RCI Enhanced due diligence

dont_use_vistaprint

Been asked to submit this, I regularly move six figure sums around to stay on top of the best rates and this is a first.

No issues explaining the sources but looks like the evidence they want is the actual transactions, amounts, dates, companies which would take a huge amount of effort to trace back to earnings and dozens of savings accounts over the last 20 years.

The money is showing on my balance so I guess it’s earning interest ? They say if they aren’t happy they’ll close the account and return the funds - I assume with any interest owed ? 

Isthisforreal99

Maybe, maybe not. Ask them? If the  can't source of the funds cannot be verified they may not be obliged to pay interest.

Mark_d

A six figure sum would not get complete FSCS protection.  Growth would also be significantly less than it if was invested in funds/stocks & shares.  So there is valid reason for suspicion.

RCI want to check that you're not involved in money laundering.  If it looks like you are then your problems will be slightly bigger than loss of interest

dont_use_vistaprint

Mark_d said:

A six figure sum would not get complete FSCS protection.  Growth would also be significantly less than it if was invested in funds/stocks & shares.  So there is valid reason for suspicion.

RCI want to check that you're not involved in money laundering.  If it looks like you are then your problems will be slightly bigger than loss of interest

What a silly comment.

My only problem is accessing the last 20 years or so of bank statements and dozens of accounts and determining whether the effort is worth the 0.2% extra. 

I think I’m just gonna ignore it and let them return my money - with interest.

flaneurs_lobster

Not a silly comment at all. Shunting 6 figure sums around in cash is going to trigger all sorts of exception processing and money laundering checks. 

ivormonee

I would imagine it's a source of funds check that they're wanting to carry out. For existing funds, usually going back two years would be sufficient, as that is the period normally associated with "existing". If you showed them where you had the funds deposited for this period, and the movements during the period, that should in theory be enough. If they need source of wealth information, then that might need a bit more work, but even then explanations that match your profile would usually be enough.

You said that: No issues explaining the sources but looks like the evidence they want is the actual transactions, amounts, dates, companies which would take a huge amount of effort to trace back to earnings and dozens of savings accounts over the last 20 years.

So, this is your assumption rather than something they've specified they want. I would probably be inclined to ask them to clarify what they require, as tracing back twenty years' worth of transactions would seem highly unlikely!

k12479

flaneurs_lobster said:

Not a silly comment at all. Shunting 6 figure sums around in cash is going to trigger all sorts of exception processing and money laundering checks. 

No, but it's rather narrow-minded.

When was the last time anyone lost money in a UK bank failure? The FSCS compensation limit is important to know but not hard a hard limit that must never be breached, indeed the maximum allowable balance of most accounts is way way above this.

Growth would be higher if invested? Meaningless advice without knowing the individual's circumstances.

No, shunting about large amounts doesn't necessarily trigger all sorts of issues.

1spiral

I had this myself with RCI earlier in the year. They only required 1 years worth of history but for me the deposits were made on 4 separate occasions so I had to track back transfers from 4 tranches for 1 year. The whole exercise took me 9 hours to complete because most of the tranches had been through between 4 and 10 accounts in that period. The more annoying thing for me was that in 2016 I had a similar sum deposited with them and the irony was not lost on me that if I had been able to trace back that far, a large proportion of the funds would've been with them 9 years ago.

FIREDreamer

Sounds a bit like that Comdirect / Squaregain / Selftrade palaver from a few yesrs ago.

dont_use_vistaprint

flaneurs_lobster said:

Not a silly comment at all. Shunting 6 figure sums around in cash is going to trigger all sorts of exception processing and money laundering checks. 

No it’s not -  it’s the first time it’s ever happened, it’s very normal to move those kind of amounts and much larger , I always go through Barclays Premier linked acc and never had any issues. 

What do you suggest - visit the branch & ask for a  bankers draft from a nice little old man  :-) 

dont_use_vistaprint

1spiral said:

I had this myself with RCI earlier in the year. They only required 1 years worth of history but for me the deposits were made on 4 separate occasions so I had to track back transfers from 4 tranches for 1 year. The whole exercise took me 9 hours to complete because most of the tranches had been through between 4 and 10 accounts in that period. The more annoying thing for me was that in 2016 I had a similar sum deposited with them and the irony was not lost on me that if I had been able to trace back that far, a large proportion of the funds would've been with them 9 years ago.

Maybe an RCI specific and badly designed control then. The letter does say actually it’s been triggered because the amount is larger than the average customer transaction -  this itself tells me the control is badly designed. It would not pass a proper audit on fraud prevention and detection, the variables in the controls need much better justification