0ffshore banking
Offshore Personal and Business Accounts
Fees £300 (Personal) £450 (Business)
This professional service is available to clients for private and business use.
Current Accounts in Euros, Sterling , US Dollars and other major currencies. Accounts may be opened in the Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Cyprus, Seychelles.Full banking facilities and internet banking. All records maintained offshore and completely confidential. VISA or Mastercard Debit Card usually available for the accounts.
Offshore Account inCyprus
The bank offers a range of secured or pre-paid VISA, MasterCard, Cirrus an Maestro cards - ideal for personal use and for employees of companies. Cyprus has a sound banking system. All deposits in Cyprus are guaranteed by the government for up to €100.000 including those of legal entities for both Cyprus citizens as well as foreigners.
The Director of Operation,
FINANCE AND REMITTANCE.
DR. JEFF LUWIS,
dr.jeff_luwis@accountant.com
ltbdirector.london@london.com
Fax : + 44703188258.
Phone :+447010752244.
Accounts are located in London with a major British International Clearing Bank
-
Non resident private individuals (our fee is £300)
-
Non resident companies with Non-Resident owners and directors (our fee is £500)
-
UK companies with Non-Resident owners and directors (our fee is £500)
More Informations Regarding your private banking :Click ( )
International funds transfers london money
The international transfer of funds, like almost all payments, uses agency relationships to achieve the final payment. The transferor bank receives its instructions from the payer/customer. The instructions will always provide for a destination, usually something like “account xyx with the ABC Bank”. In some cases, the instructions may only name the intended payee as in “For the account of John Doe at ABC Bank”.
Let’s call the transferring bank T and the receiving bank R.
Just as in a domestic payment transaction, T is acting as agent for the payer/customer. R is acting as agent of the payee for the purposes of receiving payment. The special feature of an international transfer is that T will usually require the services of an overseas bank to complete the transfer.
It is not always necessary to use an overseas correspondent. If R and T are in a “senior” correspondent relationship, then the transfer may be a simple matter. The two banks may maintain “nostro” and “vostro” accounts with each other. These accounts may be used to settle the transaction, either with a credit to the “vostro” account held with T or a debit to the “nostro” account held with R. The “nostro”–”vostro” terminology depends on the point of view. It is, obviously, not necessary that both “nostro” and “vostro” accounts be maintained in order to effect a settlement.
Where the banks do not maintain a “senior” correspondent relationship, then another means of settlement must be found. This will involve one or more correspondent banks. In the simplest case, T will contact a correspondent bank C with which both T and R maintain a “senior” relationship. C will credit the account of R and debit the account of T in order to complete the transaction.
More complex scenarios are, of course, possible and sometimes necessary, but even the most complex arrangement is reduced to a series of transactions of the type described.
In Royal Products Ltd v Midland Bank Ltd [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 147, Webster J held that T was acting as the payer’s agent, C was acting as T’s agent. He rejected an argument that C was also acting as the payer’s agent, but accepted that T would have vicarious liability for C’s negligence.
The distinction is important since, as is well known, an agent has a fiduciary responsibility to the principal. More importantly for present purposes, the agent’s duty is to act strictly within the terms of his or her authority.
Devlin J, in Midland Bank Ltd v Seymour [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 147, said (at 168):
It is a hard law sometimes which deprives an agent of the right to reimbursement if he has exceeded his authority, even though the excess does not damage his principal’s interests.
It is, however, sometimes difficult to determine the scope of the authority given to a paying bank. Royal Products also rejected the notion that instructions given to T are to be subject to the doctrine of “strict compliance”, that is, that every part of the instruction must be given a “legal implication” (per Webster J, at 199).
As an agent, T must act within its authority and perform its obligations with appropriate care and skill. Acting within its authority means
- Paying the right person
- the right amount
- in a timely fashion and
- observing any other special instructions of the principal.
These application of these principles were at the heart of the dispute in Dovey v Bank of New Zealand [2000] 3 NZLR 641.
The argument that the transfer was not complete was bound to fail. There was no question but that the funds had reached BCCI, so the argument was that BCCI held the funds on its own behalf since it had not notified Mr Dovey of receipt. Alternatively, it was argued that BCCI had no authority to accept funds on behalf of Mr Dovey.
The argument that notice might be required was based on the old case of Rekstin v Severo Sibirsko Gosudarstvennoe Akcionernoe Obschestvo Komseverputj [1933] 1 KB 47. Faced with pressing creditors, funds were transferred to the account of the Russian Trade Delegation which had diplomatic immunity. The Court held that the transfer was incomplete and that the creditors were entitled to attach the funds.
For some time Rekstin’s case had been explained on the grounds that the transfer was incomplete because notice had not been given to the account holder of the receiving bank. The true explanation was given by Kerr J in Momm v Barclays Bank International [1977] QB 79: the bank held the funds on its own account since the Trade Delegation had not given the bank authority to receive these funds on its behalf.
Mr Dovey, on the other hand, had conferred authority on BCCI by requesting an account to be opened and by providing details to the transferring bank: see Royal Products Ltd v Midland Bank Ltd [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 147. The situation is similar to a domestic transaction where bank details are supplied to a creditor to establish a direct credit transfer.
References and Contacts :
