Moneygram Payment Systems, Inc v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 25 March 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 132 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned whether MoneyGram Inc, a Delaware company operating in the UK solely via UK agents, carried on a money service business in the United Kingdom and so was liable to register premises and pay token civil penalties under the Money Laundering Regulations 2003. The tribunal held MoneyGram did carry on such business in the UK through its agents, that the business was carried on at each agent/sub-agent branch accessible to the public, and that HMRC could charge registration fees to MoneyGram even where the premises were also the subject of agents' registrations; the appeal was dismissed and the £30 in penalties upheld.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The tribunal treated a non‑UK principal whose core activity is money transmission and who makes its service available in the UK through agents as carrying on a money service business in the UK for the purposes of the Money Laundering Regulations 2003, and it held that the Regulations permit regulation (including charging registration fees) of such a principal where the principal exercises overall control and oversight of the service offered through its agents.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The tribunal observed that HMRC guidance (Notice MSB 1) about agent/principal registration responsibilities does not have the force of law and may not reflect the legal position, suggesting the guidance should be updated; it also noted, without deciding, a reserved point that MoneyGram might later seek repayment of prior registration fees and commented on the tribunal's potential inherent jurisdiction in that context.