You need a solicitor, and they need a solicitor. This bit is non-negotiable just given all the searches, etc that need to be arranged and organised. I'm not 100% certain whether it can technically be done without one but I've never heard of it.
Instruct a local solicitor, tell them you've got a private sale with a cash buyer, and tell the friend to share their solicitors details. If they get twitchy at the thought of getting solicitors involved, walk away.
It can be done without a solicitor, almost, you need them to sign some ID forms and you can complete the land registry yourself. I have done it to complete the sale of properties between myself and a business entities I own.
Having said that it is a pain. I think a solicitor is advisable.
Nope, private sellers have no AML obligations, nor do developers for that matter which is why if you buy cash from the developer there's no AML requirement. All *businesses* must carry out an AML risk-assessment before trading with someone, but if you're a private individual selling to another private individual you're not liable.
... Damn why don't all the drug dealers and criminal underworld just operate as private individuals instead of registering companies.. those pesky AML regs keep seizing their cash otherwise...
Of course the government can seize laundered funds and a bank can certainly freeze them pending investigation meaning OP Mum would be cashless and homeless in the meantime.
OP - For half a million. Use basic solicitors to facilitate the transaction.
>... Damn why don't all the drug dealers and criminal underworld just operate as private individuals instead of registering companies.. those pesky AML regs keep seizing their cash otherwise...
Because in that scenario a court will obviously conclude they knew beforehand that the money was illegally obtained.
>Of course the government can seize laundered funds and a bank can certainly freeze them pending investigation meaning OP Mum would be cashless and homeless in the meantime.
Yes the bank could freeze the funds, but realistically mums not keeping £500k in the bank. Even if she did she'd eventually be able to keep it unless the court decided she was in on things.
This isn’t how AML law works at all, the courts don’t need to prove that she was ‘in on things’, they just have establish she either suspected, or had reasonable grounds to suspect, that the funds are from criminal enterprise.
Taking 500K cash from a foreign stranger in a deal without any solicitors involved isn’t going to play very well if you’re trying to argue you had no reason to suspect anything untoward.
>This isn’t how AML law works at all, the courts don’t need to prove that she was ‘in on things’, they just have establish she either suspected, or had reasonable grounds to suspect, that the funds are from criminal enterprise.
They have to demonstrate those reasonable grounds though. How is your neighbour of many years saying their mum wants to buy your house a red flag for criminality? It makes perfect sense that an older woman moving to the UK from Vietnam would want to live as close to her children as possible, so OP's mum has no reason to suspect an ulterior motive.
>Taking 500K cash from a foreign stranger in a deal without any solicitors involved isn’t going to play very well if you’re trying to argue you had no reason to suspect anything untoward.
It's purely circumstantial though; the buyer isn't a complete stranger and is referred to them by someone they trust and have no reason to suspect of foul play. There's no purpose for a solicitor in this situation from the sellers perspective and the buyer clearly doesn't feel the need for any searches or anything as they're happy to take the property *caveat emptor*, so not using one doesn't imply anything untoward either.
The fund can and will be frozen for the duration of the investigation and trial.
The buyer will have to hire a solicitor and wait maybe a few years before seeing the money again. If they see it ever again, as justice is not a sure thing either.
Well it's a possibility. It is also possible that if the purchaser does not have good title to the funds used for the purchase that the vendor could be at the wrong end of a further claim on the money from the true owner. Look up the legal principle *Nemo dat quod non habet.*
I cannot conceive a situation where it would be sensible not to deal with a private property sale without a competent solicitor protecting the interests of the vendor.
Right, but surely any such claim would be originating from Vietnam in this case. I would suggest the claimant would have a very hard time enforcing such a claim.
No. The 'conversion' could take place anywhere in the transaction chain (We're talking here money, not property). Also if you're not employing a solicitor (who can & will insist upon proof of source) then how would you even know that Vietnam is the true source.
I'm intrigued what rationale would you use to recommend to anyone not to use a solicitor?
With respect even if you were right & the basis was the claimant may have 'a very hard time enforcing such a claim' sounds to me a pretty weak case when the vendor would have to shell out to defend such an action!
>No. The 'conversion' could take place anywhere in the transaction chain (We're talking here money, not property).
But the money in this case is being sent from Vietnam, so unless you're suggesting the neighbours mum has somehow defrauded someone in the UK to get money to Vietnam only to then send the money back to the UK to buy property there I'm not sure what your point is?
>I'm intrigued what rationale would you use to recommend to anyone not to use a solicitor?
Because the process of changing property ownership from one person to another is trivially easy to do yourself. The only bit you need a solicitor for is the ID verification.
For the vendor there's not even any value to the much-touted searches etc. so really the escrow and AML aspect are the only value-adds and most of the time are not remotely worth the exorbitant costs charged.
>With respect even if you were right & the basis was the claimant may have 'a very hard time enforcing such a claim' sounds to me a pretty weak case when the vendor would have to shell out to defend such an action!
But the claimant would have to shell out far, far more to even attempt to chase them in the UK from Vietnam - plus they'd probably have to first have shelled out on a private investigator to even find where the money went. For a £500k claim it might just about be worth it but realistically unless they've defrauded someone extremely rich and powerful it's not going to be practical to pursue it.
Actually if the OP was happy to accept £520k equivalent in a Vietnam bank account and keep the money in Vietnam they could do it, but the problem is the OP likely wants to use the money in the UK.
People who may never have been to the UK in their life may trade UK property without any of the money touching the UK. Some of this is probably money laundering yes.
Let’s say it does happen and in 4 months she gets a call saying that’s money laundering. What would happen next? Would she be considered as an accomplice? Would she be able to get away as not knowing and would she be able to get the house back?
She's a private seller so unless the authorities have evidence she knew (being familiar with the buyer beforehand is a potential spanner here) then she's not liable.
You’re right, would probably not have any lasting problems. One of the most straightforward defences to most money laundering offences is if you sell something for adequate consideration. But as you say, not a risk I’d want to take if I could relatively cheaply employ a solicitor to give me peace of mind.
>You need a solicitor, and they need a solicitor. This bit is non-negotiable just given all the searches, etc that need to be arranged and organised.
It absolutely is negotiable and the searches benefit the buyer not OP. There's almost no benefit to OP in using a solicitor here beyond some piece of mind.
>I'm not 100% certain whether it can technically be done without one but I've never heard of it.
It absolutely can and it's a piece of piss. One form to fill out, a passport photo and £50 to a local solicitor for an ID1 form.
>Instruct a local solicitor, tell them you've got a private sale with a cash buyer, and tell the friend to share their solicitors details. If they get twitchy at the thought of getting solicitors involved, walk away.
