Yes, that is a nominee. Congrats, you found a dictionary. Next, look up how nominees and UBOs are defined in relevant, applicable laws.
I'm not debating the morality or how you feel about any of this, just the facts of the risks that exist.
It can be︀ if part of the agreement is that you provide truthful and accurate information.
As I mentioned, it depends on the circumstances. The act itself might︄ not be money laundering but when you use the false UBO as a front to︅ for example conceal the origin of funds or place dirty money in the financial system,︆ you have committed money laundering.
Will you get caught? Maybe, maybe not.
Is it morally︇ defensible? Perhaps, perhaps not.
Is it money laundering? Yes, by the legal definition.
Is it︈ worth the risk? Up to you.
You are︌ confusing your own, emotionally driven arguments with the cold hard, boring facts of the laws,︍ international treaties, and how it's transposed into AML policies at financial institutions. That's what I'm︎ highlighting here.
I'm not questioning that people successfully present false UBOs nor am I debating️ the morality thereof. My point is that doing so can have severe repercussions, and those are worth taking into account when doing a risk analysis when undertaking a business activity.
I didn't mean to upset you and set you off on a tirade about genital mutilation and what species are hired for compliance officer positions, however colorful and entertaining those can be.
It was a typo. They meant UBO.
