Beneficial Ownership Verification: Ensuring the Truthfulness and Accuracy of Registered Ownership Information

PurposeThis paper uses the recent (August 2015) FIFA arrests to provide an example of how illicit financial flows are occurring through the formal banking and financial services sector. The purpose of this paper is to explore which elements of anti-money laundering (AML) compliance need to be addressed to strengthen the banking response and reduce the impact of IFFs within the banking sector.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is based on the indictment document currently prepared for the FIFA arrests and the District Court case of Chuck Blazer the FIFA Whistleblower. It uses the banking examples identified in the indictment as typologies of money laundering and wire fraud. Corresponding industry reports on AML compliance are included to determine where the major weaknesses and gaps are across the financial service.FindingsThe main findings from the analysis are that banks still have weak areas within AML compliance. Even recognised red flag areas such as off shore havens, large wire transfers and front companies are still being used. The largest gaps still appear to be due diligence and beneficial ownership information.Research limitations/implicationsThe research topic is very new and emerging topic; therefore, analysis papers and other academic writing on this topic are limited.Practical implicationsThe research paper has identified a number of implications for the banking sector, addressing AML deficiencies, especially the need to consider the source of funds and the need for further enhanced due diligence systems for politically exposed and influential people and the importance of beneficial ownership information.Social implicationsThis paper has implications for the international development and the global banking sector. It will also influence approaches to AML regulation, risk assessment and audit within the broader financial services sector.Originality/valueThe originality of this paper is the link between the emerging issues associated with allegations of bribery and corruption within FIFA and the illicit financial flow implications across the banking sector.

Download Full-text

Pyott case: A lasting deposit for our tax heritage

Southern African Business Review ◽

10.25159/1998-8125/5790 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 19 ◽

pp. 47-70

Author(s):

A C Engelbrecht ◽

G K Goldswain ◽

A Heyns

Keyword(s):

South Africa ◽

Income Tax ◽

Rental Housing ◽

Value Added ◽

Point Of View ◽

Relevant Today ◽

Consumer Protection Act ◽

Contingent Liability ◽

Beneficial Ownership ◽

Gross Income

Pyott Ltd v CIR is generally regarded as the seminal case in South Africa on the tax treatment of deposits received on containers that may be returned at a later stage for a refund. This article analyses the tax treatment of deposits, prepayments and advances from a gross income point of view, as well as the possibility of claiming a deduction for the contingent liability to refund such deposit. 6The main objective of this article is to discuss the judgment in the Pyott case and establish whether the principle enunciated that deposits,received in respect of returnable containers, are taxable in full once received, can also be extended to receipts of deposits, prepayments and advances where no returnable container is involved. 7The conclusions reached are that the principles laid down in the Pyott case are still relevant today, apart from possible relief which may now be claimed under the subsequently introduced section 24C. Where no container is involved, beneficial ownership must first be established before such deposit, prepayment or advance becomes taxable, taking into account the specific provisions of legislation such as the Rental Housing Act and the Consumer Protection Act. The research has also shown coherence in the treatment of deposits for income tax purposes and other taxes, such as value-added tax.

Download Full-text