Proving who you are!

Gabriel-Ernest

Yes, Snow, from memory, and it's been dismissed by someone who doesn't understand its current application out in the marketplace 5 years down the line at grassroots level ie. at the point where it is applied by firms, but offers no alternative explanations, so I won't bother again.

RayWolfe

Please do, it was very useful.

Mikeyorks

Gabriel-Ernest wrote:

..... it's been dismissed by someone who doesn't understand its current application out in the .

It was dismissed partially out of the pomposity of approach. But also because of the lack of common sense that the inconsistency of application from institutions, as evidenced by this thread / several previous ones / national coverage, clearly determine the conflict cannot emanate from the singular point of primary legislation.

It emanates from within the plethora of institutions who have to apply it and the Chinese Whispers effect is clear for all to see. The application of Data Protection similarly suffers from decision makers in individual organisations departing from original concepts in their efforts to 'make their mark' within their organisations.

Gabriel-Ernest

Mikeyorks wrote:

The application of Data Protection similarly suffers from decision makers in individual organisations departing from original concepts in their efforts to 'make their mark' within their organisations.

Try learning what an MLRO does. It may help you see exactly why there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach in the current marketplace, nor does the financial regulator - commissioned by the Government which wrote FSMA - expect there to be. This is what we're discussing, not some pristine unapplied broadsweeping regulation dating back 5+ years. With all due respect, your understanding of the way the market works is out of date. What the OP is seeking is understanding of why things are the way they are now, what the expectation of firms is, and what can be done about it from a consumer point of view to make life easier.

jamesd

Gabriel-Ernest, to make it easier the prescription is fairly simple:

• Consumers gather information on the policies of various institutions and widely disseminate this information.
• Consumers actively reward the institutions with the most consumer-friendly implementations with their business.

Note that I carefully chose the wording to avoid suggesting one obvious concern of the JMLSG, that consumers sharing information might choose to reward the institutions with the least effective controls.

The whole concept is inherently consumer-hostile through restricting consumer choice (of things like preferred address and name variations), though, so it's going to be tough for any institution to make it actually consumer-friendly. As with much of the legislation in the wake of 9-11 it's essentially a victory for the terrorists inflicted on their target populatons by their own governments. That's unlikely to ever be really palatable even though compliance can be and is being forced.

Milarky

LindaMary wrote:

Later this year i want to open a fixed bond savings account with my building society, i have been with them for 26 years. Nowadays you have to prove who you are with one of theses ID
LIST 1

* Unexpired passport
* Unexpired UK old style driving licence (not provisional)
* Unexpired UK photocard driving licence
* EEA or Switzerland national identity card
* Firearms certificate or shotgun licence
* Northern Ireland voters card
* Notification of entitlement to state/local authority benefit*
* Notification of entitlement to tax credit*
* Notification of entitlement to pension from the DWP*
* Notification of entitlement to educational loan/grant*
* Notification of entitlement to other government/local authority grant*
* HMRC (Inland Revenue) coding/assessment/statement/tax credit *
* Birth certificate (under 18’s only)
* NHS medical card (under 18’s only)
* Adoption certificate (under 18’s only)
* Young persons PASS card (under 18's only)

I have none of these! I dont have a passport, dont drive, dont receive a pension for another 20 years, dont earn enough now to pay tax, dont receive any benefits or credits. Anyone any ideas how the hell i prove who i am?
Kind regards
Linda

This might help:

http://www.bsa.org.uk/consumer/factsheets/100206.htm

Specifically where it says:

"What if I can’t provide the documents
suggested?
There are exceptional procedures in place to
help customers who cannot provide the
preferred documents. Don’t be put off by the
mention of passports and driving licences.
These tend to be the documents that are
preferred because they are official documents
and most people can provide them, but they are
not the only way of enabling a bank to satisfy
itself of your identity.
Many people have reasonable grounds for not
being able to produce the recommended
documents. For example, they may have never
been abroad, so do not have a passport, have
never learnt to drive or their spouse may pay the
council tax bill. To help in all these cases, all banks
and building societies have procedures that
permit other proofs of identity to be accepted.
These procedures may, for example, include a
letter from the matron of a residential care home
for the elderly or a housing association tenancy
agreement.
Discuss with a member of staff what sorts of
documents you can produce. If necessary, the
member of staff can refer your application to
someone who is authorised to decide in
exceptional cases."

Gabriel-Ernest

I thought the people on this thread might be interested by some recent developments regarding customer due diligence. HM Treasury is drafting new Money Laundering Regulations in order to enshrine the EU's Third Money Laundering Directive in British law.

One of the proposals which HM Treasury suggests is a requirement for 'simple due diligence' for some regulated activities. However the outworking of this is going to prove ambiguous; the EU's Directive allows for a product or customer to be considered low enough risk to not warrant identification, verification and continuing monitoring. HM Treasury has however indicated a desire to be much more stringent and is imposing on firms the requirement that all products and customers should be monitored continuously, which of course trickles down to due diligence requirements on the customers. In addition it is applying 'simplified due diligence' in the main to certain life insurance policies rather than other products or types of accounts; also included are employer-led pension funds but not pensions funds to which employees make contributions.

So there you go - clear as mud, thanks to HM Treasury wishing to go beyond the Third Directive and imposing higher expectations on firms (which is also in line with the JMLSG approach). Instead of being given clear guidance from HM Treasury, firms are still expected to interpret the rules in their own way with little prescriptive help from the FSA:

"The Goverment expects supervisors or industry to develop guidance on what measures can and should be undertaken to meet the requirements imposed to ascertain the beneficial owner. The Government will work closely with these bodies to ensure that the requirements and any subsequent guidance are as helpful as possible' [taken from Complinet news analysis, today's date]

prudryden

Mikeyorks wrote:

Thank you .. but as someone who worked in Govt alongside the emerging ML legislation and testing its effect within some Govt departments - allow me to pass on your explanation.

And simply re-iterate that the conflict evident in the requirement from financial institutions ... is generated by those institutions, and not by the primary legislation.

It basically is the fear that something goes wrong and the authorities do an audit and close down the business.

Also, the compliance officer or money laundering officer has been given a task. Failure means he loses his job. His choice is: you or him.

Milarky

also included are employer-led pension funds but not pensions funds to which employees make contributions.

Had experience of this - when doing a pension transfer (of all things) to new provider. Now I'd like to get inside the mind of the Treasury in justifying this: "Mr Bin Laden, you have asked us to transfer your pension from the civil service. I'm afraid it's not as simple as that. You have to prove that this pension fund - into which HMG contributes generously is not tainted. On the other hand, if you worked for a private employer - say of Chinese cockle-pickers - there'd be no problem at all - we'd just wave you through"

Pension money is 'dead' in the sense that you can't launder it - you can't take back contributions and there are years to wait before anything does get paid out. Now credit cards I could understand, yet only the Post Office does documentary verfication there - everyone else just waves you through, relying, I assume, on the robustness of forms with questions like "state gross income [the more you put down the more we can lend you]"