bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,466
|
Post by bugs4me on Mar 18, 2015 22:39:42 GMT
The whole AML, KYC , etc is a mess and open to interpretation. On another thread somewhere someone mentioned a problem they had with NS&I. I join that club as they requested, via telephone that I forward my original passport and/or driving licence plus a recent utility bill. When I refused to send the original passport it was suddenly decided that a photocopy would suffice but it would need to be notarised. I explained my nearest public notary was 40 miles away so then any witness would do.
Decided against NS&I and opened an account on-line with that well known Spanish Bank beginning with the letter S. It was all done on-line and within a week I had a cheque book, visa card, etc. I didn't have to do anything apart from enter my personal details - dead simple.
It strikes me that many people responsible for this just make it up as they go along so I do have sympathy with the companies that try to stay within the regulations by interpreting poorly worded rules which are often contradictory to another set of rules elsewhere. These companies at the same time need to generate enough profit to pay the taxes that pay the regulators to make the rules.
It's little wonder that one of the fastest growth 'industries' in the UK since 2005, when the old FSA came into play was Compliance Consultancy and often these 'experts' cannot agree amongst themselves.
|
|
|
Post by mogzi on Mar 19, 2015 9:27:36 GMT
MoneyThing FYI please see the screenshots from the JMLSG. Regulation 7 and 11 are very clear. You obviously think you know better or just don't care. coop I am sure the FCA will take note. I am tempted to challenge you and see if the FCA are interested by calling them and informing them.
|
|
|
Post by crake12 on Mar 19, 2015 10:47:49 GMT
As a compliance professional I have sat and watched this unfold with utter disbelief. Both an incendiary accusation and a rather literal approach to a very broad subject, topped with an implied threat to inform the regulator. Moderator anyone!!?
Couldn't agree with Bugs4me more! I am continually depressed at the over efficacious interpretation of regulations in the financial services industry which were not intended to negatively impact genuine 'commercial activity'.
As an aside, didn't the IMF report in their last assessment of the UK's compliance with FATF principles that it was slightly lacking... of course the IMF is hardly likely to put a G7 nation on a watch list but damn those pesky kids at MT!
|
|
|
Post by MoneyThing on Mar 19, 2015 10:50:26 GMT
Morning Mogzi,
I’m afraid that I have to take a little exception to your comment about ‘not caring’.
Having suggested that MoneyThing was in breach on a public forum, I quickly dropped everything (I had all the family round for dinner last night) and get on the phone with Andrew to draw up an appropriate response in order to mitigate any PR issues.
I am sorry that we have offended you by our responses, we have only tried to explain our approach, which is important to remind ourselves is for the purpose of preventing misuse of the financial system for money laundering the proceeds of crime and preventing the financing of terrorist activities.
As a poster has referred to above; there is scope for interpretation, from a literal to a more pragmatic approach - utilising a number of resources, not least a regulated firm's own policies and procedures, which are open to scrutiny by a regulator.
As Andrew referred to in an earlier post, there is a scope to undertake verification on an exception basis, completing it as soon as practicable, taking a risk based approach, evidencing and documenting the decision making process to ensure it stands up to scrutiny on inspection by the Regulator [Regulation 9(3) and 11(1)].
-----------
To Quote:
Timing of Verification
Regulation 9(2) General rule: The verification of the identity of the customer and, where applicable, the beneficial owner, must, subject to the exceptions referred to below, take place before the establishment of a business relationship or the carrying out of an occasional transaction.
Exception if necessary not to interrupt normal business and there is little risk: In any other case, verification of the identity of the customer, and where there is one, the beneficial owner, may be completed during the establishment of a business relationship if (a) this is necessary not to interrupt the normal conduct of business and (b) there is little risk of money laundering or terrorist financing occurring provided that the verification is completed as soon as practicable after the initial contact.
Requirement to Cease Transactions
Regulation 11(1) Where a firm is unable to apply CDD measures in relation to a customer, the firm
(a) must not carry out a transaction with or for the customer through a bank account;
(b) must not establish a business relationship or carry out an occasional transaction with the customer;
(c) must terminate any existing business relationship with the customer;
(d) must consider whether it ought to be making a report to SOCA, in accordance with its obligations under POCA and the Terrorism Act.
