Personal information when opening savings account

g_attrill

christabell wrote:

I recently tried to open an account with ICICI with their very lucritive interest rate. I was not able to have my passport verified as I bank with Nationwide and they "do not provide this service". My doctor has enough to do being a very busy GP, and a solicitor wanted to charge £60 for the service.
I do understand money laundering rules, but I am not going to launder money here in the UK.

I had the same issue - I don't know any solicitors or accountants (and don't want to pay any), I don't want to make an appointment to see my GP just to ask him to sign some paper, and the woman at the bank (Lloyds) looked on the computer for ten minutes before calling somebody and told me they can't do it.

*Luckily* my boss's finance was in the office that morning and she is a teacher and did it for me. And she's only been a UK citizen for two weeks!

Gareth

dunstonh

*Luckily* my boss's finance was in the office that morning and she is a teacher and did it for me. And she's only been a UK citizen for two weeks!

Without obviously knowing the legal liability that goes with certifying documents. This is why banks wont do it and solicitors, accountants and IFAs charge for doing it.

cheerfulcat

Without obviously knowing the legal liability that goes with certifying documents. This is why banks wont do it and solicitors, accountants and IFAs charge for doing it.

What liability? If someone certifies that a photograph is a fair likeness, or that a copy is a genuine photocopy of an original document are they then liable if the owner of the document(s) turns out to be a money launderer?

FWIW, my bank and building society are both happy to provide this service for free.

dunstonh

What liability? If someone certifies that a photograph is a fair likeness, or that a copy is a genuine photocopy of an original document are they then liable if the owner of the document(s) turns out to be a money launderer?

If the document turns out to be a forgery and you didn't take the necessary care to check and a money laundering transaction takes place, you can be implicated in the money laundering transaction and face prosecution.

cheerfulcat

But the certification required was only of the copy, not of the original? That has always been my experience - all that is required is that someone saw the copy being made, or has seen the original and the copy together.

jonesMUFCforever

cheerfulcat wrote:

But the certification required was only of the copy, not of the original? That has always been my experience - all that is required is that someone saw the copy being made, or has seen the original and the copy together.

What is to stop any forger from copying a stamp when they have had a copy document certified?
This could be used for any purpose.

regularsaver1

in the bank i work in we will only ever accept originals

but we are not alloud to certify doc's for people for outside of the bank

cheerfulcat

What is to stop any forger from copying a stamp when they have had a copy document certified?
This could be used for any purpose.

It's not just a stamp; you need a name, address & signature from the person certifying the document(s) as well. But I agree that all of these can be forged, and I think that the whole thing is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure that these measures haven't caught a single money launderer ( where's that £26 million stolen from the Northern Bank in Belfast? ) These laws are just another manifestation of this government's love of meddling and micro-management.

Rant over

humfer

I don't really object to giving personal details. The thing I worry about is the requirement to send say a bank statement or utility bill. With more and more companies (BT, swift motor insurance) starting to be completely paperless and just send your bills or certificate by email or on the internet, are companies still going to take them as proof?

dunstonh

But the certification required was only of the copy, not of the original? That has always been my experience - all that is required is that someone saw the copy being made, or has seen the original and the copy together.

Yes, you are certifying that it is a copy of the original and in the cases of passports and photo driving licences (and any other acceptable photo id) you have to state that it is a true likeness of the individual. However, certifying a copy that is clearly a forgery carries a liability. It's one of the reasons that the name, position, address and authorisation references (when applicable) have to be put on the copy. So, they can come back and bite you on the bum when it all goes wrong.

This is why only certain professions can certify items. If it was just a case of certifying it is a copy from an original, then anyone could do that. Those doing it should no the risk behind it.