2

Please imagine that you have introduced a buyer and a seller to each other (both of them are your friends, but they have not been familiar with each other so far.) The two people have been connected to each other for a period of time after your introduction, but you are not aware what they do throughout this period of time, although you know that they are connected to each other at the time being.

After a while, they had a deal (i.e. one of them has sold an apartment to the other one.) But they have faced some financial problems with each other. One of them finds you guilty and he/she thinks that you shouldn't have introduced them to each other! Even that person thinks that somehow you have received some amount of money or advantage from the other person!

I need to know whether saying the following sentence (which we say in our language) works properly or not when you are going to say that what has happend was none of your business and it's their own problem, and you have no gain in this issue:

I'm not a beneficiary in this matter. [to me, this sentence sounds OK, but I have no idea if it makes sense to a native speaker too!]

If it is not natural, then I wonder if you could tell me what shall that person say to indicate that they are not a beneficiary in this matter?

  • 1
    It makes sense but doesn't sound natural. I'd just say "this has nothing to do with me." And the explanation in your post is quite intelligible, so I don't think you'll have any problem clarifying your viewpoint if you need to do so. – TypeIA May 20 at 20:28
  • With the use of the word 'beneficiary' do you intend the meaning that "this matter doesn't benefit me" i.e. I won't have any advantage from it; or rather that "I'm not involved in this matter so please don't involve me in this"? – seventyeightist May 20 at 20:37
  • Well @seventyeightist, actually the first one in this case is more intended. I'm more about "benefit" which can indirectly allude to the "involvement". – A-friend May 21 at 4:15
  • Thank you very much @TypelA, but could you please let me know why it does not sound natural to you? It strikes me as if the word "beneficiary" cannot be used in this sense or at least it is mostly used in some technical e.g. banking jargon. Am I right? – A-friend May 21 at 4:21
3

These are some phrases you might well hear:

  • I have no interest in the matter (eg a politician explaining she is independent)
  • I have no financial interest in the matter (explicitly financial, but perhaps your brother works there)
  • I have no financial or any other interest in the matter (no business or personal connection of any kind)
  • I'm not getting anything out of this, you know (colloquial)
  • I'm not getting a cut from either of you (colloquial)
  • I've got no skin in this game (business slang)
  • I didn't get any finder's fee for this! (finder's fee payment for an introduction)

You wouldn't ordinarily use beneficiary in a case like this, because it is usually associated with an insurance policy or a trust or a will -- specialised situations where someone benefits from a situation but has no control or risk. In business terms, to have an [business] interest in something means you have money or influence or authority in it. For a business, a pro bono lawyer, an unpaid chairman, an investor, an employee, a supplier, a client, a neighbour -- all these would have an interest in the business. The investor, employee, supplier and client have a financial interest.

  • 1
    I'll also add "I have no stake in this matter" or (colloquial slang) "I have no dog in this race" – Ben May 20 at 23:18
  • Thank you @jonathanjo, but what's wrong with my own sentence of "beneficiary"? Is it considered as a too stilted / technical word in this sense? – A-friend May 21 at 4:24
  • ... added to answer to explain beneficiary. – jonathanjo May 21 at 8:11
  • Thank you @jonathanjo. Could you please let me know ehat does "interest" in your first and second example allude to? – A-friend May 22 at 7:21
  • A real example: In 2017 Charlotte Hogg was to become deputy governor of the Bank of England, and she had to resign because she didn't declare that her brother worked at Barclays Bank (because she would perhaps be responsible for regulating her brother). She could have said "I have no financial interest in Barclays" (which would have been true) but she could not have said "I have no interest in Barclays". She might say "I declare a family interest in Barclays, as my brother works there, but I have no financial interest." – jonathanjo May 22 at 10:22

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.