KBC: "Information Required" (Job & Source of funds)

Middleage Fanclub

I got a letter from KBC asking me to confirm my

- Occupation
- Self Employed Yes/No
- Source of Funds

Note, I'm not applying for anything, just an existing customer.

They reference up to date information and the Criminal Justice Act 2010.

Do I have to provide this detail? Should I? (Never received a request like this in the past)

Humour Me

KBC are required to hold this information under Anti-Money Laundering Regulations, hence the reference to the Criminal Justice Act. I received the same letter for an account I opened years ago, they must be going through their records to check that the AML information is up to date.

bilbot79

They might have profiled you as higher risk or your name may have flagged on their screening systems and they need more info about you

Middleage Fanclub

I have accounts with 3 different banks. Do I have to inform all of them every time there is a change in my financial (income) circumstances or am I simply compelled to adhere to individual banks AML protocols at their discretion? What's the rule here?

bilbot79

Middleage Fanclub wrote: »

I have accounts with 3 different banks. Do I have to inform all of them every time there is a change in my financial (income) circumstances or am I simply compelled to adhere to individual banks AML protocols at their discretion? What's the rule here?

Once a year max. More likely once every three years. They are obliged to keep their records about you up to date.

coylemj

bilbot79 wrote: »

Once a year max. More likely once every three years. They are obliged to keep their records about you up to date.

I wouldn't be going to my banks and giving them that information unless them come looking for it.

As you said above, the obligation is on their side, it does not mean a customer is obliged to inform them when there is a change in his/her financial circumstances.

So the answer to the OP's question in post #4 ('Do I have to inform all of them every time there is a change in my financial (income) circumstances') is 'no'.

Yyhhuuu

It seems like law-abiding customers are treated like criminals by banks nowadays...

Bubbaclaus

Yyhhuuu wrote: »

It seems like law-abiding customers are treated like criminals by banks nowadays...

Because they are legally required to conduct anti money laundering reviews?

Come off it...

Jim2007

Yyhhuuu wrote: »

It seems like law-abiding customers are treated like criminals by banks nowadays...

It certainly does not. Next you'll be claiming that by conducting traffic stops the Garda are treating you as a criminal....

Yyhhuuu

Jim2007 wrote: »

It certainly does not. Next you'll be claiming that by conducting traffic stops the Garda are treating you as a criminal....

In fairness that's a very smart reply...

I know of a distressed elderly couple ( a retired teacher and his wife ) who were nothing short of harrangued by their banks as to the source of their legitimate funds. The bank insisted they speak to the husband and wife separately on more than on ocassion. They were very distressed and their health suffered. They told me they felt like criminals. I seriously doubt you would have no problem if in their situation and this wasnt a once off either as I have heard of similar cases where the funds were legitimate. It is a fact that banks view customers with suspicion nowadays, whereas it should be the other way around given banks history of theft, overcharging, Russian-roulette banking etc.

Also, if you care to read the newspapers, there are many cases of Banks in the UK sudenly closing bank accounts on money laundering grounds due to overzealous bank officials only to later reinstate them after much delay when the realized their error. In the meantime the account holders are left destitute. So dont tell me there aren't problems and people are treated as criminals when they are Law abiding.

Jim2007

Yyhhuuu wrote: »

I know of a distressed elderly couple ( a retired teacher and his wife ) who were nothing short of harrangued by their banks as to the source of their legitimate funds. The bank insisted they speak to the husband and wife separately on more than on ocassion. They were very distressed and their health suffered. They told me they felt like criminals. I seriously doubt you would have no problem if in their situation and this wasnt a once off either as I have heard of similar cases where the funds were legitimate. It is a fact that banks view customers with suspicion nowadays, whereas it should be the other way around given banks history of theft, overcharging, Russian-roulette banking etc.

So we should change the system because it upsets the odd customer... the vast majority of pensioners have absolutely no problem in demonstrating the source of their funds - pension plus life time savings and in fact don't even get asked to do so. Therefore your "nice" little couple has something odd about their activities - most likely deposits that could not be explained by their circumstances - ah sure they were only helping out a family member... I have heard it all before.

Yyhhuuu wrote: »

Also, if you care to read the newspapers, there are many cases of Banks in the UK sudenly closing bank accounts on money laundering grounds due to overzealous bank officials only to later reinstate them after much delay when the realized their error. In the meantime the account holders are left destitute. So dont tell me there aren't problems and people are treated as criminals when they are Law abiding.

I'm very familiar with this area and no there are not may cases, there were a few cases. In most cases they accounts were closed because a genuine concern that was proven or a failure by the customer to comply with the request to provide sufficient information.