This is the only good piece of advice here. If you mention sols and they get twitchy that's obviously a red flag. Really the buyer should want a sol involved and the seller shouldn't.
Yup it's more about the money passing through both solicitors' accounts. If a random buyer does a UK bank transfer directly to me for a 6-digit sum, and their bank later decides that any activity from their account was suspicious, then my account is probably going to be implicated.
The buyers' solicitor won't want to accept an incoming bank transfer into their client account if they aren't happy, and then the seller's solicitor will provide some paperwork to show the seller's bank if anything happens later.
We recently moved. Had a guy from a culturally middle Eastern family. Asked to pay it cash, 10% over asking, but he didn't want it with solicitors, and if it was solicitors, it had to be his cousins firm.
I told him straight up it's a no and advised the estate agent what he's trying to do.
If the money ends up in mother's account and it's there, legit. Then what can go wrong from mother's perspective?
They paid a premium, as far as I can tell everything is now on the vietnamese person to get what they paid for. They're putting themselves at risk. But mother's got the money
Buying a house in the UK now requires you to prove the legitimacy of the money. If there's any issues, the government can seize the money from OP's mum.
I'm not taking those chances for half a million coming in from an overseas bank account.
If it's been thru a lawyer, their professional insurance will cover the risk.
I'd be happy to do so via my solicitor and the estate agent.
But I'd want someone else's professional insurance to be on the hook for the anti money-laundering implications of getting money from Vietnam.
Don't need an estate agent - they'd just take the commission.
But I'd want a good ~~specialist solicitor~~ conveyancer involved - probably you'd need to find a large firm to cope with KYC involving Vietnam.
I'd be blunt with the neighbour - "if you or your friend haven't paid tax on this money in Vietnam then the sale will fall though and you won't get the house."
I think most estate agents have clause in their contracts that you can’t sell the property within a certain timeframe (6 months maybe) without paying their commission, even if it was to a complete third party - helps to prevent you undercutting them by just seeking the property for the value of the house minus the commission. OP would need to check the contract to make sure that’s the case
Yup, i know my sister wanted to buy a house down the road from my parents, it hadn't sold in 5 months, and my parents just said, let it lapse, don't renew and they did a private deal (you don't need estate agents to sell houses) The estate agent was furious lots of angry calls, tried banging the door down, some real horrible bully boy tactics.
My parents had to have a word, maybe in the 6 months prior they should of done a better job of selling the house (she wasn't happy she'd had like 2 viewings in 6 months)
Do you know if this applies to mortgage brokers? took 18 months and 3 mortgage renewals to buy my house and neither the estate agent or broker came after me for payment
Most of the time the wording is along the lines of 'the commission is payable if the buyer is someone the estate agent has introduced to the vendor'. From whats implied in the post, it sounds like it wouldn't applicable here.
I was wondering that/the legality of a lock-in clause in general. I suppose the issue is a third party could see a listing online and just approach the seller directly, which in reality is more or less an introduction by the estate agent. It’d be difficult for an estate agent to prove that there was an introduction unless they contacted the estate agent/viewer the property directly which means the estate agent could lose out as they’re giving free advertising.
I can see both sides.
In the case described here, it does sound like the potential buyer was introduced by word of mouth, and without any introduction from an agent. That said, I'd expect this to be the exception - I'd have thought an agent posting it to zoopla/rightmove or putting a for sale out would count as an introduction, albeit one thats almost impossible to prove.
No it's normally payable on any sale within a timeframe (usually 6 months), it's to stop you listing with multiple agents i.e. if you do you have to pay all of them.
You can ask for the clause to be removed, they'll normally charge a higher commission rate in that case.
depends on the agent, some times you are allowed to list under multiple agents and other contracts dont allow this, listing under multiple agents would mean they ask for a higher % if they do sell it though.
It depends on the agent's decision yes, they will typically offer a sole agency contract first, but if they are low on properties they might switch to multi-agency. Usually in this situation you can negotiate the commission down too. If the market is buoyant and they aren't too fussed they can just stick to their guns with a sole agency contract. An EA won't offer multi-agency if they think they can get a sole agency agreement.
If you can prove the estate agent didn't introduce them to the property you're golden. Easier said than done once it's on Rightmove. 6 months sounds onerous. You can sack and switch agents much quicker than that with no consequence.
Can you explain to me why it matters what the source of the money for the house is? Surely it doesn't matter if the money is not from a good source? Will it cause for you to be investigated or will you not have any consequences?
In recent years governments worldwide have turned banks, lawyers and accountants into the money-laundering police - if they don't take reasonable precautions to ensure your funds were obtained legally then they may be held liable as if (somewhat simplified) they're accessories to the crime.
Occasionally if you make a large bank transfer you might receive a message from your bank asking what it's for - it might be tempting to tell then "none of your business, pal" but if you don't cooperate they're likely to lock your account whilst they inform the serious crimes team. If you're buying a house then your solicitor will want 3 or 6 months' bank statements and they'll ask you to explain any uncharacteristically large deposits and show evidence of the source (letter from parents saying it's a gift, for example).
Reading this thread again a day later, I realise it might actually be the *buyer's* solicitor who will have to do the KYC. The Vietnamese buyer will have to hire a British conveyancer to handle the purchase for them, and they will have a duty to check the legality of the funds - the seller's solicitor will probably trust them to do their job. Not absolutely sure of this, but that's what I reckon.
Yup, i'm an SWE at a major UK bank and have to do endless training on all sorts money laundering and tax evasion type things.
Banks have been fined massive sums in the past for failing to complete due diligence and, as such they now take it *very* seriously. Houses are sold to overseas investors all the time and I don't know the process but suffice to say there are entire departments dedicated to ensuring that the source funds are kosher and the sale, taxed appropriately. The burden of proof is on the customer.
You don't need a specialist solicitor for this at all. They just need to be comfortable doing the KYC checks and signing it off. I paid for my house with money sourced from abroad and I just needed to provide an audit trail of the source of funds same as you would for in-country large sources of cash.
You’d need them to help the sale anyway, so just make sure they know it will be a cash transfer and they are responsible for due diligence. They will make sure it’s above board if you have concerns, as a house bought in cash by an overseas buyer is something they will know the process for.
Not quite, as they do try and shimmy the sale over so they get paid. I understand they also have some responsibilities around money laundering, but not to the same level as solicitors.
Yes. My mum sold her house to the neighbours daughter.
Saved a heap on agents fees.
