We need 2/3 IBO per month (Any Countries)

[DoctorSweep]

Good Morning,

We're looking for a new provider of IBO, any countries.
We need 2/3 per month. No corp needed.
Only reliability of the IBO.

We work mostly with Stripe.

Only reputed members of this forum.
Any referrals are appreciated.


If you have anything that might helps us please DM us.

Regards,
Dr S

 

[Sols]

Just when I thought I had a pretty firm grasp of the terminology in this industry...

What do you want exactly? What's an IBO?

 

[JohnnyDoe]

Just when I thought I had a pretty firm grasp of the terminology in this industry...

What do you want exactly? What's an IBO?

Ignorant Beneficial Owner?

 

[void]

Infinite bulls**t Offering

 

[DoctorSweep]

Ahah IBO, UBO, resellers.. basically nominee services.

 

[JohnnyDoe]

Ahah IBO, UBO, resellers.. basically nominee services.

You definitely need IBOs as I defined above, not UBOs. You can find them on the street (hookers, homeless), cheap pubs, and in some photoshopper’s HDD.

 

[Sols]

Ahah IBO, UBO, resellers.. basically nominee services.

There is no such thing as a nominee UBO. Nominees can by definition not be UBOs. What you're looking for is someone wiling to help you commit a crime (identity theft, fraud, money laundering, and so on).

This is not the right place for that kind of stuff.

 

[JohnnyDoe]

There is no such thing as a nominee UBO. Nominees can by definition not be UBOs.

One can be a nominee of anything, including the UBO. It’s a private arrangement between two parties. For example, I could be a nominee husband if wife is hot enough

What you're looking for is someone wiling to help you commit a crime (identity theft, fraud, money laundering, and so on).

not necessarily. It could be for privacy reasons. It could be because the real UBO has some blacklisting problems. It could be that banks are too cumbersome to deal with. In case of the nominee husband arrangement, it could be that wife is too hot/crazy to be handled by real husband.

 

[Jerry1911]

I'm guessing OP is running some kind of webshop selling something like replica watches which requires him to burn through hobo UBOs for payment processing purposes.

 

[Sols]

One can be a nominee of anything, including the UBO. It’s a private arrangement between two parties. For example, I could be a nominee husband if wife is hot enough


not necessarily. It could be for privacy reasons. It could be because the real UBO has some blacklisting problems. It could be that banks are too cumbersome to deal with. In case of the nominee husband arrangement, it could be that wife is too hot/crazy to be handled by real husband.

No, you're conflating UBO with nominee. What you're describing is deceiving financial institutions by not revealing the true UBO. That's fraud or some crime along those lines — or at the very least breach of contract with the financial institution. Could be attempted money laundering. Depends a lot on the circumstances.

I suppose there is a modicum of creative freedom to be had when talking specifically about spouses, depending on what local law says. But if you present someone else as UBO in your stead, while you remain the effective UBO, you are not presenting anything called a nominee UBO. You are providing false information.

I wonder if your cavalier approach to compliance could, in some small way, be tangentially related to your recurring friction with financial institutions.

 

[JohnnyDoe]

I wonder if your cavalier approach to compliance could, in some small way, be tangentially related to your recurring friction with financial institutions.

friction arises only when I try to do things by the book. Not a single issue when using nominees (including nominee UBOs) and feeding the financial institution with loads of bs from start to end (simply because monkeys in compliance are too dumb to understand how a real business functions).

No, you're conflating UBO with nominee.

definition of nominee from the Collins dictionary:

a person or organization named to act on behalf of someone else, esp to conceal the identity of the nominator

What you're describing is deceiving financial institutions by not revealing the true UBO.

Yes. Illegal/immoral behavior in response of illegal/immoral behavior is right. Or at least justified, and thus not punishable.

That's fraud or some crime along those lines —

It is not fraud. In some countries it is considered a false declaration in titles. Typically punished with a fine of a few thousand $, which I am perfectly fine with if the alternative is being unable to run my business.

or at the very least breach of contract with the financial institution.

A false declaration doesn’t constitute a breach of contract in any legal system.

Could be attempted money laundering.

A false declaration is not money laundering. It could be considered as part of a money laundering strategy if that’s how the account is used, which is not my case.

Depends a lot on the circumstances.

I suppose there is a modicum of creative freedom to be had when talking specifically about spouses, depending on what local law says.

The problem here is when the nominor is not the effective ultimate beneficiary of the wife

But if you present someone else as UBO in your stead, while you remain the effective UBO, you are not presenting anything called a nominee UBO. You are providing false information.

The business world is full of false information, that’s part of the game. When a bank (any bank) will file true financial statements I will cut my dick and eat it. Until then, I will continue to treat banks like they treat us: as idiotic criminal monkeys.

 

[suzy]

We're looking for a new provider of IBO, any countries.

what is that?

 

[Sols]

definition of nominee from the Collins dictionary:

a person or organization named to act on behalf of someone else, esp to conceal the identity of the nominator

Yes, that is a nominee. Congrats, you found a dictionary. Next, look up how nominees and UBOs are defined in relevant, applicable laws.

Yes. Illegal/immoral behavior in response of illegal/immoral behavior is right. Or at least justified, and thus not punishable.

I'm not debating the morality or how you feel about any of this, just the facts of the risks that exist.

A false declaration doesn’t constitute a breach of contract in any legal system.

It can be if part of the agreement is that you provide truthful and accurate information.

A false declaration is not money laundering. It could be considered as part of a money laundering strategy if that’s how the account is used, which is not my case.

