Anti Money Laundering Rules

illogical1

I tried to open an account with Halifax at the start of March 2011 to transfer my existing cash ISA from my current provider to them. I sent in my Tax Assessment Statement which is a main government issued document that they have on their list as an acceptable form of identification. I sent in my gas and electricity bills as supporting documents to their Leeds office.

The documents were returned in due course. They had already done a check on my identity with a credit card transaction for £0.00. Then I received a letter from Halifax dated 25 March 2011 informing me that the Tax Assessment Statement is not acceptable because it was issued on 01 December 2010.

How many Tax Assessment statements does the Inland Revenue issue? They are only issued two months before the payment is due. The Tax Assessment has my NI number and it also confirms my address.

By the same reasoning, my Passport has been issued over four years ago, and it DOES NOT include my NI number or my address. My Drivers License was issued in 1981 and it has no photograph, only my name and address.

Why are the above two forms of identification which are years old acceptable rather than something that confirms my NI number and it is 3 months old?

I was told because of anti money laundering requirements, the Tax Assessment was not acceptable being 3 months old. How can money laundering come into question when transfering an existing ISA from an established financial institute to the Halifax or any other financial institute? It was not that I was sending Halifax a cheque to open the account. I just sent them a completed transfer form, that is all. How did I open the the existing ISA with my existing provider over so many years if my identity was questionable?

Is their one rule for the rich and another for the ordinary people? When it is the ordinary people, they have to be scrutinised for money laundering, when it is the rich, or the governments then they can transfer billions without anyone batting an eyelid.

cing0

Had a similar experience with Halifax and had the same leaflet about identity checking. The tax statement from HMRC will only be used to verify postal address and NI no. I think they actually want to check your date of birth but for some reason are not able to specifically ask you.
I found out later when I opened a ISA online with Halifax that it was my date of birth that was wrong on the pre-populated application form. One email to the right person sorted it. I have to this date never proved my DOB to Halifax 30 years after opening my first account with them.

talexuser

illogical1 wrote: »

Is their one rule for the rich and another for the ordinary people?

yep, you got it!

dunstonh

I was told because of anti money laundering requirements, the Tax Assessment was not acceptable being 3 months old. How can money laundering come into question when transfering an existing ISA from an established financial institute to the Halifax or any other financial institute? It was not that I was sending Halifax a cheque to open the account. I just sent them a completed transfer form, that is all. How did I open the the existing ISA with my existing provider over so many years if my identity was questionable?

Every firm interprets the rules their way. 3 months old tax assessment is not a problem being too old. Generally, within 12 months is acceptable. A bit like accepting last years council tax notice is fine right up to the point you get the next council tax notice.

The responsibility with money laundering checks lies with the clerk and their manager. They can rely on another person's check within the business providing it meets current criteria. A change of address between the last check and now usually results in a new check being needed. Or if they cant find the old check on file then getting a new one is common sense. Or if the check was done under previous laws/regulations and not compliant with more recent law changes.

Is their one rule for the rich and another for the ordinary people? When it is the ordinary people, they have to be scrutinised for money laundering, when it is the rich, or the governments then they can transfer billions without anyone batting an eyelid.

"Ordinary" people carry out just as much money laundering than the rich. Indeed, they are probably more likely to do it.

illogical1

dunstonh - I was transferring my existing ISA from HSBC to Halifax. No new money was being deposited. The transfer was to take place between two "reputable" financial institutions from an ISA to an ISA without me in the loop apart from authorising the transfer. I cannot see how money laundering can come into it. If I was making a deposit into my new ISA provider directly, then it can be argued that the money deposited was from an unknown source.

What you have suggested that the buck stops with the clerk and the manager, I agree with you, because one of the documents that is acceptable as an ID is the tax assessment in the Halifax literature. So they were not even adhering to their own rules. I asked who can I complain to, and I was fobbed off that I cannot complain unless I can prove my identity. Which by the way I had already done by answering their security questions on the phone. So I have written to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Let us see what they have to say.

dunstonh

dunstonh - I was transferring my existing ISA from HSBC to Halifax. No new money was being deposited.

so, quite clearly a money laundering check was required in this case.

The transfer was to take place between two "reputable" financial institutions from an ISA to an ISA without me in the loop apart from authorising the transfer.

How does the new bank know the old bank did the check correctly?
The transaction you are doing could be layering. The more transfers you do, the harder it is trace.

I cannot see how money laundering can come into it.

You would if you were the one that could go to prison for not doing the money laundering check correctly.

If I was making a deposit into my new ISA provider directly, then it can be argued that the money deposited was from an unknown source.

A new deposit is placement. A transfer could be layering.

So I have written to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Let us see what they have to say.

The FOS will not deal with your complaint but forward it on to Halifax. Halifax will reject your complaint about money laundering not being required. However, they should accept the tax notification as long as it is the most recent one issued (as i mentioned above).

firstinflight

The money laundering regulations can be particularly harsh when it comes to people like bank staff, accountants etc. who are deemed to have a responsibility to look out for and prevent money laundering. The bottom line is, if something goes wrong, and it turns out that the bank didn't do their checks properly, the individual staff member is personally liable, and could quite easily end up staring down the wrong end of a prison term.

With that in mind, you're probably dealing with a clerk who's scared of going to prison and has been a bit over-zealous in his application of the rules. Annoying, yes, but not a case of the big evil banks trying to hurt the little guy.