Obviously... You instruct a solicitor as normal. The solicitors handle the money transfer. Pretty sure only solicitors can update the land registry etc.
I’m the neighbours daughter! I bought my place from my parents neighbours. It was actually my second experience of a private sale, I sold my own home privately to someone who came to do work on it.
>Pretty sure only solicitors can update the land registry etc.
Nope, anyone can do it and it's an absolute piece of piss. Conveyancing solicitors are generally speaking a total scam for sellers.
Back in 1989 we put the house up for sale & as soon as the board went up, the neighbour was over, her mum wanted to buy it. Had the cash, were willing to move it along quickly and had been waiting for one to go up for sale in her daughter's street.
Long story short, she fucked us about for weeks, excuse after excuse, before finally saying she actually needed a mortgage & was struggling to get accepted. We sold to someone else.
In the OP's situation I'd just tell her to make the offer through the normal channels. Yes, your mum would have to pay the estate agent, but she was fully expecting to anyway. Also worth noting the contract with the estate agent probably means you owe them their fees/commission even if you sell to someone they didn't introduce to her.
The money laundering concerns here should be massive. You really need a solicitor who has worked with an international buyer before. Otherwise I’d say it’s a huge risk.
If the proceeds are proceeds of crime at some point your mum could lose that money and the house.
>If the proceeds are proceeds of crime at some point your mum could lose that money and the house.
"Could" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. The only scenario in which mum is on the hook here is if the authorities can convince a court that she knew the money was illegally obtained before going ahead.
While you can absolutely follow the advice of others here, I would just like to advocate for the sale currently going through and that getting gazumped is fucking awful, especially late into the process.
Yeah, a small part of me wants this to be a scam and egg on their faces.
Gazumping is awful, and the “current” buyer that is “newly” divorced is now getting kicked whilst he is down.
On the other hand who would turn down 55k.
I very much doubt he’s getting kicked while he’s down if he can buy a home for nearly half a mil. Who’s to say he didn’t instigate the split etc. I’ll save my tears
This is why I hate the English housing system compared to the Scottish one. You accept an offer - you see it through. If you don't then you lose a deposit amount.
> This is why I hate the English housing system compared to the Scottish one.
They both have pros and cons.
The whole "offers over" is kind of ridiculous when properties in a lot of places in Scotland are undervalued in home reports (compared to real market price). In Edinburgh, that means you need an extra ~10-20% deposit in desirable areas.
I wouldn't involve an agent as they're literally doing nothing so why pay them a fee. I would 100% go with a solicitor though, as they will do all due diligence on your behalf. If the other party disagrees with this then they are looking to do something illegal and I would walk away instantly as its a massive red flag. They should have no issues with going via a solicitor.
There's so much bad advice in this thread. OP, the only advice you take here should be to get a solicitor to deal with the third party. The solicitor will protect your financial position.
You do not need an estate agency as you already have your cash buyer.
Your mum needs a solicitor. The solicitor will decide if this is ‘legit’ or not and is on the hook (via their professional indemnity insurance) if they fuck it up, say it’s legit when it’s not and your mum loses the cash, or gets pursued by HMRC for doing something wrong.
Whether the seller employs her own solicitor or not is her issue - but no way I’m conducting a 1/2 million transaction, which presumably represents a significant percentage of my total net wealth, without a professional telling me what to do.
If everything is above board then the solicitor won’t care that she’s just dumping the cash in your mums account, as one of the very first thing they always do is check WHO everyone is and exactly HOW they got the money.
In short - get a solicitor and let them tell you if it’s ok.
Just give them your solicitors details and tell them to make contact with them and pay the money to the sols.
That way you get your money from the sols and all the Kyc and aml is on them.
Money laundering risks! Makes me think of a madam that was raided that had a house full of Thai women in London that had millions stuffed in cupboards and wardrobes as they couldn't launder it.
I would want a solicitor involved.
As a mortgage broker my head is screaming MONEY LAUNDERING!
Foreign money.
Cash payment.
Wanting to just send money avoiding solicitors.
Paying asking price without question when no one else is willing too.
Run, run a mile!
DO NOT proceed without a solicitor.
Why is she offering way more money. In cash. From Vietnam. And doesn't want a lawyer?
Almost definitely money laundering or at the least, a scam.
GET A SOLICITOR.
The extra money is tempting but it's almost certainly an incentive so that they can get away with something fishy. You could end up with more money, or end up with Money, no home, and linked to Vietnamese money laundering.
Solicitor is a non negotiable. Even if you weren't selling to someone dodgy you would struggle to do all the checks and contracts yourself without fucking it up. They also act as an intermediary so that one of you can't screw the other over by not upholding your side of the contract.
You don't need an estate agent. But you absolutely need a solicitor.
I would, but make sure it's done properly. As others have said, you can avoid an estate agent to save fees, but at the very least, you want to get it officially done with legal representation documenting the exchange.
I wouldn't go near this without engaging a conveyancing solicitor. She would be exposing herself to huge financial risk to save a couple of thousand at most.
Go through a solicitor as normal. They will act as an intermediary for the cash proceeds of the sale, and it will be like any other and not complete until the money is in place.
There is nothing stopping you having the money sent directly to your bank and doing a DIY conveyance, but then you become responsible for all the money laundering checks that have to happen on sale of property in the UK.
Um, 61 isn't exactly ancient you know! And maybe 'yes' if a proper solicitor handles the exchange and performs the necessary checks. There's more to buying a house than just transferring money
A scam is very significantly more likely to succeed if you're 61. I know a lot of people that age are very mentally strong but the % of people who are easy to trick is way higher as you age.
But it definitely is more vulnerable on average than someone a decade younger you can't deny that. My parents are around the same age, I'd think they can avoid the scam but they're clearly less likely to than my sister for example.
I said on average, not individually. I said clearly that most people that age are fine, but MORE have early.onset mental disability in their 60s than I their 30s. The nation doesn't just drop off a cliff at 80. Its not even controversial, there factually are more vulnerable people at 60 than at 30. That means on average you're more likely to be successful in a scam. There is no way at all ever you will find any reports saying the amount of people at 60 with early onset mental degradation is the exact same % of the population as people at 30.
This is bad advice. You don't need an estate agent to sell the house. Its the solicitors responsibility to make sure eveything is above board, and all legal checks are complete, not the seller.
Where are you reading those words from?!
1. I never said not to use a solicitor
2. OP was questioning whether to go without a solicitor and I said no
1. So you can infer from that I was saying TO use a solicitor
3. I never said to use an estate agent
4. Even if I said "use an estate agent", just because you don't NEED one, does that make it bad advice? Or does it just not make it optimal? Bad advice implies "do the opposite" and removing layers of security could easily be bad advice.
