
The unsolved mystery of who owns 221b Baker Street - sohkamyung
https://qz.com/1245110/the-unsolved-mystery-of-who-owns-sherlock-holmes-130-million-home/
======
elipsey
It seems kind of strange to me that govt actors complain about money
laundering while using their monopoly of force to protect the property rights
of people (at least human people, not corporate “people”) who won’t even admit
ownership. It seems like if representatives were earnest about addressing this
sort of money laundering they might propose some way to stop doing that for
owners of massive property holdings who won’t show themselves. In my home
state, the real names and contact info for owners of small houses and
residential lots are available from the tax assessors database online. That we
have reporting requirements for $10,000 in cash deposits, but apparently not
for office buildings and yachts seems to suggest that the wealthy are
practically subject to a different system of law then the rest of us.

Has it been proposed that owners of this sort of property publicly report real
ownership? There are cases where we have managed to create all sorts of de-
anonomizing reporting requirements for the non-billionaires (e.g. for cash
deposits). There are limitations on property rights for absentee owners (even
non-anonymous ones) as with squatter’s rights.

Is it so illiberal to decline to enforce property rights for anonymous shell
corporations that countries that don’t do it will be ostracized? Is it so hard
to require that the real name of owners be published on a title, or just
politically impossible?

~~~
lopmotr
You mean seizure of land? That's quite a risky thing to do. Plenty of now 3rd
world countries destroyed themselves doing that. If people can't trust the
government to enforce property rights, then how can they invest in property
safely? That could then limit investing in business that owns property.

Maybe it would be safe for the economy if it's done according to a law which
is not retroactively applied to existing owners. Something like requiring new
owners to be personally identified before they can even be granted ownership.
Then there's no seizing required.

~~~
elipsey
I didn't mean to propose that, but I see the problem that land is _already_
owned anonymously.

Also, we (in the U.S.) already do this in limited circumstances. For example,
if I don't pay my property taxes for long enough, my property will by
auctioned by the state. My tax standing is publically reported from the tax
assesor's database so that my neighbors can hunt for bargains.

Perhaps legislation could add ownership reporting requirements for future
purchases, or require better identity reporting for future property tax
payments.

~~~
lopmotr
I don't see how it can fairly be changed for existing owners without screwing
them over. It's different with property tax defaults and eminent domain
because there's existing law that people know about and can plan around. Not
just "tell us who you are and get imprisoned in your own country for
corruption or we'll take your house".

~~~
paulmd
To go back to the whole "different rules apply to the rich and the poor",
nobody would bat an eye if this were done as part of AML for poorer people.
What about the person who took out $10k cash and is now subject to AML
reporting if he wants to deposit it, would you say that we should re-tag all
the bills so that we can know who took out money before the rule applied?

Of course not, that's absurd, you would have to put up with AML like everyone
else. And to be clear, that's what we're discussing here - a form of money
laundering reporting. No actual property is seized from someone who obeys the
new laws, and all they need to do is disclose ownership.

The idea that this is somehow an onerous burden is just a reflexive boot-
licking defense of the rich. They will be fine.

~~~
vostok
For what it's worth, I've taken out $10k in cash and deposited it about a
month later. I assume that the bank had to do some paper work on the bank end,
but I wasn't exposed to it at all.

------
baybal2
>Now, court documents seen by Quartz and files leaked in the Panama Papers
suggest the properties have belonged at least in part to one or more family
members of Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan Nazarbayev.

And to be precisely, his niece. When the guy was studying in Geneva, he was
bragging about that left and right. My highschool classmate Olga Fedotova
studied with him.

I see it a big surprise that something known even to schoolchildren out there,
is such a "revelation" to the British public and law enforcement. The hearsay
was around for at least 8 or 7 years.

More likely, they simply have no willpower for that

~~~
shitgoose
watch out for the door handles - wipe them clean before entering. the great
and fearsome Putin is sending you some Novitchok now! and, what the hell, Olga
Fedotova too!

~~~
baybal2
Well, this is a thing about which local newspapers write, whom present Nurali
as "an esteemed 20-years-old property magnate super duper smart wunder
kinder", heck, even his own Instagram him posing in front and in that
building.

There is no use for me in anonymity here. Dozens of people here and in YC
known me in person. Even if I were to say that under a different acc, who I am
would be instantly clear.

You see, their believe in Western politicians and bureaucrats being their
playthings is so strong, that they don't even mind bragging of their London
estates in the public. Heck, one of the biggest London and NYC property owner
Avramovich literally said on live TV "yes, I killed that guy, what will you
do?", and his London mansion still stand inviolable to UK law enforcement; UK
police have not lifted a finger to do anything about him even after that.

~~~
sage76
> Avramovich literally said on live TV "yes, I killed that guy, what will you
> do?"

Could you share a link to this, would love to see it...

