The Guardian has reported that:
Frontmen of foreign shell companies that are used to hide the true ownership of some of London's most expensive properties could face up to two years in jail and unlimited fines under new government plans.
The government announced the new sanctions on Thursday as it unveiled plans to set out draft laws this summer to lift the secrecy surrounding foreign ownership of billions of pounds worth of British property.
Under the draft laws, foreign companies must disclose who ultimately owns their properties. The plans follow new rules on ownership and control of UK companies that were introduced in 2016.
I would love to applaud the government on this. But I can't. And I won't.
First that is because this is way overdue already.
Second it is because it is unlikely anything will happen before 2021 in reality.
And third I am utterly bored with Tory promises that involve the passing of new laws that they have not the slightest intention of enforcing.
We can be sure that this law will not be enforced. The police cannot even undertake their most basic duties now. Prosecutions in this area will be complex. And Companies House, which would probably have to initiate any action, is so hopelessly under-resourced that hundreds of thousands of companies fail to supply any data to them on their beneficial ownership each year and nothing in effect happens because there are no resources to pursue the offenders.
In this respect the UK akin to the classic tax haven of a decade or so ago. At that time those places were masters in passing copious legislation that they had absolutely no intention of using but which let them say they were internationally compliant. I, and others, roundly criticised them for this. And I have to be honest: they have improved their act. At the same time the UK has slipped heavily backwards because austerity has killed all chance of progress and left most of our supposed regulatory processes as mere shams, existing on paper but utterly toothless.
That is what this new legislation will be. Quite literally it is a paper tiger. And that almost makes me more annoyed than the government pretending that they cannot be bothered about this issue.
You can't tackle fraudulent abuse with a fraudulent pretence of action, but that is precisely what is going to happen. The only possible outcome is total failure.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Richard, why do you think it won’t be enforced?
Because almost no company law in the UK is, at all
And this will be company law
We do not even have a regulator to enforce it: Companies House is only a registrar
Agree entirely. We’ve been here before – even for rubbish…
http://www.progressivepulse.org/society/litter-strategy-or-statute-law-as-a-wish-list
Could we not crowdfund a private prosecution of the people who “run” Company House? Or the ministers responsible?
It would be pointless: it is the law that is at fault
“We do not even have a regulator to enforce it: Companies House is only a registrar”
Companies House is under the remit of the Dept for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS).
In the most recent year for which statistics have been published (2016-17) BEIS claim to have laid charges in court against 6,452 companies. Resulting in 3,179 convictions.
Yet you say there is no regulator.
So is BEIS lying? Are you lying? Or are you ignorant, once more displaying a lack of knowledge in an area you claim to be an expert in?
Look at the name
They are a Registrar
The fines are failing to Register
They are not for anything else
But hundreds of thousands of companies have not registered and get away with it
What is more Companies House report falsified statistics to claim they are not non-compliant but are being removed from the register instead
I am saying Companies House lies
I am saying its statistics are false
They may sue me
Seems to be quite apt that one of Jackson Browne’s songs is The Pretender
Jackson Browne
Put simply
1 A company (Co) is set up at a letterbox address in, say, 2013
2 The persons behind the Co use it to carry out whatever transactions they want. (& yes, for all I know they may be saving orphans & kittens & all that) between 2013 & 2017
3 The Co files no accounts
4 Company House issues a fine to the address that was a letterbox in 2015
5 The fine goes unpaid
6 Company House issues continuing fines to the address that was a letterbox in 2016 & 2017
7 Those fines go unpaid
8 Company House issues a final warning to the address that was a letterbox in 2018
9 The Co is dissolved. No accounts are filed & the fines are, needless to say, not paid
and in the words of Grandmaster Flash “thats the way it goes”
Put simply, you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.
What do you mean by a ‘letterbox address’? Can’t mean a PO Box as you can’t use one as a company’s registered office.
When a company is registered, HMRC is informed of all the details. If you were up to no good why would you flag it up to HMRC?