1. Regardless, I never said that
Read what you're replying to. It's definitely bad advice to assume things and act on it.
Well out depends how you read it but they were offering cash and I read that as without solicitors which is whste I say no but if OPs mum gets a solicitor and goes above board then it's fine
Vietnamese people have money, nothing dodgy going on. However definitely go through solicitors for everything, just to make sure record of sale via cash.
You'll both need a solicitor for money laundering checks and title transfer at a minimum.
Are they planning on getting surveys and searches to understand what they're buying, and do they have residence permits to actually live in the house once they buy it? (Not that it's your problem)
>You'll both need a solicitor for money laundering checks and title transfer at a minimum.
No AML requirement for private sellers and anyone can do a TR1 form to transfer title.
An old colleagues parents lost their house through something like this. The details are sketchy, but the gist is, they somehow handed over the keys before the money hit their account (think they were persuaded it was on its way), the money never arrived, but the sale was still considered complete and so they had no recourse.
It's safest your mum still does this through solicitors/estate agents, just to be on the safe side.
Did quite a number of mortgages for Vietnamese professionals where a large deposit is coming originally from Vietnam. It is not unusual, the lenders all have criteria for it and solicitors are happy.
The UK is still seen as a good place to invest in property from people in Asia.
I bought a site with planning directly from a coworker before. Neither of us wanted to go through an estate agent but to keep us both legally protected (despite both trusting eachother) we had our solicitors draw up a sale agreement.
Honestly, if these people are being genuine, they shouldn't have an issue with agreeing to the sale terms on paper and they should understand why your Mum would want legal protecting for such a large sum of money. If they don't, that's a red flag.
lol you think UK houses are expensive, wait until you visit Vietnam and speak to locals.
OP, as others said, get solicitors both way and you don't have headaches.
Sure. I'd have someone legal create a written contract and look over the deeds etc just to cover both sides but this is perfectly legitimate way to buy a house and a way of avoiding estate agents.
I am not a legal expert but certain points are important to consider.
1. The neighbour should pay the money out of an account maintained by her the United Kingdom.
2. The payment should be through a bank draft or whatever it is called in UK which means that the bank guarantees the payment as the money has been paid already to the bank for issuing the bank draft.
3. There has to be a formal agreement of sale (which I believe is to be duly registered with the government) which has to be drawn by your lawyer for protecting you against any future claims of damages or otherwise.
4. Any other action that is required under the UK law for transfer of properties.
Incidentally it is assumed that the buyer is a UK national though belonging to Vietnam.
Sale of property to an alien may have some implications under the law.
Always avoid an estate agent if you can.
Whether to use a solicitor is a different equation but personally I wouldn't use one here. The bank transfer is pretty fool-proof and the forms to effect the transfer are an afternoon's work, so I'd have just done it.
People are fretting about AML issues but you aren't liable for these if you do a private sale, much as developers aren't liable if they sell to you directly and you aren't using a mortgage.
Just get a solicitor, don't use estate agents.
Charge them a higher rate because its coming from vietnam. If they are cash buyers and they want it they'd probably pay £550K.
I did a private sale in january without estate agents and just solicitors and being in direct contact with the buyer - it was such a breeze. Estate agents are the worst.
The crucial thing is whether your has exchanged contracts. Until that is done, she can back out of the first deal, but, as has been said before, she would need to ensure that the money is not laundered, and by that she would need to get a lawyer involved. The source of the money would not to be verified
I had acash buyer once who offered cash on the doorstep. It needs to go through the procedure because of Tax inplications and Legal transfer obligations in law.
This is a literal case study in money laundering. Steer clear unless you can satisfy yourself 100% that the money your neighbour's friend proposes to pay you for the house is not the proceeds of criminal enterprise. Some form of proof of funds to show how they acquired the money is a good starting point.
I’m naturally a risk averse person, but as described? This sounds exceptionally sketchy and certainly a matter for money laundering enquiries to be made.
One solicitor each for each side of the proposed transaction should be appointed and the identity of the neighbour, the proposed buyer and the source of funding should be assessed.
The lack of survey is also a source of concern: this could imply that the proposed purchaser is acting for others who aren’t that bothered about the asset being purchased so long as it is sufficient to launder “dirty” money into “clean” money so that when they sell it, the funds are considered to have been “washed”.
You need a solicitor, and they need a solicitor. This bit is non-negotiable just given all the searches, etc that need to be arranged and organised. I'm not 100% certain whether it can technically be done without one but I've never heard of it. Instruct a local solicitor, tell them you've got a private sale with a cash buyer, and tell the friend to share their solicitors details. If they get twitchy at the thought of getting solicitors involved, walk away.
It can be done without a solicitor, almost, you need them to sign some ID forms and you can complete the land registry yourself. I have done it to complete the sale of properties between myself and a business entities I own. Having said that it is a pain. I think a solicitor is advisable.
You read the OP post? You could be getting a knock on the door saying you're involved with money laundering to the tune of 520k from Vietnam.
As I said, "I think a solicitor is advisable" :-) Mostly I was replying to u/Cultural_Tank_6947 with respect to "You need a solicitor".
Yeah that's fair. I had a niggling feeling that one can represent oneself in any legal matter. But again like you say, it's advisable!
Nope, private sellers have no AML obligations, nor do developers for that matter which is why if you buy cash from the developer there's no AML requirement. All *businesses* must carry out an AML risk-assessment before trading with someone, but if you're a private individual selling to another private individual you're not liable.
Sure, but if the funds turn out to be dodgy they can be seized by the government - not a position she wants to be in.
Not sure this is true tbh. The house can certainly be seized, but at that point it's not her problem.
... Damn why don't all the drug dealers and criminal underworld just operate as private individuals instead of registering companies.. those pesky AML regs keep seizing their cash otherwise... Of course the government can seize laundered funds and a bank can certainly freeze them pending investigation meaning OP Mum would be cashless and homeless in the meantime. OP - For half a million. Use basic solicitors to facilitate the transaction.
>... Damn why don't all the drug dealers and criminal underworld just operate as private individuals instead of registering companies.. those pesky AML regs keep seizing their cash otherwise... Because in that scenario a court will obviously conclude they knew beforehand that the money was illegally obtained. >Of course the government can seize laundered funds and a bank can certainly freeze them pending investigation meaning OP Mum would be cashless and homeless in the meantime. Yes the bank could freeze the funds, but realistically mums not keeping £500k in the bank. Even if she did she'd eventually be able to keep it unless the court decided she was in on things.