Firms should always consider whether an inability to apply CDD measures is caused by the customer not possessing the ‘right’ documents or information. In this case, the firm should consider whether there are any other ways of being reasonably satisfied as to the customer’s identity. In either case, the firm should consider whether there are any circumstances which give grounds for making a report.
If the firm concludes that the circumstances do give reasonable grounds for knowledge or suspicion of money laundering or terrorist financing, a report must be made to SOCA (see Chapter 7). The firm must then retain the funds until consent has been given to return the funds to the source from which they came.
If the firm concludes that there are no grounds for making a report, it will need to decide on the appropriate course of action. This may be to retain the funds while it seeks other ways of being reasonably satisfied as to the customer’s identity, or to return the funds to the source from which they came. Returning the funds in such a circumstance is part of the process of terminating the relationship; it is closing the account, rather than carrying out a transaction with the customer through a bank account.
--------
Again - this is our interpretation, it is also worth reminding ourselves that our stated position related to two potential solutions to a situation when a client refused to provide additional CDD during the take on process when this could not be completed by following our general process. Note we also indicated that this would be dealt with on an exception basis.
Andrew also added that the firm would revisit this issue if this became a common occurrence - in our view and in Andrew's experience at the Regulator, we believe this is a common sense approach.
I accept that an individual or another firm may take a different approach to due diligence however in our view this does not necessarily mean one is in breach of the regulations and another is not, hence we would challenge the assertion that we 'know better or don't care'. Nothing could be further from the truth given the time and resource spent on compliance matters.
Of course if you think our interpretation/approach is wrong then you are completely within your rights to go to our regulator and raise your concerns or make a compliant.
Kind regards,
Ed
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Mar 19, 2015 11:46:11 GMT
However MT or anyone else interprets all this, as I see it, you haven’t practiced what you preach, to use an old expression, by allowing the following to happen:
1. Accepting 2 deposits. 2. Allowing an investment. 3. Allowing the full balance of the MT account to be withdrawn and returned to our account.
And you still haven’t confirmed the status of the investment. Is it valid or will it be cancelled?
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,466
|
Post by bugs4me on Mar 19, 2015 11:58:40 GMT
I frankly cannot see the point in the direction that this thread is going. If anyone is not comfortable with the platform, indeed any platform, then simply take your business elsewhere.
Obviously all platforms will be guided by their own internal or external compliance advisor's and you can bet your bottom $ that they will usually have a different interpretation on the regulations.
|
|
|
Post by MoneyThing on Mar 19, 2015 12:24:21 GMT
However MT or anyone else interprets all this, as I see it, you haven’t practiced what you preach, to use an old expression, by allowing the following to happen: 1. Accepting 2 deposits. 2. Allowing an investment. 3. Allowing the full balance of the MT account to be withdrawn and returned to our account. And you still haven’t confirmed the status of the investment. Is it valid or will it be cancelled? Afternoon yorkshireman. Without going over old ground, I am happy to proceed with whichever way you wish. Please email us to let us know whether you would like to: 1) Provide us with the additional information we have requested within the 30 days of your registration and continue with your investment. 2) For us to remove/reverse your investment and return these funds to you. Kind regards, Ed
|
|
JamesFrance
Member of DD Central
Port Grimaud 1974
Posts: 1,317
Likes: 893
|
Post by JamesFrance on Mar 20, 2015 13:39:09 GMT
I registered for an account this morning and the procedure was quick and easy. The whole thing took about an hour, as I have copies of docs saved in my computer and emailed them as soon as I was asked to do so, being a non UK resident. The account was approved half an hour later, so all very efficient. I just need to wait for a dividend payment due soon to start investing.
