|
Post by tungsten on Nov 4, 2017 13:38:39 GMT
A few weeks ago I had a request to provide documents to FC, along these lines:
The message suggested sending them docs showing income or savings from salary / sale of investments / sale of property or company / inheritance / divorce settlement.
So I provided them documents showing sale of investments and said I had also inherited a lump sum this year.
They replied to say the investment sale didn't cover the majority of the investment (I think it was about half my FC deposit) so could I provide details showing the inheritance.
I sent this, showing them bank statements which covered the lump sum sent by the solicitor, and the remainder of the FC deposit from savings.
They are now asking for further evidence about the other money they can see in my bank account that is unconnected to FC.
This doesn't seem to tally with their remit to check source of wealth used to lend through FC? Am I meant to turn out every single account/investment until they stop asking? I have nothing to hide, but at the same point I don't feel obliged to give sensitive information on money that is nothing to do with my FC investment up to them. If a higher power wants it, of course they are welcome.
As an aside, supposing I had shown them an inheritance covering all the money into FC - how is that meant to demonstrate the funds came from a clean source? I understand these regulations, and am very much against organised crime and money laundering. But criminals pass their wealth on to their kids. Would they then have to check out the deceased person's estate? What if that was all inherited wealth from the grandparents?
|
|
|
Post by tungsten on Nov 4, 2017 18:59:33 GMT
Yes, I have done several KYC checks for various companies before.
Asking about funds in another bank account is a new one on me though - my point is where does it end? If I show them where those funds came from, they ask where the next account has funds from. I would technically need to show all of my financial dealings for over a decade to prove I got to the point I am currently at through legitimate means.
So yes, of course I accept they need to see source of wealth for the money going into FC - but not for the rest of my net worth elsewhere?
|
|
Doc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 196
Likes: 211
|
Post by Doc on Nov 4, 2017 21:41:40 GMT
After all the info you've provided tungsten ... I'd be also be thinking ...
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,707
Likes: 2,983
|
Post by michaelc on Nov 5, 2017 14:51:27 GMT
This sort of thing does annoy me. Today its Tungsten going through this and tomorrow it will be someone else.
Of course I don't have any real evidence but I'd be surprised if this sort of nonsense was likely to stop a hardened criminal so the other 99.99% have to suffer.
Its analogous to the debate that goes on continually at work (a large IT company) around security vs productivity. Some on the IT security side (something I do know something about), would be happy to impose all sorts of restrictions on employees that make it difficult to do their job because there is a risk of something catastrophic happening if they didn't. The overriding focus is to make money for the company and so the security risks need to be balanced with productivity loss.
Back to this KYC issue (something I know very little about). I'm sure there isn't an easy solution but I bet the economic cost of imposing these detailed checks on law abiding people could be estimated (delays for projects starting or large purchases that depend on that frozen money etc).
One question I do have is how did the financial industry manage without this red tape before? Surely money laundering isn't a new invention?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2017 15:08:23 GMT
Historically the banking system was a keen accepter of dirty money, with the UK a famous tax haven for foreign criminals. But, it became so obvious that parts of London were filling up with Russians that even the UK government had to take note (I hope you catch the Monty Python imagery there). So in the same was as the Luxembourgese and Swiss are having to clean up their acts so too is the square mile. Hence all this is new to our "bunnies" and it will only get harder going forward. Welcome to a new more honest UK Meanwhile there are still regions where criminal money has a home. On a completely different subject anyone been to Malta or Cyprus recently?
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Nov 5, 2017 16:51:05 GMT
.... On a completely different subject anyone been to Malta or Cyprus recently? Unfortunately, that's out of my league (allegedly).
|
|
p2p2p
Member of DD Central
Posts: 123
Likes: 114
|
Post by p2p2p on Nov 7, 2017 9:04:21 GMT
I've not had to do one of these, but if I did I think I'd use a thick black pen to blackout all but the minimal information required, to stop the kind of fishing they seem to be doing
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Nov 7, 2017 11:58:09 GMT
HSBC have now for the fourth time requested a ton of info (most of which they already have) for my children's few K. I refused and complained and I think they've decided now that they'll move on
|
|
jo
Member of DD Central
dead
Posts: 741
Likes: 498
|
Post by jo on Nov 9, 2017 8:05:02 GMT
Yes, I have done several KYC checks for various companies before. Asking about funds in another bank account is a new one on me though - my point is where does it end? If I show them where those funds came from, they ask where the next account has funds from. I would technically need to show all of my financial dealings for over a decade to prove I got to the point I am currently at through legitimate means. So yes, of course I accept they need to see source of wealth for the money going into FC - but not for the rest of my net worth elsewhere? Tell them you made it on Bitcoin, then sit back and observe the FC Compliance tumbleweed.
|
|