As for your timeline, you are just wrong. Plain wrong. A company formed on 1 January 2016 (yes 2016) which filed no accounts would have been struck off by around now. Two warning letters in October and November 2017 and the Gazette notice mid-December. Look it up: s1000 CA2006 as amended by s103 SBEE Act 2015.
And of course the absence of accounts is there for every credit rating agency to see and therefore every potential customer.
I appreciate that things can look scary when you know nothing about them but rather than being scared and trying to scare others, wouldn’t it be better to learn?
I agree that the time line is wrong
The rest is not
Your version of events is also wholly erroneous for their reason of misrepresentation of what actually is happening
Juan Smith
“What do you mean by a ‘letterbox address’? Can’t mean a PO Box as you can’t use one as a company’s registered office.”
You can use, as you well know, the address of any company formation agent
“When a company is registered, HMRC is informed of all the details. If you were up to no good why would you flag it up to HMRC?”
Because you want a UK Registered Company which gives you a certain cachet.
“As for your timeline, you are just wrong. Plain wrong. A company formed on 1 January 2016 (yes 2016) which filed no accounts would have been struck off by around now. Two warning letters in October and November 2017 and the Gazette notice mid-December. Look it up: s1000 CA2006 as amended by s103 SBEE Act 2015.”
And as you know perfectly well, Co House is far from being the most efficient organisation, but, even if it were, it is always open to Co agents to request time extensions
“And of course the absence of accounts is there for every credit rating agency to see and therefore every potential customer.”
Is it really for the customer to demand to see the accounts? Should the person who is asking for a payday loan really have to examine the balance sheet of his/her creditor?
“I appreciate that things can look scary when you know nothing about them but rather than being scared and trying to scare others, wouldn’t it be better to learn?”
Since when should I learn from blood-sucking leeches like you?
More inaccuracies from you eriuginous.
Formation agents no longer use their own address as RO. that stopped over 15 years ago with on-line formations. Even if convenience addresses were being used they still have to be real addresses. Still traceable. Still easy to find. You think the authorities wouldn’t notice an address where hundreds and thousands of non-compliant companies were registered.
Companies House is very efficient. Prove otherwise. Go find a single company registered at companies house that is still live and has filed nothing for 4 or 5 years as you claim is possible and commonplace. Come back here. Give us the company number. You won’t. You can’t.
You talk of customers asking to see accounts. You clearly don’t know how credit rating agencies work.
‘blood sucking leech’?
Really Richard is this the level of insult you allow on your site? The level of debate you encourage .
If as you and Eruigenus claim there are hundreds, thousands of companies out there formed for illegal purposes and flaunting companies House rules, why can’t you name one?
Just one?
And Richard. You seem to think anyone who knows more about a subject than you, who you can’t Billy and shout down is a pedant.
If being right is being pedantic, I rather be a pedant than ago ignorant fool.
I repeat, I agreed with you on timescales
The rest of your claims are wrong
For example about 200,000 companies a year are struck off without filing accounts
And the use of agent addresses for registered offices is very widespread
With respect, I suggest you take your one win and bank it because you have been making a fool of yourself thereafter
And I am curious. You knew the previous contribution from eriginious was wrong but did not correct it. Almost as if you don’t mind misinformation on your website. Like some editor of Pravda.
Not something to be proud of.
Or maybe I have a life and can’t do everything
Perhaps you should try doing the same
Richard
I wasn’t wrong. I’ve addressed “Juan Smith”‘s comments above. I’d stand by literally everything I said.
Ah. I see you could not answer my other post.
I said I used facts and you used empty words.
I challenged you to point out where I had been “wholly erroneous”.
You cannot rise to the challenge.
I find pedants a bore
I agreed with you innthe timescale
The evidence that in every other way the system is abused is overwhelming – and a great many accountants agree with me
“the evidence”.
What evidence?
Go and read the reports I have written on this subject and stop wasting my time