Mo?da bi pomoglo sa bankovnim transferima - povezana sudska praksa u Velikoj Britaniji
? R protiv P (2015): U ovom slu?aju, sud je utvrdio da je finansijska institucija kriva za olak?avanje ilegalnih transakcija kockanja bez odgovaraju?e du?ne pa?nje. U slu?aju je nagla?eno da finansijske institucije i procesori pla?anja moraju preduzeti korake kako bi osigurali da njihove transakcije nisu povezane sa ilegalnim aktivnostima.
? R protiv Smita (2012): Progla?en je odgovornim procesor pla?anja zbog toga ?to nije osigurao zakonitost transakcija, ?to nagla?ava va?nost po?tovanja zakonskih obaveza.
? Nacionalna agencija za borbu protiv kriminala protiv X (2017): Sud je istakao du?nost pru?alaca usluga pla?anja da se pridr?avaju obaveza u vezi sa spre?avanjem pranja novca, a neuspeh u sprovo?enju ovih provera mogao bi dovesti do kr?enja zakona Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva, posebno ako sumnjive transakcije nisu prijavljene.
Might help with bank transfers - related uk case law
? R v. P (2015): In this case, the court found that a financial institution was guilty of facilitating illegal gambling transactions without proper due diligence. The case emphasized that financial institutions and payment processors must take steps to ensure their transactions are not linked to illegal activities.
? R v. Smith (2012): A payment processor was found liable for failing to ensure that transactions were lawful, underscoring the importance of compliance with legal obligations.
? National Crime Agency v. X (2017): The court highlighted the duty of payment providers to comply with Anti-Money Laundering obligations, and the failure to implement these checks could lead to violations of UK law, especially if suspicious transactions were not reported.
Automatski prevedeno: