Certainly I now know that should my morals collapse and I want to borrow a bunch of cash, run up a lot of debt, and do a bunk leaving the poeple who dealt with me in good faith in the crapper, I know just where to look for a guy to 'fix' it.
You've obviously got too much time on your hands do dig this stuff up, and wrap up a basic fiddle in so much complicated waffle people get fed up and give in. Doubtless you know your onions, and may have a technically correct answer, but it can't seem to see a chancer when you see one... or can but chose to ignore it.
I'm retired. If I weren't doing this (answering stupid questions) I would be doing something more useful: namely finishing up Christopher Browning's "The Origin of the Final Solution". I've spent a lot of time researching Switzerland's WW II history. Like France and Austria, it concealed and muddled it for a long time.
Anyone who wants to defraud his or her creditors can find all s/he needs on the Internet. But the much-touted solution of the 1990s, foreign asset protection trusts, has come into disrepute: judges in America (at least) just threw the debtor into prison until he repatriated the (usually stolen) money. Here's some stuff on that: http://www.businessweek.com/archives...639167.arc.htm
Not with an account opened with a Swiss (or other non-UK) address.
I have a long standing account with Barclays Intl. (guernsey) and there have been plenty of letters warning me that Barclays intl. (guernsey) had to pass on my details to HMRC...
btw, see what happens when you feed the (OP) trolls?
I do think it's yielded some rather good posts from andy02.
you planning bankruptcy too? I'm sure you can always get a job in a restaurant kitchen
Indeed!
And it boils down to the 1st few posts, no pay up.
For the groaners and patronising page page fillers, integrity is clearly of less value to some than others
It's entirely possible to believe that if possible one should avoid debt and pay back any debts you have, while at the same time appreciating the value of bankruptcy laws and understanding that a subject matter expert is offering detailed information on the actualities of the law without necessarily advocating intentional defaulting.
You clearly read a different opening post to me.
Understanding bankruptcy and applying it due to circumstances and where debt repayment is not possible is on thing, blatantly avoiding creditors when you have capital to repay some of the capital is something quite different.
"he owes monies to banks/credit cards. However he has £100k+ which he is looking to move offshore/switzerland Is there any adivce that can be given on deposit monies to a swiss a/c. Will the monies be protected from UK authorities through the secrecy laws".
All that required was a simple no, dpn't you think.
But this thread is more than simply the opening post.
andy02's posts are a considered explanation of debt law, which he wrote with some care. I groaned at you only because you then labelled that 'waffle'.
How did the guy managed to have debts and also loads of savings? Obviously he planned the whole thing. How about a nice 100k+ fine for fraud?
Doubtless andy02's posts are knowledgable, but overkill for the OP's question and in that context waffle, as he didn't ask about bankruptcy but hidding cash, and if it's nothing to do with the starter post it could be classed as off topic.
It's definitely relevant to talk about bankruptcy law in relation to a post about bankruptcy . . . even if the (friend of) OP looks like a schemer.
And the title of the thread is 'Personal bankruptcy'.
The post was not about bankruptcy, did you actually read it, the 'friend', is considering bankcritpcy but asked about : moving money, Swiss protection, bank recomendation, problem moving money to CH... not about bankruptcy.
The context of the post was that the person in question was considering bankruptcy - and was looking for a way to arrange their financial affairs in some kind of favourable way; either rightly or wrongly so.
People respond to threads based on the information provided - if the OP did want the bankruptcy part to be taken into consideration in the aforementioned responses, then he should not have mentioned it.
Oh, and the title of the thread was "Personal Bankruptcy".
And your treatment of andy02's considered and interesting responses are little more than ignorant. He was doing nothing more than giving the benefit of what appears to be his extensive knowledge on the subject - as unsavoury as the truth may be.
Rgds,
Nick
I actually think Bankruptcy in the UK is too easy and wrong and not enough invetigations are made.
First of all it is only for one year.
There are various reasons for bankruptcy, but take this scenario as an example.
Imagine you bought a £200,000 house in 2007 with a Northern Rock 125% mortgage. So you borrowed £250,000 interest only payments.
