Thread: Banners Broker HYIP ponzi scam

There is.
Don't ask me what though - I can't remember.

Originally Posted by Poyol

Tax is paid on total earnings. So, what ever is in the eWallet should be taxed.
As someone stated previously if you have $40,000 in your eWallet, but only $4,000 available to withdraw you'll be paying (around) 20% on the $40,000 - say that's $8,000 to pay on tax, yet they can only withdraw $4,000.

I think that's right.
I doubt they're paying tax on an online income that's paid into a Payza account - they'll probably think it's untraceable. I would.

Jason

This is a grey area and would need confirmation by HMRC in the UK. In simple terms, considering that a legitimate business might only be expected to pay tax on gross earnings put through a UK business account, less expenses for example, it would seem that the $40,000 figure in the ewallet would not be taxable income, and nor would the $4,000 available to withdraw. As we all know, these figures are complete codswallop anyway. I dont think you can be prosecuted for evading tax on income that never existed in the first place. This would mean that most UK BB members, assuming they have withdrawn less than the typical tax-free allowance of £8,100 per tax year would not be eligibe for tax. The majority I beleive, due to strategy and payment problems have not yet made successful withdrawals. It would be entirely possible that there are only a handful of the UK leaders who have made it into the realms of taxable income.

Originally Posted by Beethoven

As we all know, these figures are complete codswallop anyway. I dont think you can be prosecuted for evading tax on income that never existed in the first place.

Though I agree with you that these numbers are fictional, for BB members this is not the case. As far as they are concerned, these numbers are real and they have repeatedly said they are real(ignorance is no defence). Therefore they should be paying tax on their earnings.
They can’t from a promotional point of view be pointing to these massive earnings, yet from a tax point of view, choosing ignore them. Or am I missing something?

Originally Posted by Beethoven

This would mean that most UK BB members, assuming they have withdrawn less than the typical tax-free allowance of £8,100 per tax year would not be eligibe for tax. The majority I beleive, due to strategy and payment problems have not yet made successful withdrawals. It would be entirely possible that there are only a handful of the UK leaders who have made it into the realms of taxable income.

Even if its only a handful, they should still be paying the tax. Shouldn’t the authorities be made aware of these earnings(fictitional or not)?

Originally Posted by noname999

Though I agree with you that these numbers are fictional, for BB members this is not the case. As far as they are concerned, these numbers are real and they have repeatedly said they are real(ignorance is no defence). Therefore they should be paying tax on their earnings.
They can’t from a promotional point of view be pointing to these massive earnings, yet from a tax point of view, choosing ignore them. Or am I missing something?

Yes, this is a good point. They believe in this business, and therefore the irony is , if following this logic, that they would have to pay HUGE tax bills on "virtual earnings" not received. However, this really depends on HMRC's position. The Taxman may not accept the Ewallet as evidence of earnings. In which case, no problem. Coming clean about these figures would put BB members in the awkward position of asking the Taxman if they are in breach of money laundering regulations also.



Even if its only a handful, they should still be paying the tax. Shouldn’t the authorities be made aware of these earnings(fictitional or not)?

Yes, and anyone who has been in the business since before April 5th 2012 and is registered for self assessment will have to file a tax return by law before 31st october (on Paper) orn 31st January (online) or face £100 penalty for late submission. HM Revenue & Customs: Tax return deadlines and penalties

Originally Posted by noname999

Though I agree with you that these numbers are fictional, for BB members this is not the case. As

far as they are concerned, these numbers are real and they have repeatedly said they are real(ignorance is no defence).

Therefore they should be paying tax on their earnings.
They can’t from a promotional point of view be pointing to these

massive earnings, yet from a tax point of view, choosing ignore them. Or am I missing something?

Yes, this is a good point.

They believe in this business, and therefore the irony is , if following this logic, that they would have to pay HUGE tax

bills on "virtual earnings" not received. However, this really depends on HMRC's position. The Taxman may not accept the

Ewallet as evidence of earnings. In which case, no problem. Coming clean about these figures would put BB members in the

awkward position of asking the Taxman if they are in breach of money laundering regulations also.

Originally Posted by noname999

Even if its only a

handful, they should still be paying the tax. Shouldn’t the authorities be made aware of these earnings(fictitional or

not)?

Yes, and anyone who has been in the business since before April 5th 2012 and is registered for self assessment

will have to file a tax return by law before 31st october (on Paper) orn 31st January (online) or face £100 penalty for

late submission.

Quote from HMRC UK Tax office website:

What is money laundering?