As I mentioned, it depends on the circumstances. The act itself might not be money laundering but when you use the false UBO as a front to for example conceal the origin of funds or place dirty money in the financial system, you have committed money laundering.

Will you get caught? Maybe, maybe not.
Is it morally defensible? Perhaps, perhaps not.
Is it money laundering? Yes, by the legal definition.
Is it worth the risk? Up to you.

The business world is full of false information, that’s part of the game. When a bank (any bank) will file true financial statements I will cut my dick and eat it. Until then, I will continue to treat banks like they treat us: as idiotic criminal monkeys.

You are confusing your own, emotionally driven arguments with the cold hard, boring facts of the laws, international treaties, and how it's transposed into AML policies at financial institutions. That's what I'm highlighting here.

I'm not questioning that people successfully present false UBOs nor am I debating the morality thereof. My point is that doing so can have severe repercussions, and those are worth taking into account when doing a risk analysis when undertaking a business activity.

I didn't mean to upset you and set you off on a tirade about genital mutilation and what species are hired for compliance officer positions, however colorful and entertaining those can be.

what is that?

It was a typo. They meant UBO.

 

[JohnnyDoe]

Yes, that is a nominee. Congrats, you found a dictionary. Next, look up how nominees and UBOs are defined in relevant, applicable laws.

I can’t find any law mentioning nominees, could you enlighten me?

The term UBO is mentioned in some badly written regulations but nowhere in substantial laws. If you think about it this very UBO term is nonsensical, contradictory, or redundant at best.
For example: if I own a company directly (100% personal shareholding), I receive all the dividends and spend all the money on my preferred hooker, who does “ultimately” benefit more from my company? Is it myself or the hooker?
In any case, until dividends are paid out the money belongs to the company, not to its shareholder or UBO. A company is a separate entity from its shareholder/UBO. The transfer of money from a company to its shareholder is already well regulated and doesn’t require the addition of the UBO concept. Which at the end is just a stupid invention of some idiotic lawmaker.

 

[Sols]

I can’t find any law mentioning nominees, could you enlighten me?

You're right that nominees as such often aren't defined in law but rather in guidance notes by FSAs, whose enforceability as law may vary, although my understanding is they generally are equal to law unless struck down by a court. But if we're being pedantic, I absolutely should've included guidance notes in my earlier statement and it was an error of me not to.

UBO is defined, though, possibly making definition of nominees superfluous.

The term UBO is mentioned in some badly written regulations but nowhere in substantial laws. If you think about it this very UBO term is nonsensical, contradictory, or redundant at best.
For example: if I own a company directly (100% personal shareholding), I receive all the dividends and spend all the money on my preferred hooker, who does “ultimately” benefit more from my company? Is it myself or the hooker?

Unless you're being willfully ignorant and obstinate, the answer is crystal clear.

You are the UBO of the company.

Arguably, and in a separate transaction/context, the hooker is UBO of you.

This is different than, for example, something similar to the reverse. Suppose you run and control a business but appoint your preferred hooker as a nominee UBO: they are the sole shareholder and sole director of the company, having all control and benefit of the company on paper. When it's time for dividends, the hooker receives it all and gives all or most to you. In that context, you are the UBO still and should be stated as such for tax and reporting purposes.

 

[JohnnyDoe]

Unless you're being willfully ignorant and obstinate, the answer is crystal clear.

You are the UBO of the company.

Arguably, and in a separate transaction/context, the hooker is UBO of you.

The UBO of a UBO is the UBO of the initial entity.
In court, we would be talking of shareholding, trust and sham, not UBO.

This is different than, for example, something similar to the reverse. Suppose you run and control a business but appoint your preferred hooker as a nominee UBO: they are the sole shareholder and sole director of the company, having all control and benefit of the company on paper. When it's time for dividends, the hooker receives it all and gives all or most to you. In that context, you are the UBO still and should be stated as such for tax and reporting purposes.

That would be a trust arrangement, as far as the shareholder is concerned, whether it is a sham or not depending on many factors. No need to mention the term UBO.

A “nominee director” essentially doesn’t exist, and such arrangement doesn’t hold up in court: a nominee director is a director with all its duties and responsibilities before third parties, the company and the shareholder. In other words, a director cannot avoid responsibility by claiming to be following the instructions of the nominor.
English law “does not define or recognise nominee directors. In the eyes of the law, nominee directors are the same as any other director and owe the same duties to the company.” (Department for Business Innovation & Skills, Transparency & Trust: Enhancing the transparency of UK company ownership and increasing trust in UK business: Discussion Paper, July 2013, para 4.2)

This trust arrangement would need to be declared for tax purposes as such by myself as the beneficiary; and the trust will be subject to the applicable laws on trusts. So, again, no need to use the term UBO, unless its purpose is to oversimplify an otherwise well defined legal situation.

 

[tacokai]

You need to plan it carefully. I once meat with a guy from here that had a network running of such setups. It's insane and crazy what some people are doing and how they cross the boarders of the law to get on the 2 figures of million of dollars.

 

[uplana]

I read about it and think also to know who you talk about here. But please don't be confused, it is a not allowed activity with people that may cross the laws at several points. Careless they take advantage of innocent people for own benefit.

 

[lostguy]

I wonder if OP found possible solution?

 

[Dandyline]

Good Morning,

We're looking for a new provider of IBO, any countries.
We need 2/3 per month. No corp needed.
Only reliability of the IBO.

We work mostly with Stripe.

Only reputed members of this forum.
Any referrals are appreciated.


If you have anything that might helps us please DM us.

Regards,
Dr S

Stripe is not ideal for Sweepstakes. Btw, how are you migrating your subscribers from one banned Stripe acc to a new Stripe acc?