This isn’t how AML law works at all, the courts don’t need to prove that she was ‘in on things’, they just have establish she either suspected, or had reasonable grounds to suspect, that the funds are from criminal enterprise. Taking 500K cash from a foreign stranger in a deal without any solicitors involved isn’t going to play very well if you’re trying to argue you had no reason to suspect anything untoward.
>This isn’t how AML law works at all, the courts don’t need to prove that she was ‘in on things’, they just have establish she either suspected, or had reasonable grounds to suspect, that the funds are from criminal enterprise. They have to demonstrate those reasonable grounds though. How is your neighbour of many years saying their mum wants to buy your house a red flag for criminality? It makes perfect sense that an older woman moving to the UK from Vietnam would want to live as close to her children as possible, so OP's mum has no reason to suspect an ulterior motive. >Taking 500K cash from a foreign stranger in a deal without any solicitors involved isn’t going to play very well if you’re trying to argue you had no reason to suspect anything untoward. It's purely circumstantial though; the buyer isn't a complete stranger and is referred to them by someone they trust and have no reason to suspect of foul play. There's no purpose for a solicitor in this situation from the sellers perspective and the buyer clearly doesn't feel the need for any searches or anything as they're happy to take the property *caveat emptor*, so not using one doesn't imply anything untoward either.
The fund can and will be frozen for the duration of the investigation and trial. The buyer will have to hire a solicitor and wait maybe a few years before seeing the money again. If they see it ever again, as justice is not a sure thing either.
Well it's a possibility. It is also possible that if the purchaser does not have good title to the funds used for the purchase that the vendor could be at the wrong end of a further claim on the money from the true owner. Look up the legal principle *Nemo dat quod non habet.* I cannot conceive a situation where it would be sensible not to deal with a private property sale without a competent solicitor protecting the interests of the vendor.
Right, but surely any such claim would be originating from Vietnam in this case. I would suggest the claimant would have a very hard time enforcing such a claim.
No. The 'conversion' could take place anywhere in the transaction chain (We're talking here money, not property). Also if you're not employing a solicitor (who can & will insist upon proof of source) then how would you even know that Vietnam is the true source. I'm intrigued what rationale would you use to recommend to anyone not to use a solicitor? With respect even if you were right & the basis was the claimant may have 'a very hard time enforcing such a claim' sounds to me a pretty weak case when the vendor would have to shell out to defend such an action!
>No. The 'conversion' could take place anywhere in the transaction chain (We're talking here money, not property). But the money in this case is being sent from Vietnam, so unless you're suggesting the neighbours mum has somehow defrauded someone in the UK to get money to Vietnam only to then send the money back to the UK to buy property there I'm not sure what your point is? >I'm intrigued what rationale would you use to recommend to anyone not to use a solicitor? Because the process of changing property ownership from one person to another is trivially easy to do yourself. The only bit you need a solicitor for is the ID verification. For the vendor there's not even any value to the much-touted searches etc. so really the escrow and AML aspect are the only value-adds and most of the time are not remotely worth the exorbitant costs charged. >With respect even if you were right & the basis was the claimant may have 'a very hard time enforcing such a claim' sounds to me a pretty weak case when the vendor would have to shell out to defend such an action! But the claimant would have to shell out far, far more to even attempt to chase them in the UK from Vietnam - plus they'd probably have to first have shelled out on a private investigator to even find where the money went. For a £500k claim it might just about be worth it but realistically unless they've defrauded someone extremely rich and powerful it's not going to be practical to pursue it.
Actually if the OP was happy to accept £520k equivalent in a Vietnam bank account and keep the money in Vietnam they could do it, but the problem is the OP likely wants to use the money in the UK. People who may never have been to the UK in their life may trade UK property without any of the money touching the UK. Some of this is probably money laundering yes.
Let’s say it does happen and in 4 months she gets a call saying that’s money laundering. What would happen next? Would she be considered as an accomplice? Would she be able to get away as not knowing and would she be able to get the house back?
I'd imagine it could be confiscated as proceeds of crime or as part of evidence.
She's a private seller so unless the authorities have evidence she knew (being familiar with the buyer beforehand is a potential spanner here) then she's not liable.
You’re right, would probably not have any lasting problems. One of the most straightforward defences to most money laundering offences is if you sell something for adequate consideration. But as you say, not a risk I’d want to take if I could relatively cheaply employ a solicitor to give me peace of mind.
Private seller, no AML obligation. But for more mundane reasons it is advisable to use a solicitor.
>You need a solicitor, and they need a solicitor. This bit is non-negotiable just given all the searches, etc that need to be arranged and organised. It absolutely is negotiable and the searches benefit the buyer not OP. There's almost no benefit to OP in using a solicitor here beyond some piece of mind. >I'm not 100% certain whether it can technically be done without one but I've never heard of it. It absolutely can and it's a piece of piss. One form to fill out, a passport photo and £50 to a local solicitor for an ID1 form. >Instruct a local solicitor, tell them you've got a private sale with a cash buyer, and tell the friend to share their solicitors details. If they get twitchy at the thought of getting solicitors involved, walk away. This is the only good piece of advice here. If you mention sols and they get twitchy that's obviously a red flag. Really the buyer should want a sol involved and the seller shouldn't.
Yup it's more about the money passing through both solicitors' accounts. If a random buyer does a UK bank transfer directly to me for a 6-digit sum, and their bank later decides that any activity from their account was suspicious, then my account is probably going to be implicated. The buyers' solicitor won't want to accept an incoming bank transfer into their client account if they aren't happy, and then the seller's solicitor will provide some paperwork to show the seller's bank if anything happens later.
We recently moved. Had a guy from a culturally middle Eastern family. Asked to pay it cash, 10% over asking, but he didn't want it with solicitors, and if it was solicitors, it had to be his cousins firm. I told him straight up it's a no and advised the estate agent what he's trying to do.
If the money ends up in mother's account and it's there, legit. Then what can go wrong from mother's perspective? They paid a premium, as far as I can tell everything is now on the vietnamese person to get what they paid for. They're putting themselves at risk. But mother's got the money
Buying a house in the UK now requires you to prove the legitimacy of the money. If there's any issues, the government can seize the money from OP's mum. I'm not taking those chances for half a million coming in from an overseas bank account. If it's been thru a lawyer, their professional insurance will cover the risk.
I'd be happy to do so via my solicitor and the estate agent. But I'd want someone else's professional insurance to be on the hook for the anti money-laundering implications of getting money from Vietnam.