Money laundering means exchanging money or assets that were obtained criminally for money or other assets that are 'clean'. The clean money or assets don't have an obvious link with any criminal activity. Money laundering also includes money that's used to fund terrorism, however it's obtained
Money Laundering Regulations are designed to protect the UK financial system. If your business is covered by the regulations you must put in place certain controls to prevent it being used for money laundering by criminals and terrorists. These include appointing a 'nominated officer', checking the identity of customers and keeping all relevant documents. You must also report any suspicious activity to the Serious Organised Crime Agency.

If your business is covered by the regulations it must be monitored by one of the supervisory authorities. It may already be monitored, for example by the Financial Services Authority or by a professional body. But if it's not, and your business falls into one of four designated business sectors, you'll probably need to register with HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC).
Business types supervised by HMRC

HMRC is the supervisory authority for the following four business types:
• Money Service Businesses not supervised by the Financial Services Authority (FSA)
• High Value Dealers
• Trust or Company Service Providers not supervised by the FSA or a professional body
• Accountancy Service Providers not supervised by a professional body

If you carry out activities typically associated with the above by way of business and you aren't already registered, you'll need to register with HMRC. Share

Now I know the whole thing is fictional but bare with me. Lets just say that BB was legit:

From the examples i have found on the net, amounts available to withdraw are normally about 10% of earnings. But tax would be 20%. So you wouldn't be earning enough to even cover the tax. Why then would you invest?

Originally Posted by noname999

Now I know the whole thing is fictional but bare with me. Lets just say that BB was legit:

From the examples i have found on the net, amounts available to withdraw are normally about 10% of earnings. But tax would be 20%. So you wouldn't be earning enough to even cover the tax. Why then would you invest?

* A number of Banners Broker members are not "investing" They are fully aware they are playing HYIP ponzis.

* Another subgroup have no intention of paying taxes, and rely on the fact they are using anonymous payment processors and, probably, fake IDs

* Many members don't even consider tax is payable.

* Many are simply ignorant of the fact they can be taxed.

* The criminal element...........well..........'nuff said.

Originally Posted by noname999

Now I know the whole thing is fictional but bare with me. Lets just say that BB was legit:

From the examples i have found on the net, amounts available to withdraw are normally about 10% of earnings. But tax would be 20%. So you wouldn't be earning enough to even cover the tax. Why then would you invest?

I guess in this case, they are not really your earnings until they are withdrawn in to your bank account. It's no more than a gigantic "IOU, Love from BB"

But yes, I'd imagine once the money has been withdrawn, you would need to pay tax on it - if you're earning over the tax allowance (which I think is about £8K?)

Originally Posted by Martin88

I guess in this case, they are not really your earnings until they are withdrawn in to your bank account. It's no more than a gigantic "IOU, Love from BB"

But yes, I'd imagine once the money has been withdrawn, you would need to pay tax on it - if you're earning over the tax allowance (which I think is about £8K?)

Is that the same with earning into Paypal then?

Originally Posted by AshKen1

Quick update on my mate. He did go and do some further research (allegedly) - what he has found only confirms to him that BB is legitimate. What he hasn't done is show me the evidence which is probably only picking out the good bits. Don't think this particular mind is going to be changed sadly.

Saw the "evidence" which had *only* been taken from BB sites which of course only supports the belief that BB is genuine. Suspect that research is not matey's strong point as I had pointed him in direction of this blog and moremoneyreview. Have to say there is air of panic now that Payza has suspended all UK BB payments and efforts being made to order pre-payment card. I did see screenshot of that today btw and one of the questions you are asked is what is your mother's maiden name. That is a standard security question isn't it?

Wonder what effect the Google share dip will have on the situation.

Has anyone contacted Latest News | Action Fraud to see what they say about the whole thing?

Originally Posted by AshKen1

Wonder what effect the Google share dip will have on the situation.

None whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Poyol

Is that the same with earning into Paypal then?

With PayPal, you can withdraw your entire balance at any time. The money is accessible.

With BB, this balance is defined as 'earnings', but a more correct term for it would be 'projected earnings'. (Projected out of the arse, but whatever).

It's a grey area. But as posters have been saying, the entire concept of 'doing business' is a grey area to these people. I can't see taxation bringing their morals back down to earth.

Don't worry, I'm not expecting these lowlifes to pay tax but my train of thought is the following:

1) You know its a scam and are just trying to con people out of money. You have no intention on paying any tax as you know the numbers are lies/

2) You believe this to be a legitimate business. You believe there is actual advertising and you believe these figures they put out. You continually declare that you would not be involved in anything dodgy. Therefore you would pay tax on these 'legimate' earnings.

The thing is, if you fall into category 2 you would actually be paying more tax than you would be withdrawing. It wouldn't make any sense to invest.

So its either a con job or an extremely bad investment. Or am I missing something?