------
baybal2
I'll tell you a bit of to what extend does the determination of current
Western political establishment is in fighting mafia:

May, and. co, and many of her predecessors gloss over terminology of rule of
law, and that they can't do anything with mafia mansions unless the guilt of
an owner is legally proved - this is a lie.

In both UK, and the US the executive branch has a carte blanch laws to do
anything with whose ever property these days, as well as to warrantlessly
wiretap them, and put them in indefinite detention.

For example, a no fly list, an OFAC SDN non-person list, EU red list. An
executive branch has an unlimited power to put anybody on such list. Being put
on that list effectively gives a designated person an effect of Orwell's non-
personhood. A right way to deal with those mafiosos, yet have you ever seen
anybody, anymuch major being put there?

------
gumby
It seems pretty clear that the massive gains in high end real estate in
Manhattan and central London have been driven by offshore money, some (perhaps
most?) of which is money laundering (buy something liquid for X -- even if you
overpay and end up selling at a "loss", what you get out has been laundered).
But this is all at the very high end -- you see in manhattan that houses
people actually live in sell at half the $/f2 that unused "investment"
properties do. So are they really driving up prices and pushing people out? I
don't know.

In Palo Alto, Chinese money is flooding in and pushing up prices, but the
houses are actually inhabited, so yes, it's driving up prices but it would be
harder to complain that something nefarious is going on (and indeed I haven't
seen any such complaints).

~~~
djrogers
> money laundering (buy something liquid for X -- even if you overpay and end
> up selling at a "loss", what you get out has been laundered).

You're missing a step in the money laundering here - you can't use completely
unlaundered cash to anonymously buy investment property, you have to launder
somehow first.

~~~
pjc50
Usually this involves a set of corporate shells with opaque ownership; there
may not even be a registered transfer of the property, just in shares of
Mystery Holdings Corp #237 (British Virgin Islands).

~~~
lossolo
But this has nothing to do with money laundering. If money gets into
international banking system it's probably laundered already. Money laundering
dosen't work like you think it is - "shady offshore companies" is not enough
to launder money because every one of this jurisdictions will work with law
enforcement in case of money laundering. Then just follow the money and you
will get busted. Shell companies will just make whole process longer for law
enforcement agencies.

Real estates in rich jurisdictions are used for stashing/anonymously investing
money, not laundering money.

------
8bitsrule
Solution seems elementary. Require all property owners (the corporate head if
not private) to register properties by direct application (in a set time). If
said property remains unregistered, it may -immediately- be auctioned,
forfeit.

~~~
adamcharnock
I believe Portugal is about to do something similar, albeit for different
reasons. In their case the rural population has been urbanising. Those that
remain are old and are inevitably dying. Combine this with unhelpful
inheritance laws, and the result is a lot of abandoned land. This land becomes
unmaintained and is a big fire risk (as per the forest fires last summer)

I understand that Portugal is going to require the registration of ownership
of all rural land, and any land that is not registered will be reclaimed by
(presumably) the state.

------
bartkappenburg
To prevent these kind of 'situations', the Netherlands have a (soon to be
implemented so it seems) law that states that it should be clear who is the
"Ultimate Beneficial Owner" (UBO) [0]. The UBO is registered and viewable for
everyone. No more hiding through obfuscation :-)

[0] [https://www.nautadutilh.com/en/our-expertise/special-
topics2...](https://www.nautadutilh.com/en/our-expertise/special-topics2/UBO/)

------
spodek
If they eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable,
must be the truth.

------
kazinator
It's elementary: just eliminate the improbables, and whosoever remains must be
the owner/landlord.

------
TallGuyShort
>> a new law ... allowing authorities to require a person to explain their
stake in a property and how they came to own it

It seems to me that anybody who has the resources to have a network of off-
shore shell corporations laundering money for them while owning 24% or less of
all of them would have no problem providing a plausible explanation for how
they came to own a particular piece of property.

------
chrischen
Seems like the solution if too many unwanted foreign parties are holding your
assets is to depreciate your assets.

For whatever reasons houses are considered appreciating assets, even super old
ones.

~~~
kspaans
It's the land underneath that appreciates, not the structure of the house on
top of the land.

~~~
chrischen
Right, so there needs to be incentive structure to force property owners to
make the most of the land. If the house is old and crappy, then taxes should
force them replace the building with something more useful/more dense in order
to offset taxes.

~~~
kspaans
One way to do this is to modify property tax into a Land Value Tax that's only
accessed against land values, rather than land + buildings. This means
property owners aren't "punished" for improving their buildings or building
larger ones.

But this can also be achieved in current property tax regimes by upzoning to
allow more density. This will raise the value of the land (because it's now
possible to build more density on it), which once reassessed, will also raise
the property taxes.

------
microtherion
An unsolved mystery? Someone should get Sherlock Holmes on the case!

------
auntienomen
Mrs Hudson. Duh.