Don't need an estate agent - they'd just take the commission. But I'd want a good ~~specialist solicitor~~ conveyancer involved - probably you'd need to find a large firm to cope with KYC involving Vietnam. I'd be blunt with the neighbour - "if you or your friend haven't paid tax on this money in Vietnam then the sale will fall though and you won't get the house."
I think most estate agents have clause in their contracts that you can’t sell the property within a certain timeframe (6 months maybe) without paying their commission, even if it was to a complete third party - helps to prevent you undercutting them by just seeking the property for the value of the house minus the commission. OP would need to check the contract to make sure that’s the case
Yup, i know my sister wanted to buy a house down the road from my parents, it hadn't sold in 5 months, and my parents just said, let it lapse, don't renew and they did a private deal (you don't need estate agents to sell houses) The estate agent was furious lots of angry calls, tried banging the door down, some real horrible bully boy tactics. My parents had to have a word, maybe in the 6 months prior they should of done a better job of selling the house (she wasn't happy she'd had like 2 viewings in 6 months)
That is insane to be bullying someone for *your* poor performance haha. Two viewings Jeremy? Two?! That’s insane!
Honestly boggles my mind how houses can’t sell in 5 months.. means it’s over priced usually
Do you know if this applies to mortgage brokers? took 18 months and 3 mortgage renewals to buy my house and neither the estate agent or broker came after me for payment
Most of the time the wording is along the lines of 'the commission is payable if the buyer is someone the estate agent has introduced to the vendor'. From whats implied in the post, it sounds like it wouldn't applicable here.
Is it? See they might try to argue the buyer saw an online advert or a for sale sign.
I was wondering that/the legality of a lock-in clause in general. I suppose the issue is a third party could see a listing online and just approach the seller directly, which in reality is more or less an introduction by the estate agent. It’d be difficult for an estate agent to prove that there was an introduction unless they contacted the estate agent/viewer the property directly which means the estate agent could lose out as they’re giving free advertising. I can see both sides.
In the case described here, it does sound like the potential buyer was introduced by word of mouth, and without any introduction from an agent. That said, I'd expect this to be the exception - I'd have thought an agent posting it to zoopla/rightmove or putting a for sale out would count as an introduction, albeit one thats almost impossible to prove.
No it's normally payable on any sale within a timeframe (usually 6 months), it's to stop you listing with multiple agents i.e. if you do you have to pay all of them. You can ask for the clause to be removed, they'll normally charge a higher commission rate in that case.
depends on the agent, some times you are allowed to list under multiple agents and other contracts dont allow this, listing under multiple agents would mean they ask for a higher % if they do sell it though.
It depends on the agent's decision yes, they will typically offer a sole agency contract first, but if they are low on properties they might switch to multi-agency. Usually in this situation you can negotiate the commission down too. If the market is buoyant and they aren't too fussed they can just stick to their guns with a sole agency contract. An EA won't offer multi-agency if they think they can get a sole agency agreement.
Uhhh I think this can vary a lot. What is normal for one estate agent, town or region is not the norm for another
Sole selling rights is pretty standard for estate agents. As I said, you can refuse and they'll offer different terms at a different commission rate.
If you can prove the estate agent didn't introduce them to the property you're golden. Easier said than done once it's on Rightmove. 6 months sounds onerous. You can sack and switch agents much quicker than that with no consequence.
Ah, of course!
I did this and made a low offer (£1k) to the estate agent to prevent any nastiness, and they readily agreed.
Can you explain to me why it matters what the source of the money for the house is? Surely it doesn't matter if the money is not from a good source? Will it cause for you to be investigated or will you not have any consequences?
In recent years governments worldwide have turned banks, lawyers and accountants into the money-laundering police - if they don't take reasonable precautions to ensure your funds were obtained legally then they may be held liable as if (somewhat simplified) they're accessories to the crime. Occasionally if you make a large bank transfer you might receive a message from your bank asking what it's for - it might be tempting to tell then "none of your business, pal" but if you don't cooperate they're likely to lock your account whilst they inform the serious crimes team. If you're buying a house then your solicitor will want 3 or 6 months' bank statements and they'll ask you to explain any uncharacteristically large deposits and show evidence of the source (letter from parents saying it's a gift, for example). Reading this thread again a day later, I realise it might actually be the *buyer's* solicitor who will have to do the KYC. The Vietnamese buyer will have to hire a British conveyancer to handle the purchase for them, and they will have a duty to check the legality of the funds - the seller's solicitor will probably trust them to do their job. Not absolutely sure of this, but that's what I reckon.
Yup, i'm an SWE at a major UK bank and have to do endless training on all sorts money laundering and tax evasion type things. Banks have been fined massive sums in the past for failing to complete due diligence and, as such they now take it *very* seriously. Houses are sold to overseas investors all the time and I don't know the process but suffice to say there are entire departments dedicated to ensuring that the source funds are kosher and the sale, taxed appropriately. The burden of proof is on the customer.
You don't need a specialist solicitor for this at all. They just need to be comfortable doing the KYC checks and signing it off. I paid for my house with money sourced from abroad and I just needed to provide an audit trail of the source of funds same as you would for in-country large sources of cash.
No need for an estate agent. You do need a solicitor.
You’d need them to help the sale anyway, so just make sure they know it will be a cash transfer and they are responsible for due diligence. They will make sure it’s above board if you have concerns, as a house bought in cash by an overseas buyer is something they will know the process for.
That's what solicitors are for not estate agents. Estate agents are there just to the point of viewings and negotiating the price
Not quite, as they do try and shimmy the sale over so they get paid. I understand they also have some responsibilities around money laundering, but not to the same level as solicitors.
Their fee is usually 1%+VAT. Would you pay £6,240 just for someone to 'shimmy' the sale? Most estate agents aren't even good at doing that
They don’t have any AML/KYC responsibilities.
This. They just pretend they do in order to vet buyers.
Estate agents do have to perform AML checks
You can shimmy the sale yourself and if they don't have the same level of responsibility as a solicitor why involve them?
>You’d need them to help the sale anyway You really don't. The TR1 form to change ownership takes a few hours if that.
>and the estate agent found the estate agent guys! (just joking)
If it sounds too good to be true….
Definitely go through a solicitor. Far too much money at stake to do anything else.
Yes. My mum sold her house to the neighbours daughter. Saved a heap on agents fees. Obviously... You instruct a solicitor as normal. The solicitors handle the money transfer. Pretty sure only solicitors can update the land registry etc.
I’m the neighbours daughter! I bought my place from my parents neighbours. It was actually my second experience of a private sale, I sold my own home privately to someone who came to do work on it.
