I live in Guernsey and was prompted to open a Monzo account by many of my friends, however after applying and asking a question to Monzo on Twitter, I was told that they can’t issue current accounts without a UK address, even though all my friends use Monzo with their Guernsey address? I haven’t had any issues opening onshore accounts from Guernsey before so I am a bit confused.
I would use my UK address but I want the post to come to Guernsey ideally.
Any advice?
You will also be charged 3% for ATM withdrawals as you are outside the UK.
SOURCE In app question to Customer Service last night about ATM withdrawals in Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man. Their reply “Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I’m afraid that will indeed be the case. Any ATM withdrawals after the initial £200 will be charged 3%. Though, as it says, this is on a 30-day-rolling limit.”
My main concern at this current point is whether I can in fact even obtain a Monzo account - I am drawn to Monzo because of the other benefits found on the app etc.
I know they plan to roll Monzo out to other countries but unfortunately they seem to be planning America before Europe
I would have expected them to cover the Channel Islands first - we aren’t part of the UK or the EU but we are in the British Isles, I’m just not sure why we should be left out.
Different tax authority, different FACTA treaty, some Crown Dependancies on the grey list for money laundering, there are many reasons to make them wary.
You are quite right - I’m sure there are safeguards that can be put in place if needs be.
Please get your facts right. The Grey list was created by the EU that features jurisdictions it considers facilitates structures that avoid paying tax elsewhere in the EU. The fact it ignores the Netherlands and Luxembourg speaks volumes.
If you wish to prevent the cross border international flow of money and inward investment into the UK, then introduce exchange controls. Then again this would stop inward investment in the first place.
I didn’t say it wasn’t!
It wasn’t the origin of the ‘Grey List’ I was referring to. You mentioned “some Crown Dependencies are on the grey list for money laundering”, which is entirely false. It is a fact that the Crown Dependencies have often been far ahead of the rest of the world in terms of AML/CFT regulation. CRS and FATCA mean there is absolute tax transparency.
The Grey List was created where the EU considered some jurisdictions, ignoring their own EU memberships of Ireland, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, have a Corporation Tax rate that was not aligned with the EU membership.
The Channel Islands were not included on the White List for money laundering.
The European Union took a decision to leave the tax havens off a ‘white list’ of countries deemed to have satisfactory controls against money-laundering.
The Crown dependencies have for years been working to shake off their image as depositories for the proceeds of crime. In the past they were favoured by criminals and shady businessmen because of the ‘no questions asked’ culture of their banks, which protected their clients’ accounts from scrutiny, but the islands now claim they are squeaky clean.
Richard, you seem to be deluded that the EU white, grey and black list has something to do with money laundering. The entire concept of the EU list is to restrict transfer pricing which I entirely agree with and ensure if you transfer profits to a lower tax jurisdiction, there is sufficient substance to warrant charging fees to lower the profits in the higher tax area, otherwise blatant tax avoidance. There is also the politicized debate that the EU are ignoring there own internal low tax jurisdictions Ireland, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. This is an excellent debate but you seem to be a tad uninformed.
Apart from the fact I only heard of the grey list in AML workshops and conferences, the grey list is refered to on various money laundering sites, EU fin crime sites, etc under the topic of money laundering and terrorist funds. e.g.:
https://antimoneylaundering.eu/tag/grey-list/
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/company/docs/financial-crime/3rd-country-equivalence-list_en.pdf
The original Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council refering to “tax crimes (related to direct taxes and indirect taxes)” as a predicate offence was according to the front title page “on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering, including terrorist financing”.
Clearly tax transparency or opacity has an impact on money laundering. The EU’s concern with the Crown Dependencies is the poor level of substance in their tax reporting. Only when this issue is resolved will they be removed from the intermediate grey list and be added to the white list.
So you can argue until you are blue in the face, but I still feel the grey list is an AML measure.
Richard, you should actually read some of these links, very informative especially the second one.
Quote “Why has the EU produced a list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions?
The new list is part of the EU’s work to clamp down on tax evasion and avoidance. It will help the EU to deal more robustly with external threats to Member States’ tax bases and to tackle third countries that consistently refuse to play fair on tax matters.
Up to now, Member States have had a patchwork approach to dealing with tax havens, which has had limited impact”
The only mention of crown dependencies is to do with substance, not to be confused with transparency, again CRS and FATCA result in complete transparency.
Even the tax justice network were dismayed over the missing Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands missing from the list.
I agree with you that Éire, Luxembourg and The Netherlands should have been included. However the democratically elected Parliament do not have the final say, but the Council of Ministers which is basically just civil servants representing each member state* and acting as puppets for their political masters in their home countries.
*technically they are not representing them but are appointed in accordance with a quota system related to the size of each country (by population not area) so de facto tend to act in accordance with national wishes, with senior staff often replaced if too greatly at odds with their home country’s governing party or coalition.
This topic was automatically closed 180 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.