Yyhhuuu

Jim2007 wrote: »

So we should change the system because it upsets the odd customer... the vast majority of pensioners have absolutely no problem in demonstrating the source of their funds - pension plus life time savings and in fact don't even get asked to do so. Therefore your "nice" little couple has something odd about their activities - most likely deposits that could not be explained by their circumstances - ah sure they were only helping out a family member... I have heard it all before.






I'm very familiar with this area and no there are not may cases, there were a few cases. In most cases they accounts were closed because a genuine concern that was proven or a failure by the customer to comply with the request to provide sufficient information.

I'm not sure why you described my friends, the retired elderly couple as " nice" in quotation Marks apart from an inference that there anything but. In fact you're totally wrong their deposits were entirely legitimate and the fault lay with the overzealous bank officials. They subsquently received an apology from the bank in question. (It wasnt KBC by the way)

It seems to me you are either a banker or have an involvement or in this area of financial services.You seem to dismiss the mere idea that the banks erred in their judgement.

The banks simply can not be trusted. Their history proves this.

Jim2007

Yyhhuuu wrote: »

It seems to me you are either a banker or have an involvement or in this area of financial services.You seem to dismiss the mere idea that the banks erred in their judgement.

The banks simply can not be trusted. Their history proves this.

Of course banks makes mistakes, everyone does.



But the reality is that in this case millions of people all over Europe seem to manage to meet the regulations and there there are no large scale report of regulators receiving or uphold cases concerning MLA, where as you are on about one case...

coylemj

Yyhhuuu wrote: »

I'm not sure why you described my friends, the retired elderly couple as " nice" in quotation Marks apart from an inference that there anything but. In fact you're totally wrong their deposits were entirely legitimate and the fault lay with the overzealous bank officials. They subsquently received an apology from the bank in question.

Your friends should have sold their story to the Daily Mail, that's right up their street.

There will always be collateral damage when regulations are implemented with any kind of vigour. The alternative is light regulation which is no regulation at all and which will quickly be exploited by criminals to launder massive volumes of money through the system.

What I'm saying is that giving us an example of one 'victim' of heavy-handed implementation of money-laundering regulations is no story at all. If there were no such stories, then we'd have something to worry about.

bilbot79

coylemj wrote: »

I wouldn't be going to my banks and giving them that information unless them come looking for it.

As you said above, the obligation is on their side, it does not mean a customer is obliged to inform them when there is a change in his/her financial circumstances.

So the answer to the OP's question in post #4 ('Do I have to inform all of them every time there is a change in my financial (income) circumstances') is 'no'.

True but if you don't give them what they want they can block your account and with old your money

Jim2007

bilbot79 wrote: »

True but if you don't give them what they want they can block your account and with old your money

Actually once it is reported to the authorities, you will have to satisfy the authorities to get your accounts unlocked. And they are not very big on customer relations.

coylemj

bilbot79 wrote: »

True but if you don't give them what they want they can block your account and with old your money

Nothing in my post (which you quoted) suggested that you should refuse their request for information.

Yyhhuuu

Out of interest what is regarded as suspicious activity on an account. Obviously arriving in -branch to lodge a large sum of cash when not in a cash business would be one. Actually I'm in favour of these ML measures provided innocent account holders aren't unnecessarily targeted by overzealous inexperienced bankers.

Atlantic Dawn

Yyhhuuu wrote: »

Out of interest what is regarded as suspicious activity on an account. Obviously arriving in -branch to lodge a large sum of cash when not in a cash business would be one. Actually I'm in favour of these ML measures provided innocent account holders aren't unnecessarily targeted by overzealous inexperienced bankers.

€10k in cash or linked cash lodgements will trigger it.

Jim2007

Yyhhuuu wrote: »

Out of interest what is regarded as suspicious activity on an account. Obviously arriving in -branch to lodge a large sum of cash when not in a cash business would be one. Actually I'm in favour of these ML measures provided innocent account holders aren't unnecessarily targeted by overzealous inexperienced bankers.

Your one case again... there is nothing from the financial ombudsman service to suggest that.

And telling people how the system works would defeat the purpose. Generally I can say it could be any of the following:
- A significant amount
- A significant amount in relation to the customer
- A series of small transactions
- A source known to be problematic
- A country know to be problematic
- An association with an individual know to be problematic
- An association recognised from social media or press cuttings
- Address variations
- Name variations
- Profession
- A sudden series of transactions that would be out of the norm for that customer

And the system is usually monitored by ex-police/security services type individuals not junior bank staff.