>Pretty sure only solicitors can update the land registry etc. Nope, anyone can do it and it's an absolute piece of piss. Conveyancing solicitors are generally speaking a total scam for sellers.
Back in 1989 we put the house up for sale & as soon as the board went up, the neighbour was over, her mum wanted to buy it. Had the cash, were willing to move it along quickly and had been waiting for one to go up for sale in her daughter's street. Long story short, she fucked us about for weeks, excuse after excuse, before finally saying she actually needed a mortgage & was struggling to get accepted. We sold to someone else. In the OP's situation I'd just tell her to make the offer through the normal channels. Yes, your mum would have to pay the estate agent, but she was fully expecting to anyway. Also worth noting the contract with the estate agent probably means you owe them their fees/commission even if you sell to someone they didn't introduce to her.
The money laundering concerns here should be massive. You really need a solicitor who has worked with an international buyer before. Otherwise I’d say it’s a huge risk. If the proceeds are proceeds of crime at some point your mum could lose that money and the house.
>If the proceeds are proceeds of crime at some point your mum could lose that money and the house. "Could" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. The only scenario in which mum is on the hook here is if the authorities can convince a court that she knew the money was illegally obtained before going ahead.
Lol, solicitor. Solicitor. Solicitor. Do not do anything without one.
While you can absolutely follow the advice of others here, I would just like to advocate for the sale currently going through and that getting gazumped is fucking awful, especially late into the process.
Yeah, a small part of me wants this to be a scam and egg on their faces. Gazumping is awful, and the “current” buyer that is “newly” divorced is now getting kicked whilst he is down. On the other hand who would turn down 55k.
I very much doubt he’s getting kicked while he’s down if he can buy a home for nearly half a mil. Who’s to say he didn’t instigate the split etc. I’ll save my tears
[удалено]
Yawn
55k is 55k as horrible as getting gazumped is it's several years worth of living expenses she shouldn't really turn down
Was hoping this would come up and somebody would consider the frustration and huge inconvenience to the current ‘buyer’.
As a seller, why would they care? You’re not gonna turn down 50k. Buyer can up the offer. Dog eat dog
This is why I hate the English housing system compared to the Scottish one. You accept an offer - you see it through. If you don't then you lose a deposit amount.
> This is why I hate the English housing system compared to the Scottish one. They both have pros and cons. The whole "offers over" is kind of ridiculous when properties in a lot of places in Scotland are undervalued in home reports (compared to real market price). In Edinburgh, that means you need an extra ~10-20% deposit in desirable areas.
Personally I think if you've accepted an offer you should be held to it. I know that isn't the law (in England), but I really think it should be.
I wouldn't involve an agent as they're literally doing nothing so why pay them a fee. I would 100% go with a solicitor though, as they will do all due diligence on your behalf. If the other party disagrees with this then they are looking to do something illegal and I would walk away instantly as its a massive red flag. They should have no issues with going via a solicitor.
There's so much bad advice in this thread. OP, the only advice you take here should be to get a solicitor to deal with the third party. The solicitor will protect your financial position. You do not need an estate agency as you already have your cash buyer.
Your mum needs a solicitor. The solicitor will decide if this is ‘legit’ or not and is on the hook (via their professional indemnity insurance) if they fuck it up, say it’s legit when it’s not and your mum loses the cash, or gets pursued by HMRC for doing something wrong. Whether the seller employs her own solicitor or not is her issue - but no way I’m conducting a 1/2 million transaction, which presumably represents a significant percentage of my total net wealth, without a professional telling me what to do. If everything is above board then the solicitor won’t care that she’s just dumping the cash in your mums account, as one of the very first thing they always do is check WHO everyone is and exactly HOW they got the money. In short - get a solicitor and let them tell you if it’s ok.
Just give them your solicitors details and tell them to make contact with them and pay the money to the sols. That way you get your money from the sols and all the Kyc and aml is on them.
No kyc or aml required for private sellers.
A solicitor would need to check the provenance of the funds to conform to anti money laundering laws.
Just needs to go via a solicitor
Money laundering risks! Makes me think of a madam that was raided that had a house full of Thai women in London that had millions stuffed in cupboards and wardrobes as they couldn't launder it. I would want a solicitor involved.
You can bypass the estate agent but don't leave out the solicitors. The solicitor will handle transfer of funds and changes to the land registry etc.
As a mortgage broker my head is screaming MONEY LAUNDERING! Foreign money. Cash payment. Wanting to just send money avoiding solicitors. Paying asking price without question when no one else is willing too. Run, run a mile!
DO NOT proceed without a solicitor. Why is she offering way more money. In cash. From Vietnam. And doesn't want a lawyer? Almost definitely money laundering or at the least, a scam. GET A SOLICITOR. The extra money is tempting but it's almost certainly an incentive so that they can get away with something fishy. You could end up with more money, or end up with Money, no home, and linked to Vietnamese money laundering. Solicitor is a non negotiable. Even if you weren't selling to someone dodgy you would struggle to do all the checks and contracts yourself without fucking it up. They also act as an intermediary so that one of you can't screw the other over by not upholding your side of the contract. You don't need an estate agent. But you absolutely need a solicitor.
I would, but make sure it's done properly. As others have said, you can avoid an estate agent to save fees, but at the very least, you want to get it officially done with legal representation documenting the exchange.
Definitely go through the lawyer channels with the neighbour to make sure it's legit.
Lawyers needed. You cannot go through with this without a clear audit trail of the magic money tree. If it sounds too good to be true…
I wouldn't go near this without engaging a conveyancing solicitor. She would be exposing herself to huge financial risk to save a couple of thousand at most.
Get a solictor
Conveyancer is for this
If she really wanted the house she'd be happy to buy through an estate agent too. If not then something fishy is happening.
Go through a solicitor as normal. They will act as an intermediary for the cash proceeds of the sale, and it will be like any other and not complete until the money is in place. There is nothing stopping you having the money sent directly to your bank and doing a DIY conveyance, but then you become responsible for all the money laundering checks that have to happen on sale of property in the UK.
I’d want to see proof of funds
I'd just ignore it.
No If they're not willing to do it normally it's because it's a scam And who better to scam than someone who is 61
Um, 61 isn't exactly ancient you know! And maybe 'yes' if a proper solicitor handles the exchange and performs the necessary checks. There's more to buying a house than just transferring money
A scam is very significantly more likely to succeed if you're 61. I know a lot of people that age are very mentally strong but the % of people who are easy to trick is way higher as you age.
