When Charlie met Harry, Harry gave him a few tips and a supply of large brown envelopesI though this was another one of those young Bondy collecting for Harry's dog stories.
MessyWhen Harry met Charlie, Charlie came in discreet paper sachets …
We seem to have plenty of people in this country who aspire to those standards - a lot of them are Members of Parliament (but not all of them I hasten to add)Paedophilia, tax evasion, money laundering…. Youd think the only point of having one family more elite than our families would be that they would be something we could all aspire to.
Probably staying so she can interfere with more laws:I can now see why the Queen is staying in the seat instead of abdicating to give Charles the baton...hobnobbing with greasy Arab Oil men ..Ye f√cking God's what next...
This Charles and Boris double- act are laying it on a plate for a Bloody Revolution. bearing in mind that THEY wouldn't have to wait weeks for a GP appointment or need a train journey to work !
I think the aforementioned bright sparks might be better placed to be aware of chum Putin's recent sentiments of an intention to bomb London first if WW3 kicks off ...maybe about the same time as Qatar's Poxy World Cup..
Surely money laundering involves the person doing it actually keeping the value, or most of it. How can it be money laundering if it goes to charity? As far as I can see there is no assertion that any of the money went back to the donorThe home secretary will be announcing a full money laundering investigation surely.
Where did the money leave the banking system and where did it re enter the uk banks?
Probably staying so she can interfere with more laws:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-n...ews/2022/jun/27/queen-secret-influence-laws-revealed-scottish-government-memo
Surely money laundering involves the person doing it actually keeping the value, or most of it. How can it be money laundering if it goes to charity? As far as I can see there is no assertion that any of the money went back to the donor
I don't think the fact that the donation was cash is relevant to that argument. If the donations had been by cheque, they would have been equally dodgy or else equally non-dodgy.Money laundering means taking “dirty” money eg the profits from drugs, people smuggling, slavery, bribery, prostitution etc and washing it into legitimate financial transactions. Money going to charity can be money laundering if its ultimate source was criminal.
Or, put another way, a stolen Rolex is still a stolen Rolex even if you give the proceeds of selling it to a charity.
Heads of state and senior politicians are high risk because they have ready access to the proceeds of bribery and corruption. In the normal manner of things a bag of cash given by the former Prime Minister of a country ranked as high risk for corruption (as Qatar is) should never pass adequate money laundering controls.
I think Harry went off with Sally, and a distraught Rosie is constantly p*****d on cider...Will Harry and Rosie be summoned to act as advisors?
Cash is highly suspicious as there is no trace to the source.I don't think the fact that the donation was cash is relevant to that argument. If the donations had been by cheque, they would have been equally dodgy or else equally non-dodgy.
If a proper investigation and full compliance with the money laundering regulations fails to find evidence that it's dodgy money, would the charity even be allowed to turn it down based on gut feeling? Bearing mind the trustees have a fiduciary duty to do their best for the charity?
We know the source - the former president of Qatar. Would the source be any more reliable if it was from a Swiss (or a Qatari) bank account?Cash is highly suspicious as there is no trace to the source.
Facilitating money laundering would not be best for a charity and would pose difficulties in the accounts being approved.