Watchtrader & Co caught money laundering

[Jacubi]

They are quite big on Youtube. It seems you can never be safe when going grey. Apparently 10 million worth of consignment watches have been seized.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-probe.html

[WatchEater666]

Yikes.

[rambo99]

suspected of money laundering and 10 million worth of consignment watches have been seized back in October last year. but seems like their business still running normally as of now. am I missing something ?

[Crown & Shield]

Originally Posted by Jacubi

They are quite big on Youtube. It seems you can never be safe when going grey. Apparently 10 million worth of consignment watches have been seized.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-probe.html

Britain’s FBI

[RollieNZ]

They're only 'suspected'.

If you read the article it appears to be the owners of the watches that the NCA are targeting.

[southtexas]

So were any of the seized watches previously reported stolen? If not, wouldn’t that suggest that they were lawfully held by the consignor?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rambo99]

Originally Posted by southtexas

So were any of the seized watches previously reported stolen? If not, wouldn’t that suggest that they were lawfully held by the consignor?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

my concern is if a legit customer bought a consignment watch which involves money laundering from this grey dealer, does he need to return the watch?

[Mr Ben]

Interesting theoretical question. Would that not depend on the watch? If the watch itself is stolen, obviously it’s likely a problem.

I’m not a lawyer but if dirty money buys a genuine bona fide watch which is then sold on consignment to an innocent person with valid funds just to conceal the source of the cash for the seller, I’d like to think the watch itself would be fine.

The issue should be the “clean” cash itself which went to the business and the seller which looked clean but isn’t?

[Goupax]

Article says the NCA is looking for tax returns from the consigned watches owners to see if the sellers have the means to buy the watch with clean money. I don't think Watchtrader is at fault here, they are just a medium used by potential launderers to unload hot commodities for clean money.

[psm11]

Originally Posted by Goupax

Article says the NCA is looking for tax returns from the consigned watches owners to see if the sellers have the means to buy the watch with clean money. I don't think Watchtrader is at fault here, they are just a medium used by potential launderers to unload hot commodities for clean money.

What a crock of sh*t. I’m not familiar with the applicable UK law but it’s troubling that the burden isn’t on the govt to prove they are connected to laundering.

[RollieNZ]

I think, generally in most jurisdictions, when it comes to money laundering, the ownus is on the accused to prove that the item was purchased with legally acquired funds.

And when you think about it that's the only way anti-money laundering laws can work.

It would be very difficult, if not impossible, for the state to prosecute otherwise.

[RollieNZ]

In New Zealand, even if you are prosecuted criminally and found not guilty, the law enforcement agencies can apply to the court for an order freezing your assets until you are able to prove they were obtained legally.

If you are unable to prove this they can then apply for a forfeiture order and your property, be it watches, cars etc, are confiscated by the government.

This law has been very effective in targeting money laundering, particularly with respect to big time drug suppliers.

[77T]

Regardless of the charges, anytime property is seized by police here in US, the person claiming ownership may be asked to validate their ownership (might be a pawnbroker gone bad, or burgled property recovered, or even recovered via RSC seizure).

Now on the money laundering enhanced regs. in some countries, one might be required to prove it was acquired lawfully. But this should be easily bypassed…all my really expensive watches were gifts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[psm11]

Originally Posted by 77T

Regardless of the charges, anytime property is seized by police here in US, the person claiming ownership may be asked to validate their ownership (might be a pawnbroker gone bad, or burgled property recovered, or even recovered via RSC seizure).

Now on the money laundering enhanced regs. in some countries, one might be required to prove it was acquired lawfully. But this should be easily bypassed…all my really expensive watches were gifts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

This is basically a case of civil forfeiture right? Which has been shown countless times to be bad policy and just a way for government to make money. If I make 50k a year and buy an 8k Rolex because I saved money or have very little expenses is the government really going to believe I had the means to afford it? I feel like this is the same thing that happened not long ago in LA when the FBI seized a bunch of safety deposit boxes they claimed were connected to drugs/laundering despite have no proof.

[southtexas]

Originally Posted by RollieNZ

In New Zealand, even if you are prosecuted criminally and found not guilty, the law enforcement agencies can apply to the court for an order freezing your assets until you are able to prove they were obtained legally.

If you are unable to prove this they can then apply for a forfeiture order and your property, be it watches, cars etc, are confiscated by the government.

This law has been very effective in targeting money laundering, particularly with respect to big time drug suppliers.

That sounds terrifying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[INC]

This is going to be a little offtopic, but I have to revise my previous opinion. This is the first time when I started to understood why many are talking about the advantages of the cryptos.

However this was a completly new to me thinking, as this kind of way of interpert the law would be completely unacceptable in the European Union, as it would unacceptably violate the European Citizen's fundamental rights. This logic would not even arise.

[NickD1975]

Originally Posted by psm11

What a crock of sh*t. I’m not familiar with the applicable UK law but it’s troubling that the burden isn’t on the govt to prove they are connected to laundering.

It will be ultimately, I suspect the watches have been seized as evidence for a future case, and if they weren't bought with dirty money then they will be returned to their legal owners.

IFAIK the relevant legislation is the Proceeds of Crime Act.

[southtexas]

Originally Posted by psm11

This is basically a case of civil forfeiture right? Which has been shown countless times to be bad policy and just a way for government to make money. If I make 50k a year and buy an 8k Rolex because I saved money or have very little expenses is the government really going to believe I had the means to afford it? I feel like this is the same thing that happened not long ago in LA when the FBI seized a bunch of safety deposit boxes they claimed were connected to drugs/laundering despite have no proof.

Interesting parallel. I recall that story; seemed incredibly strange at the time.

[psm11]

Originally Posted by southtexas

Interesting parallel. I recall that story; seemed incredibly strange at the time.

Yeah and that case is currently making its way to the 9th circuit court on appeal.

I mean maybe the law allows for this, but I just don't see how it is good public policy to mandate that if your property is suspect to be connected to a crime (despite little to no proof) YOU have the burden of proof to prove otherwise. It's guilty until proven innocent.

These civil forfeiture laws are guised as designed to stop money laundering and drug trade but in reality they are huge cash cows for law enforcement entities to generate revenue and are used for that purpose.

[rcwatches]

Too much click bait misleading articles these days.