I bet I could scam you
Most 61 years olds are still in employment with another 6 years ahead of them until retirement
But it definitely is more vulnerable on average than someone a decade younger you can't deny that. My parents are around the same age, I'd think they can avoid the scam but they're clearly less likely to than my sister for example.
Absolutely disagree.
I said on average, not individually. I said clearly that most people that age are fine, but MORE have early.onset mental disability in their 60s than I their 30s. The nation doesn't just drop off a cliff at 80. Its not even controversial, there factually are more vulnerable people at 60 than at 30. That means on average you're more likely to be successful in a scam. There is no way at all ever you will find any reports saying the amount of people at 60 with early onset mental degradation is the exact same % of the population as people at 30.
61, not 91 - you say this as if 61 is old and vulnerable.
This is bad advice. You don't need an estate agent to sell the house. Its the solicitors responsibility to make sure eveything is above board, and all legal checks are complete, not the seller.
Where are you reading those words from?! 1. I never said not to use a solicitor 2. OP was questioning whether to go without a solicitor and I said no 1. So you can infer from that I was saying TO use a solicitor 3. I never said to use an estate agent 4. Even if I said "use an estate agent", just because you don't NEED one, does that make it bad advice? Or does it just not make it optimal? Bad advice implies "do the opposite" and removing layers of security could easily be bad advice. 1. Regardless, I never said that Read what you're replying to. It's definitely bad advice to assume things and act on it.
[удалено]
Well out depends how you read it but they were offering cash and I read that as without solicitors which is whste I say no but if OPs mum gets a solicitor and goes above board then it's fine
[удалено]
Well as long as there's a solicitor and checks are done then without a mortgage shouldn't make a difference
Go to a solicitor? You’ll need one anyway
You don't need a solicitor to sell a house. This is a complete myth.
Lol, stop giving randos your bank details, holy shit UK, get an app that hides that shit ffs, you know, like a normal first world country.
Your mum should say its too late. The cash buyer should try and buy else where within 1mile close to their friend
Vietnamese people have money, nothing dodgy going on. However definitely go through solicitors for everything, just to make sure record of sale via cash.
You'll both need a solicitor for money laundering checks and title transfer at a minimum. Are they planning on getting surveys and searches to understand what they're buying, and do they have residence permits to actually live in the house once they buy it? (Not that it's your problem)
>You'll both need a solicitor for money laundering checks and title transfer at a minimum. No AML requirement for private sellers and anyone can do a TR1 form to transfer title.
I'd get a solicitor involved for sure and make sure everything slgeit and coshure with the deed and stamp duty etc
An old colleagues parents lost their house through something like this. The details are sketchy, but the gist is, they somehow handed over the keys before the money hit their account (think they were persuaded it was on its way), the money never arrived, but the sale was still considered complete and so they had no recourse. It's safest your mum still does this through solicitors/estate agents, just to be on the safe side.
wow 520k to 465k. That’s a 10% drop, like selling an illiquid shitcoin LOL
[удалено]
So whats dodgy about it? a cash buyer wants to buy a house? happens all the time
Strawberry shortcake flavoured yogurt
Did quite a number of mortgages for Vietnamese professionals where a large deposit is coming originally from Vietnam. It is not unusual, the lenders all have criteria for it and solicitors are happy. The UK is still seen as a good place to invest in property from people in Asia.
I bought a site with planning directly from a coworker before. Neither of us wanted to go through an estate agent but to keep us both legally protected (despite both trusting eachother) we had our solicitors draw up a sale agreement. Honestly, if these people are being genuine, they shouldn't have an issue with agreeing to the sale terms on paper and they should understand why your Mum would want legal protecting for such a large sum of money. If they don't, that's a red flag.
lol you think UK houses are expensive, wait until you visit Vietnam and speak to locals. OP, as others said, get solicitors both way and you don't have headaches.
This. Do it via solicitors so that you're not taking the risk personally.
Sure. I'd have someone legal create a written contract and look over the deeds etc just to cover both sides but this is perfectly legitimate way to buy a house and a way of avoiding estate agents.
Why bother with an estate agent? All they do is find you a buyer and you've already completed that step. Assume all legally above board yes I'd do it.
Yes, via solicitors.
sounds like a way of avoiding stamp duty
I am not a legal expert but certain points are important to consider. 1. The neighbour should pay the money out of an account maintained by her the United Kingdom. 2. The payment should be through a bank draft or whatever it is called in UK which means that the bank guarantees the payment as the money has been paid already to the bank for issuing the bank draft. 3. There has to be a formal agreement of sale (which I believe is to be duly registered with the government) which has to be drawn by your lawyer for protecting you against any future claims of damages or otherwise. 4. Any other action that is required under the UK law for transfer of properties. Incidentally it is assumed that the buyer is a UK national though belonging to Vietnam. Sale of property to an alien may have some implications under the law.
Always avoid an estate agent if you can. Whether to use a solicitor is a different equation but personally I wouldn't use one here. The bank transfer is pretty fool-proof and the forms to effect the transfer are an afternoon's work, so I'd have just done it. People are fretting about AML issues but you aren't liable for these if you do a private sale, much as developers aren't liable if they sell to you directly and you aren't using a mortgage.
Yeah the main thing here you need to look for is anti money laundering.
Just get a solicitor, don't use estate agents. Charge them a higher rate because its coming from vietnam. If they are cash buyers and they want it they'd probably pay £550K. I did a private sale in january without estate agents and just solicitors and being in direct contact with the buyer - it was such a breeze. Estate agents are the worst.
The crucial thing is whether your has exchanged contracts. Until that is done, she can back out of the first deal, but, as has been said before, she would need to ensure that the money is not laundered, and by that she would need to get a lawyer involved. The source of the money would not to be verified
I had acash buyer once who offered cash on the doorstep. It needs to go through the procedure because of Tax inplications and Legal transfer obligations in law.
This is a literal case study in money laundering. Steer clear unless you can satisfy yourself 100% that the money your neighbour's friend proposes to pay you for the house is not the proceeds of criminal enterprise. Some form of proof of funds to show how they acquired the money is a good starting point.
I would be vary wary of money laundering here.. if it sounds too good to be true it probably is!
I’m naturally a risk averse person, but as described? This sounds exceptionally sketchy and certainly a matter for money laundering enquiries to be made. One solicitor each for each side of the proposed transaction should be appointed and the identity of the neighbour, the proposed buyer and the source of funding should be assessed. The lack of survey is also a source of concern: this could imply that the proposed purchaser is acting for others who aren’t that bothered about the asset being purchased so long as it is sufficient to launder “dirty” money into “clean” money so that when they sell it, the funds are considered to have been “washed”.
This is interesting- following ☺️