A couple of years before this, you applied and obtained 10 credit cards with an initial credit card limit of say £2,000 on each and paid the minimum each month (5% = £100). The credit card available would have been increased to £4,000 per card within two years.
You then buy some household goiods on credit DFS settee, White Goods, Black Goods. You can easily obtain £10,000 plus of credit.
You lease a BMW with a 10% deposit with aballoon payment of £15,000 at the end of three years.
The house will have devalued by 15-20% by now so the house is worth only £160,000. Yet you have a £250,000 mortgage, about £40,000 of credit card debts and £10,000 of credit on household goods.
i.e. net debts of (£300,000 - £160,000) => £140,000.
You then are made redundant in middle of 2008.
You stop making mortgage payments on the mortgage but the UK government will start paying your mortgage interest on £200,000 of the mortgage and give you Job Seekers Allowance and Tax Credits which will never (correctly so) pay the debts.
You would realise that to pay £140,000 of debt over 10 years would cost about £30,000 per annum. You would still have to live and would inevitable have to be a 40% tax payer which would mean you would need to gross more than £50,000 just to furnish the debt and you would still need monies to live.
The advise that one would take would be to become a personal bankrupt as all your debts will be wiped out and you start with a clean slate after one year.
What p!sses me off is that some of us didn't drive the flashy cars; didn't go on Shopping Trips to NewYork, didn't stay in 5 Star Hotels on extravagant holidays.
The question you have to ask is who is going to pay for these bad debts?
It is quite obvious that it is going to be the solvent realistic people that pay with no option in the form of bank charges/interest and taxes to pay for benefits.
It appears to me that us realisitic people appear to be the mugs that we have no option on.
Off course it is not the fault of these people with the debts; it was the banks offering and pushing people into this debt so they could have this wonderful false life style they seem to believe.
Then; the government then talk about teaching personal finance at school. I thought it was basic maths; i.e. if you take home a net wage of £2,000; you could only spend up to £2,000; but this doesn't appear to be the case.
I actually believe that the banks and government will still have huge repercussions to come and the economy is screwed for at least another three plus years as a result of lack of common sense.
************************************************** ****
I understand that the system of debt is better in Switzrland is that the debt of the parents is passed down to the children?
Nope not ignorant just not justified, an extensive knowledge he displayed but 2 small words were all that was needed. But nice to know you like things over complicated and overblown
1. This is a weird posting. It reminds me of the Tea Baggers in America and all those others who are protesting the Obamacare bill. Few of them realise how inadequate their own health insurance is. After all, until the year before death most of us don't get catastrophically ill. Ditto for those who think everybody should "pay his debts". Think of this, especially if you are in Switzerland as a tax avoider: the Government makes choices (as they did in the US and UK in promoting time-bomb 125% mortgages). And the oldest tax of all is inflation: robbing savers to bail out banks and lenders where collateral is now (through deflation) less than debt. Have a look at this even-handed advice column in today's Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...772400364.html
2. As with most of the postings by others in this thread, you've got it all wrong about Switzerland. But let me start with the purpose of bankruptcy: it's not aimed at or for consumers at all; only Common Law systems had consumer bankruptcy (as I've said in an earlier posting) until the late 1990s when credit card debt (whatever the guilt of the credit card holders) drove people out of the labour force because all their pay would be seized to pay debts. (In the US within days of getting a bankruptcy discharge, debtors will get invitations to apply for new credit cards: they can't go bankrupt and get a discharge again for 7 years. And an aside: a surprisingly large percentage of lottery winners eventually file for bankruptcy.) We've had bankruptcy systems in place for hundreds of years, mainly to give commercial traders and manufacturers a chance at "a clean start". A bit of Googling will tell you how many famous inventors and businessmen went bankrupt before they found wealth and fame.
3. As for Switzerland and other Civil Law systems: upon death, there is no "decedent's estate": assets pass by means of "succession" to the heirs, and there is limited freedom of testation (there is "forced heirship" for spouse, offspring, parents, etc. with a limited margin of choice). If there is any question at all about insolvency, the heirs are entitled to an audit. And as with gifts and inheritance everywhere (with certain exceptions that Prof. Adam J. Hirsch has written about in the USA for "insolvent heirs") any heir can disclaim. If disclaimer is not made in time, of course the heir will inherit debt. And through incompetence of lawyers/notaries there have been occasions where children have had to be put through bankruptcy.