Originally Posted by noname999

So its either a con job or an extremely bad investment. Or am I missing something?

Pretty much both of the above.

There will be a lot of people who will have "conned" others, and will also lose out themselves.

So I don't get it. If there are people who are adamant its legitimate, all that has to be done is point out the tax implications and it becomes obvious that the venture is not profitable. Therefore they will not take part.
If they do take part they are either (1)admitting that it is a con and the figures don't add up or (2) they plan on evading tax.
Both are illegal avenues. Correct?

Sorry, re my last post at 1186, there's a bit missing off the end where I ask if anyone has been in contact with actionfraud which is online and part of the police in UK. So, has anyone done this?

Originally Posted by AshKen1

Sorry, re my last post at 1186, there's a bit missing off the end where I ask if anyone has been in contact with actionfraud which is online and part of the police in UK. So, has anyone done this?

I have contacted ActionFraud, yes.

Ok im all for this expose the scam, but i think this whole earnings not even covering your tax are a bit wide of the mark. If im not mistaken (which i might be) you only pay tax on your profits, if that werent the case, most businesses in the world wouldnt be profitable.

If you generate $1mil in your business, and your expenditure has been $900k, you dont pay tax on $1mil, you pay tax on $100k.

BB (if it was a legit business) would be the same, the earnings box may say $50k, but that doesnt take into account how much has been reinvested etc, costs for these imaginery traffic packs etc.

But forgetting about the tax implications.
If you are in Banners broker, or thinking about getting into banners broker, ask yourself this...

Why do banners broker, need you in their business, why do they need to pay you money???
What do you bring to this multi millions dollar company?

If i was running this business, and i had figured out a way to "broker banners", buy and sell banners in such a way to make profit. Why on earth would i want to pay hundreds of thousands of members a cut?

Answer me that...

publish the addy, so we can all pile on

Originally Posted by buckyuk

Ok im all for this expose the scam, but i think this whole earnings not even covering your tax are a bit wide of the mark. If im not mistaken (which i might be) you only pay tax on your profits, if that werent the case, most businesses in the world wouldnt be profitable.

If you generate $1mil in your business, and your expenditure has been $900k, you dont pay tax on $1mil, you pay tax on $100k.

I totally agree with you. My point is, those in BB are claiming that the total earnings is what they have made. I am not saying this is correct but it is what they are claiming. I am refuting this claim as it would then mean they would have to pay more tax than what they could withdraw.

I am just trying so show on another level how ridiculous their claims are.

Originally Posted by buckyuk

If you are in Banners broker, or thinking about getting into banners broker, ask yourself this...

Why do banners broker, need you in their business, why do they need to pay you money???
What do you bring to this multi millions dollar company?

If i was running this business, and i had figured out a way to "broker banners", buy and sell banners in such a way to make profit. Why on earth would i want to pay hundreds of thousands of members a cut?

Answer me that...

I believe the drones already have that covered...

It's because they are 'philanthropists'.

They want everybody to have their share of the pie.

I've heard this line repeated a lot. It's politically well-timed with the "99%" protests, I've gotta give them that.

I do tax planning as part of the day job- so:----
Tax is payable on business profits in UK (and in US and most countries). Ie all earnings, which include cash drawn, cash in ewallet and cash reinvested into further panels. The tax would probably be much more than has been drawn. If this is a legit business, most of the businessmen are screwed for tax. Also as self employed they must notify HMRC and pay NIC monthly. If they joined before 5/4/11 and haven't done an 11/12 return (in UK) then they are double screwed as the penalties are more than the initial £100 someone else mentioned. Note that with a top rate of tax of 50% then with the automatic rollup of at least half the earnings that all " 6 figure" earners are triply screwed.
Obviously BB is a scam so none of this is relevant, unless you think BB is legit.

sorry last post i meant 10/11 return not 11/12.

Originally Posted by Dreamstealer

I do tax planning as part of the day job- so:----
Tax is payable on business profits in UK (and in US and most countries). Ie all earnings, which include cash drawn, cash in ewallet and cash reinvested into further panels. The tax would probably be much more than has been drawn.

I have to agree. It will be on ALL earnings. Glad of your expertise. Thought I was going mad!

So if you look at the average ewallet, the total earnings is on the right and the available to withdraw is on the left. Somoen might be able to find the correlation. I have a figure between 10-15% in my head from somewhere. Therefore the tax is more than the withdrawal amounts.

Yes this is all fictitional but if you have a genuine BB believer you just have to show them this and they should pull out straight away. If they don't they will go more and more into debt to the tax collector.
If they decide to stay in they are then more or less admitting that it is a sham.

...or am I going mad(sorry, should be madder...went mad about 50 yeras ago!)