GDPR or banking regs around data held
Discussion
I'm trying to work out what control framework is in place for the info my bank wants from me. I have been contacted by them for a "regular update" of information held. They have a new programme "Safeguard is a series of initiatives that safeguard your hard-earned money and savings from financial crime and fraud".
I've had two calls with them and the questions have been far reaching and a bit mad. One of the mad ones was "where did your money come from?" Now how do you answer that question? They essentially want the details of my earnings/income and assets and have said they want to calculate my net worth (do they have a big enough calculator one wonders?) and I don't want to give them that info. It's mine and private. Obviously some things make sense. With a regular salary coming in for example, they can see and know that and I'm happy to confirm I have a job, who with etc.
So to the question... does GDPR or consumer banking regs or anything else give a framework as to what the bank can ask and what I need to give?
The two conversations I have had so far have been quite difficult and the second has had a fairly direct threat of give the information or have your banking services withdrawn. It doesn't seem to fit the description of what their programme is about certainly.
Cheers
Bert
I've had two calls with them and the questions have been far reaching and a bit mad. One of the mad ones was "where did your money come from?" Now how do you answer that question? They essentially want the details of my earnings/income and assets and have said they want to calculate my net worth (do they have a big enough calculator one wonders?) and I don't want to give them that info. It's mine and private. Obviously some things make sense. With a regular salary coming in for example, they can see and know that and I'm happy to confirm I have a job, who with etc.
So to the question... does GDPR or consumer banking regs or anything else give a framework as to what the bank can ask and what I need to give?
The two conversations I have had so far have been quite difficult and the second has had a fairly direct threat of give the information or have your banking services withdrawn. It doesn't seem to fit the description of what their programme is about certainly.
Cheers
Bert
Yeah, bank had to comply with UK regs that require them to "know your customer" to try to combat money laundering, organised crime, terrorist financing, tax evasion, etc
And top of that list is knowing who a customer really is and where their money is coming from. They are required to find this stuff out before they deal with you and to then keep this info up-to-date and check that the transactions you undertake make sense in the context of what they know about you. No problem with GDPR; they have a clearly legitimate reason for retaining this info. It's sensitive data, so they have a duty of care to handle your data very carefully.
And top of that list is knowing who a customer really is and where their money is coming from. They are required to find this stuff out before they deal with you and to then keep this info up-to-date and check that the transactions you undertake make sense in the context of what they know about you. No problem with GDPR; they have a clearly legitimate reason for retaining this info. It's sensitive data, so they have a duty of care to handle your data very carefully.
Thanks for that. Interestingly, the description of their programme is completely misleading. It's not protecting me, it's checking that I'm not being fraudulent! I specifically asked if it was for KYC/money laundering and the answer was "no".
The question is how far do you have to go with your financial affairs and where is that defined?
Cheers
Bert
The question is how far do you have to go with your financial affairs and where is that defined?
Cheers
Bert
stemll said:
Your account will have triggered something in their anti money laundering systems if they are asking questions like that and saying that services will be withdrawn if you don't answer.
Ah then that makes sense. They could just say that and ask a specific question about a transaction or a set of transactions and that would be reasonable and answerable. The sense that they are disguising it as the Safeguard programme is disingenuous.Bert
From a corporate (rather than consumer) point-of-view the banks are all running scared at the moment as the Covid Bounce Back Loan scheme has raised all sorts of flags on potential money-laundering exposure. Our bank has hit us with a refresh of our KYC information despite it only being carried out earlier in 2020 following a buy-out, with all account changes on hold until new verification is completed.
It is not beyond the realms of possibility that consumer KYC requirements will have become equally in focus I guess.
It is not beyond the realms of possibility that consumer KYC requirements will have become equally in focus I guess.
BertBert said:
I specifically asked if it was for KYC/money laundering and the answer was "no".
That will always be the answer to that question. IIRC (it's been nearly 10 years) they cannot (certainly will not) tell you that they are investigating possible money laundering because, if you were, you would then run a mile and start again somewhere else.Refusing to answer may well result in your account being frozen or closed.
And, on your other point, they are indeed only interested in protecting themselves. Not you.
Edited by stemll on Friday 2nd October 18:36
Ah in that case I understand the weirdness of the conversation a little more. It's quite hard to answer general questions when they are actually wanting to get to specific answers. But they are allowed to ask for the source of funds when a deposit is made for example, are they not?