I spoke a year or two ago with the (then) chairman of Chelsea Building Society. He said that his firm liked to keep a substantial book of buy-to-let mortgages because unemployed renters would be more likely to have their rent paid than homeowners would be to have their mortgage installments paid by the social services. I trust his statement more than I trust yours, about "UK government will start paying your mortgage interest on £200,000 of the mortgage".
4. Why do I waste time answering flamers, spammers and rubbish purveyors on these forums? And the worst of them is the OP who posted the lie about trying to hide £100k from creditors. I have already linked to sites discussing cases where such people were thrown in jail. The real crooks are not penny-ante debtors: underwater mortgagors and overindebted credit card holders. They are the Lloyd's of London scammers of the 1980s and 1990s (Rowland's boys) and the Madoffs and all the white-collar criminals that until very recently the UK legal system has been unable to convict because "the crimes were too complex for juries to understand". So now they've abolished the jury system in some of such cases.
5. To put it in perspective: most people do not have the knowledge, or the access to knowledge, on what to do when they lose their jobs (because of the economic slump that poor Government economic policy and its pandering to greedy, incompetent bankers brought about). Though their homes are worth less than the mortgage, they run down their pension savings, their kids' college savings, and their credit card lines to pay it, and to buy food. Because £64.30 a week jobseeker's allowance isn't enough to support even a single person: http://www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk/JCP/...nce/index.html
6. A bankruptcy discharge may be made conditional, or it may be withheld for cause. I'm not going to go into all the different laws here, but like so many politicians (and the purveyors of the 2005 amendments to the US Bankruptcy Code) you've deliberately misstated the law and facts to make an extremist political point. Well, those banks got their bankruptcy law changed and now they face unintended consequences: they get to keep the 40% interest and all those penalty charges they imposed on their low-waged credit card holders, so they got more than the principal they lost when the debt was discharged in the past. And then the discharged debtor could start on the treadmill again at even higher rates of interest and fees. But now bankruptcy is limited, and many credit card debts can't be discharged: so the banks have lost their customers and don't get any payments or any profit at all.
7. Bill Clinton's administration brought in a 5-year lifetime limit to "welfare", hoping to force the unemployed (including single mothers) into work. The UK has no such law, and council (public) housing is largely limited to mothers with children. (Such housing scarcely exists in the USA today). But in both countries the economies are so bad (and even with an end to recession nobody is hiring) that children are getting the kinds of disease from undernourishment that you see in the Third World. I don't think bankruptcy law has anything to do with that, but the hostility of people like you to those on hard times is self-evident; and you should only know that it could happen to you, too. There is, in real life, no such thing as "getting on your bike" and finding a job. Except for those with particular skills or particular talents. And the fraud of "educating everybody" makes it worse: student debt is non-dischargeable in bankruptcy (in the USA and Canada, I don't remember the rule in the UK). Here's the WSJ on that again: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...806327030.html But it gets worse: fraudulent trade schools promise an education and jobs in such fields as truck driving, motor mechanics, IT, etc. They get the unemployed to borrow, they sign them on to rubbish courses that teach them nothing, and in the end there are no jobs anyway. And the "graduates" can't discharge the debts in bankruptcy and are ruined.
And, I suppose, you think that's fair and just. And you think that such debts should be passed down from generation to generation?
No they won't be. What will be passed down is the NATIONAL DEBT insofar as it is held by foreigners. (To the extent that gilts/government debt is held domestically, future generations can shift it around: read James M. Ferguson (ed.), Public Debt and Future Generations (1964): http://www.questia.com/library/book/...m-ferguson.jsp
Yeah I'll hold some of that! LOL!
But seriously, I don't think that's a good thing to do trying to hide that like that, your friend could end up in jail. I would not advise trying to do that.
Yeah certain words can trigger things and attract attention and then you can be traced. If it's not already too late!