Money Laundering Search

RG2015

StopIt wrote: »

And of course, a bank transfer is much more transparent if used for money laundering. Thus more likely to be caught. Using credit card balance transfers will obfuscate it, making it more likely in theory to be successful. Still not a very sophisticated method, but hey.

Then why are you asking? Accountancy requires a high level knowledge of finance yet you're claiming ignorance to why a potential source of money laundering has been checked to make sure it is kosher?


I despair!

That's a bit harsh. When I trained in the 70's we covered balance sheets and profit and loss accounts. Perhaps now they include money laundering.

Why am I asking? Well, I believe that the terminology is emotive and could cause concern. As regards my ignorance, yes, I was not aware that searches were carried out when a balance transfer was effected. I thought it was only when new accounts were opened.

Therefore I am now better informed as will be many other users on this site. All in all I believe that this has been an extremely useful thread.

I do though apologise to anyone who has been reduced to despair by my posts.

StopIt

RG2015 wrote: »

That's a bit harsh. When I trained in the 70's we covered balance sheets and profit and loss accounts. Perhaps now they include money laundering.
And to sign off on accounts? You never had any dealings where the income or expenditure looked a bit, you know, dodgy? Money laundering isn't a new crime and I'm pretty sure although I wasn't there that it existed in the 70's also. Funnelling money through a dodgy "business" is one of the oldest tricks in the book after all.

Why am I asking? Well, I believe that the terminology is emotive and could cause concern. As regards my ignorance, yes, I was not aware that searches were carried out when a balance transfer was effected. I thought it was only when new accounts were opened.


Again, that's naivety to the extreme and not something I'd expect from someone who has experience in the financial world. If money laundering checks only occurred at the opening of an account, you'd never catch any laundering, ever. it's an ongoing process and is transaction based, not account based.


I had a money laundering check when I withdrawn money from a bingo site! Again, because gambling is a common money laundering route.

Therefore I am now better informed as will be many other users on this site. All in all I believe that this has been an extremely useful thread.

I do though apologise to anyone who has been reduced to despair by my posts.

A few replies in red. Don't apologise though, I just find it fun that even with those who I really think should be versed in these things shouldn't be spooked by common practice.

RG2015

Not spooked, just curious.

My working life was in corporate and management accounting. Not all accountants sign off accounts.

I am pleased that you find it fun, but not sure why you adopted an adversarial tone after I said I was an accountant which by the way was intended as a humourous aside hence the smiley face.

StopIt

RG2015 wrote: »

Not spooked, just curious.

My working life was in corporate and management accounting. Not all accountants sign off accounts.

I am pleased that you find it fun, but not sure why you adopted an adversarial tone after I said I was an accountant which by the way was intended as a humourous aside hence the smiley face.

You stated that a Money Laundering check was "emotive". What do you want them to call it, other than exactly what it is.


Anyway, apologies for sounding adversarial, but I am a little exasperated that a bit of common sense hasn't been applied here. You transferred a sum of money, it triggered a check to make sure it wasn't funnelling money illegally, the end. Why you even trawled through the forum for a 6 year old post to say "Look, people find this scary" is beyond me. It isn't scary, beyond reading "OMG Money Laundering" with no application of context to the situation.

RG2015

StopIt wrote: »

You stated that a Money Laundering check was "emotive". What do you want them to call it, other than exactly what it is.

Anyway, apologies for sounding adversarial, but I am a little exasperated that a bit of common sense hasn't been applied here. You transferred a sum of money, it triggered a check to make sure it wasn't funnelling money illegally, the end. Why you even trawled through the forum for a 6 year old post to say "Look, people find this scary" is beyond me. It isn't scary, beyond reading "OMG Money Laundering" with no application of context to the situation.

How about "Transaction Review" instead of Money Laundering Product?

Thank you for the apology. It is appreciated. One person's common sense isn't every person's common sense. I genuinely did not know that banks carried out money laundering checks through credit reporting agencies in response to a transaction request so it never crossed my mind. Maybe my senses are becoming dulled in my dotage. At least I know now.

And as to trawling the forum, it was actually the top result on a Google search on "Credit report money laundering product" that took 0.61 seconds!

StopIt

RG2015 wrote: »

How about "Transaction Review" instead of Money Laundering Product?

Thank you for the apology. It is appreciated. One person's common sense isn't every person's common sense. I genuinely did not know that banks carried out money laundering checks through credit reporting agencies in response to a transaction request so it never crossed my mind. Maybe my senses are becoming dulled in my dotage. At least I know now.

And as to trawling the forum, it was actually the top result on a Google search on "Credit report money laundering product" that took 0.61 seconds!

But of course, that's not what it is. It's an Anti money laundering check, which at the first level is automated. And of course, if it was called what you suggest, you'd be asking on this forum what that meant! Using a nice sounding euphemism isn't exactly helpful, even if it sounds nicer!


It's not someone at the banks looking over your transaction. That's only if the computers throw up an alarm. They utilise the credit referencing agencies to confirm that your identity wasn't stolen for example, and being used in a transfer, refund and run scenario, for example. It's far faster to use the CRA system then to ask every other bank "Have you noticed anything dodgy with this guy".

RG2015

Thanks again. I am leaning so much today. Just to recap I have entered my timeline below.

1. On Thursday - I applied for a 0% BT credit card and I was approved immediately.
2. On Friday I got an email confirming my credit limit.
3. The following Tuesday I got an email with saying that my card was in the post.
4. I assume that by this point they have carried out their ID checks including the fact that I have had several savings accounts with them for a few years.
5. On Saturday I received my credit card in the post and registered for online banking.
6. On Monday I requested a balance transfer of about 88% of my credit limit.
7. Also on Monday the bank initiated a Money Laundering Product search with a credit reporting agency.

I am not sure what new information they expected to receive on Monday that they had not already received in the previous 11 days. But then again as I have demonstrated today I am ignorant and naive in banking processes.

StopIt

It's quite simple, you can't check for money laundering when there's no money to look at.


With money laundering, you follow the trail of monetary flow. You can only do that when the money flows. Does that make sense? When you opened the account, you had a credit limit (And were credit checked for that limit), but no actual money changed hands. When you asked for the balance transfer, this initiated the check to make sure the source, and destination of the money was legitimate.


The other checks, like ID and Credit Checks are a fixed point in time check only.

RG2015

Good to know we have an expert on money laundering on the forum.

tenchy

I don't understand how this works. You set up a balance transfer so you have to identify the source card that presumably has a balance on it. Other than checking that the source card and the new destination card are the same person (and in the past I've done BTs from my son's card to mine, as it happens), how does this check identify money laundering? Methinks it's a load of old cobblers and people that work in this part of the financial sector are not very bright.