ownership very opaque. Right now if you're benefiting from an opaque "trust" arrangement maybe spanning several countries it may be impossible to show how that wealth is really "yours" legally, without the co-operation you would have been required to show as part of the UWO. In practice it often happens, as I understand it, that the UWO target decides the best way out is to just hand over the wealth, because the real answer to "Why do you have this wealth?" is "I did a bunch of crimes" and that is a confession of crime, for which you might do prison time, and either they don't trust lawyers or the lawyers they hired couldn't come up with another story that would hold water. Sadly the current (Tory) and former (Tory, Tory, and Tory back many years now) UK governments have been much better at talking up their commitment to transparency than at actually taking any steps to prevent the UK (and especially London) functioning as a laundromat and dormitory for crooks to wash their dirty money and sleep comfortably knowing the people they stole from can't reach them...
- kelnos 4y ago
  Wow, this is pretty dystopian. "You have money that we didn't know about so you have to explain yourself, or we will assume you acquired it illegally and take it from you". That's not due process. That's not innocent until proven guilty. (Yes, I know UK legal standards are different than the US's, but I believe these things to be rights people should universally have.) That's not rule of law; that's rule by thugs. I guess that's strictly "better" than the nearly-zero-recourse civil forfeiture travesty we have here in the US, but... still not great.
  - potatototoo99 4y ago
    Almost every country has some form of this law. Sometimes the money is confiscated, other times it is treated as a taxable event at the highest rate possible, etc.
  - tialaramex 4y ago
    In what way is this not "Due process" ? The presumption of innocence does not mean you're entitled to obstruct investigators. "But you haven't proved that I'm guilty" also doesn't work to stop detectives entering your home with a search warrant.
    - Phrodo_00 4y ago
      From OPs explaination, if you won't explain how you got the money it'll be forfeited. That's the opposite of presumption of innocence. I'm ok with having large amounts of cash with no obvious legitimate source triggering an investigation, but that's not what's happening.
      - brewdad 4y ago
        The UK doesn't have a 5th Amendment.
        Phrodo_00 4y ago
        Yeah, because they don't really have an actual consolidated constitution, but the presumption of innocence is one of the principles of English Common Law (see Woolmington v DPP), as well as being one of the rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They just sneak past it by not actually sentencing you of a crime.
        int_19h 4y ago
        UK has parliamentary sovereignty, so any presumed common law right only exists until the Parliament passes a bill that effectively nullifies it.

That's correct. Unexplained Wealth Orders target amounts in excess of £50 000 (usually far in excess, they've been used four times so far, with total targets of 143 million pounds). The UWO must target an individual who is either: Politically exposed (e.g. (ex)leaders and senior officials of a country and their families) or Reasonably Believed to be involved in Serious Crime (e.g. bank robbers) and whose wealth lacks an apparent explanation. If the target either can't or won't explain their wealth it may be seized. UWOs are supposed to be reformed to make them work even when you've paid lawyers to make the apparent ownership very opaque. Right now if you're benefiting from an opaque "trust" arrangement maybe spanning several countries it may be impossible to show how that wealth is really "yours" legally, without the co-operation you would have been required to show as part of the UWO. In practice it often happens, as I understand it, that the UWO target decides the best way out is to just hand over the wealth, because the real answer to "Why do you have this wealth?" is "I did a bunch of crimes" and that is a confession of crime, for which you might do prison time, and either they don't trust lawyers or the lawyers they hired couldn't come up with another story that would hold water. Sadly the current (Tory) and former (Tory, Tory, and Tory back many years now) UK governments have been much better at talking up their commitment to transparency than at actually taking any steps to prevent the UK (and especially London) functioning as a laundromat and dormitory for crooks to wash their dirty money and sleep comfortably knowing the people they stole from can't reach them...

kelnos 4y ago
Wow, this is pretty dystopian. "You have money that we didn't know about so you have to explain yourself, or we will assume you acquired it illegally and take it from you". That's not due process. That's not innocent until proven guilty. (Yes, I know UK legal standards are different than the US's, but I believe these things to be rights people should universally have.) That's not rule of law; that's rule by thugs. I guess that's strictly "better" than the nearly-zero-recourse civil forfeiture travesty we have here in the US, but... still not great.
- potatototoo99 4y ago
  Almost every country has some form of this law. Sometimes the money is confiscated, other times it is treated as a taxable event at the highest rate possible, etc.
- tialaramex 4y ago
  In what way is this not "Due process" ? The presumption of innocence does not mean you're entitled to obstruct investigators. "But you haven't proved that I'm guilty" also doesn't work to stop detectives entering your home with a search warrant.
  - Phrodo_00 4y ago
    From OPs explaination, if you won't explain how you got the money it'll be forfeited. That's the opposite of presumption of innocence. I'm ok with having large amounts of cash with no obvious legitimate source triggering an investigation, but that's not what's happening.
    - brewdad 4y ago
      The UK doesn't have a 5th Amendment.
      - Phrodo_00 4y ago
        Yeah, because they don't really have an actual consolidated constitution, but the presumption of innocence is one of the principles of English Common Law (see Woolmington v DPP), as well as being one of the rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They just sneak past it by not actually sentencing you of a crime.
        int_19h 4y ago
        UK has parliamentary sovereignty, so any presumed common law right only exists until the Parliament passes a bill that effectively nullifies it.