|
|
|
Post by oldnick on Mar 21, 2015 7:08:30 GMT
As a compliance professional I have sat and watched this unfold with utter disbelief. Both an incendiary accusation and a rather literal approach to a very broad subject, topped with an implied threat to inform the regulator. Moderator anyone!!? Couldn't agree with Bugs4me more! I am continually depressed at the over efficacious interpretation of regulations in the financial services industry which were not intended to negatively impact genuine 'commercial activity'. As an aside, didn't the IMF report in their last assessment of the UK's compliance with FATF principles that it was slightly lacking... of course the IMF is hardly likely to put a G7 nation on a watch list but damn those pesky kids at MT! Mod hat on- In order to involve the mods or Admin in a thread it is usually necessary to use the 'report post' system as we do not patrol the entire forum every day. In this case there has been some mildly immoderate language, and, it would appear, some laypersons opinions expressed as fact. This forum is a valuable meeting place for lenders and representatives of lending platforms, and it right that the perception of poor practice is highlighted when it is suspected. In this case it would appear that the accusations have been successfully refuted. Without responses from the platform representatives however, we would all be less informed about the world of P2X, so I feel it behoves us all to maintain a moderate tone when contributing to discussions even when we are convinced we are in the right.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 21, 2015 12:17:18 GMT
[Admin note] It has come to our attention that crake12, who has posted in this thread, is an Associate of MoneyThing. Per the Forum Rules, crake12's account has been updated to show they are an Associate of MoneyThing.
|
|
|
Post by MoneyThing on Mar 21, 2015 12:34:32 GMT
[Admin note] It has come to our attention that crake12, who has posted in this thread, is an Associate of MoneyThing. Per the Forum Rules, crake12's account has been updated to show they are an Associate of MoneyThing. Dear Admin & Forum members, Please accept our deepest apologies for this inappropriate oversight. I have to admit that I was only made aware of this earlier on today when I was contacted by Admin asking whether the Andrew of 'crake12' was one and the same as Andrew who oversees/advises with respect to MoneyThing compliance. Having confirmed this to case with admin, as is only appropriate they have flagged 'crake12' as an Associate of MoneyThing. I am really quite embarrassed by our behaviour and I sincerely apologise for any harm we have caused. Kind regards, Ed
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Mar 21, 2015 12:57:24 GMT
I frankly cannot see the point in the direction that this thread is going. If anyone is not comfortable with the platform, indeed any platform, then simply take your business elsewhere. Obviously all platforms will be guided by their own internal or external compliance advisor's and you can bet your bottom $ that they will usually have a different interpretation on the regulations. My experience of different financial bodies over the years (as a cusotmer) is littered with examples of massively varying interpretation of what is or isn't required to comply with the relevant regulations. Likewise in other fields of 'compliance' interpretation in my own professional arena. Compliance consultancy / advice in every field where it applies is an industry in its own right: if there was one single valid interpretation of what is required it would not be, and lots of people would have to find other jobs.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2015 9:38:53 GMT
I am a potential new investor and have received the same id document requests as others, even if I invest in 4 other different networks and none of them had problems in identifying me.
a) With regards to the transmission mean for the documentation, why is MT not implementing a very basic document upload page on a secure section of their site? I have programmed for years and it will take literally not more than one hour to have it fully working (probably 5 minutes to anyone who wrote any function on that specific server). At least one level of unsecurity would be dropped...
b) What means has MT put in place to protect personal ids of customers? I am very concerned about a full copy of my driving license (even with the paper counterpart in full!) being held in unknown servers and with unknown protection mechanisms.
|
|
|
Post by uncletone on Nov 23, 2015 9:58:15 GMT
I am very concerned about a full copy of my driving license (even with the paper counterpart in full!) being held in unknown servers and with unknown protection mechanisms. The paper part of the driving licence has had no validity since June: www.gov.uk/government/news/driving-licence-changes
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2015 10:02:01 GMT
I am very concerned about a full copy of my driving license (even with the paper counterpart in full!) being held in unknown servers and with unknown protection mechanisms. The paper part of the driving licence has had no validity since June: www.gov.uk/government/news/driving-licence-changesWell, tell it to MT. They requested it to me just a couple of days ago! All the same, my concerns about security mechanisms for holding the customers ids are still very high and would like complete and official answers by MT.
|
|