B1599 - Criminal Finance Act (Amendment) Bill 2020

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
B1599 - Criminal Finance Act (Amendment) Bill 2020, TSR Government



A
BILL
TO
Make provisions to stop the exemption of British and EEA politicians from Unexplained Wealth Orders


BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1. Amendments to be made to the Criminal Finances Act 2017

1. In Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 1, Clause 362B (7)(a) of the Criminal Finances Act 2017 which read “An individual who is, or has been, entrusted with prominent public functions by an international organisation or by a State other than the United Kingdom or another EEA State,” shall now read “An individual who is, or has been, entrusted with prominent public functions by an international organisation or by a State,”.

2. In Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 4, Clause 396B (7)(a) of the Criminal Finances Act 2017 which read “An individual who is, or has been, entrusted with prominent public functions by an international organisation or by a State other than the United Kingdom or another EEA State,” shall now read “An individual who is, or has been, entrusted with prominent public functions by an international organisation or by a State,”.

2. Commencement, Extent and Short Title
1. This Act comes into force upon Royal Assent.
2. This Act extends to the United Kingdom.
3. This Act shall be known as the Criminal Finance Act 2017 (Amendment) Bill 2020.



Notes:
Spoiler:
Show

The Criminal Finance Act 2017 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...ntents/enacted) gave the power for Unexplained Wealth Orders (https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-wealth-orders) to be served on people who are linked with criminal gangs or a ‘politically exposed person’. This politically exposed person cannot currently be from the EEA or the UK. This means that an MP from the UK could not be served with one, but a member of the Russian Parliament could be. The distinction is a problem that subverts the notion that everyone is equal under the law in the UK.

Credit for the original bill belongs to LemonBotex

0
Theloniouss
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
An aye from me.
0
BosslyGaming
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
Will watch the debate as usual but I see no reason not to support this at the moment.
0
Bailey14
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
Going to watch over the debate to decide for definite, but for the time-being this has my support.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
The exemption exists for a reason, the simple question is: why?

One suspects it is going to be related to parliamentary privilege or some other thing which means they would remain immune regardless.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
This seems sensible to me.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
Here's a fun one, if we ignore that the language is wrong because those are subsections, not clauses, this bill does nothing (yay)
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
This seems sensible to me.
(Original post by Bailey14)
Going to watch over the debate to decide for definite, but for the time-being this has my support.
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
Will watch the debate as usual but I see no reason not to support this at the moment.
(Original post by Theloniouss)
An aye from me.
pst, this bill doesn't do anything, it's amending the wrong thing.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
I'm not sure I like the thought of enforcement agencies requesting these orders against various British politicians. Can you imagine the chaos that would unfold if the police made a few agaisnt politicians of a certain party and courts appeared to be more favourable of politicians of a certain political standing.

The Supreme Court ruling against proroguing Parliament led to calls to sack the judges and reform the Supreme Court. Mainstream politicians were starting to jump on that bandwagon. I don't want to see a similar, never ending situation where people accuse the police and courts of being biased in their investigations into wealth.
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
pst, this bill doesn't do anything, it's amending the wrong thing.
What should it be amending instead? The suspense is killing me...
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
(Original post by Theloniouss)
What should it be amending instead? The suspense is killing me...
If you bothered reading the bill being amended you would know, similarly if the author had bothered reading what they were amending they wouldn't have gotten in wrong in the first place.
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 month ago
#12
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
If you bothered reading the bill being amended you would know, similarly if the author had bothered reading what they were amending they wouldn't have gotten in wrong in the first place.
I'll admit I'm not going to bother reading the original bill to find out. This issue isn't that important to me.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
(Original post by Theloniouss)
I'll admit I'm not going to bother reading the original bill to find out. This issue isn't that important to me.
This bill even tells you what to read, ignoring the incorrect language meaning it is talking about something that technically doesn't exist.
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 month ago
#14
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
This bill even tells you what to read, ignoring the incorrect language meaning it is talking about something that technically doesn't exist.
I've now read it - not sure what you're talking about to be quite honest. Seems like the correct part is being amended.
0
Joleee
Badges: 19
#15
Report 1 month ago
#15
how do we prosecute MPs for money laundering now?
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 month ago
#16
(Original post by Joleee)
how do we prosecute MPs for money laundering now?
The same way we do anyone else who isn't a political person.
1
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 month ago
#17
(Original post by Theloniouss)
I've now read it - not sure what you're talking about to be quite honest. Seems like the correct part is being amended.
Then you haven't read it all. Start from the top of the page, not about a fifth of the way down it.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 month ago
#18
thelonious, I'll give you a clue. https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho....php?t=5808626 Think about the purpose of that.
0
Iñigo de Loyola
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 month ago
#19
A sensible bill. Aye.
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 month ago
#20
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Then you haven't read it all. Start from the top of the page, not about a fifth of the way down it.
I'm certainly not going to read the entirety of the Act, but having read section 1 I can't see where this Bill is going wrong.

(Original post by Miss Maddie)
thelonious, I'll give you a clue. https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho....php?t=5808626 Think about the purpose of that.
Very unclear how that's a clue but thanks anyway
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling ahead of starting University?

I am excited and looking forward to starting (59)
13.41%
I am excited but have some apprehension around Covid-19 measures (57)
12.95%
I am concerned I will miss out on aspects of the uni experience due to new measures (168)
38.18%
I am concerned the Covid-19 measures at uni are not strong enough (46)
10.45%
I am nervous and feel I don't have enough information (87)
19.77%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (23)
5.23%

Watched Threads

View All