What's the magnitude of a transaction that would kick off a money laundering question?
Bert
What's the magnitude of a transaction that would kick off a money laundering question?
Bert
Foliage said:
I wouldn't be talking to anyone over the phone about this, id be going into a branch.
And that is a very good point! I am trying to arrange this at the moment, but it seems it's quite a hard thing for the bank to comprehend.I get it that this stuff needs to be done, but the bank are completely crap at it!
Glosphil said:
Are not banks forbidden from telling you if investigating you for money laundering?
They're forbidden from telling you if there's an NCA investigation into you, but at face value this sounds like the bank investigating themselves. They're supposed to just raise a suspicious activity report if things don't line up, not go and give the customer a grilling as it'd tip them off. Are you sure it's actually the bank, did they ask for any details to confirm your identity?
wombleh said:
They're forbidden from telling you if there's an NCA investigation into you, but at face value this sounds like the bank investigating themselves.
They're supposed to just raise a suspicious activity report if things don't line up, not go and give the customer a grilling as it'd tip them off. Are you sure it's actually the bank, did they ask for any details to confirm your identity?
Yes, it's definitely the bank. You phone the bank to make an appointment for the call. I've also had email correspondence from them about the complaint I raised. I'm quite happy for them to ask me about the specific transaction that will have kicked it off. But they can't seem to just ask me the specific question about it, nuts! I'm trying again tomorrow, so we'll see if we get on a bit better. I'll report back.They're supposed to just raise a suspicious activity report if things don't line up, not go and give the customer a grilling as it'd tip them off. Are you sure it's actually the bank, did they ask for any details to confirm your identity?
BertBert said:
Ah then that makes sense. They could just say that and ask a specific question about a transaction or a set of transactions and that would be reasonable and answerable. The sense that they are disguising it as the Safeguard programme is disingenuous.
Bert
That would be "tipping off", also an offence, punishable with an unlimited fine and up to 5 years in prison.Bert
Do you work for a government or something like that? They could be checking if you're a PEP (politically exposed person) or similar.
Within the scope of ensuring you are not somehow involved in a financial crime, if their compliance team is not satisfied, the banking relationship may end.
Salary going in explains regular payments but when you onboarded with them, I assume you completed KYC and AML without a hitch? Did you receive a large credit into your account since then that is not salary?
Within the scope of ensuring you are not somehow involved in a financial crime, if their compliance team is not satisfied, the banking relationship may end.
Salary going in explains regular payments but when you onboarded with them, I assume you completed KYC and AML without a hitch? Did you receive a large credit into your account since then that is not salary?
eeLee said:
Do you work for a government or something like that? They could be checking if you're a PEP (politically exposed person) or similar.
Within the scope of ensuring you are not somehow involved in a financial crime, if their compliance team is not satisfied, the banking relationship may end.
Salary going in explains regular payments but when you onboarded with them, I assume you completed KYC and AML without a hitch? Did you receive a large credit into your account since then that is not salary?
well it was a truly bonkers experience on the phone to them!Within the scope of ensuring you are not somehow involved in a financial crime, if their compliance team is not satisfied, the banking relationship may end.
Salary going in explains regular payments but when you onboarded with them, I assume you completed KYC and AML without a hitch? Did you receive a large credit into your account since then that is not salary?
Me- just an ordinary bod, no govt or similar.
The onboarding was done some 12 odd years ago, so the KYC/AML was very different (not that I remember much about it)! And yes there is a transaction which wasn't regular income which I assume kicked things off.
The bizaare thing is that the interview is set as "getting up to date info to protect you against fraud and financial crime". Which is just a deceit. Once it was clear that it's an "investigation" if that is the right term, it's much easier to deal with as the questions and information asked for could not possibly be used to protect me!
So, not sure I've heard the last of this, but we'll see.
Bert
BertBert said:
Thanks for that. Interestingly, the description of their programme is completely misleading. It's not protecting me, it's checking that I'm not being fraudulent! I specifically asked if it was for KYC/money laundering and the answer was "no".
That specific question is one they cannot answer, due to "tipping off" concerns. BertBert said:
That's interesting, can you elaborate please? Just curious about the subject now!
Here is a starter for you.https://aml-cft.net/library/tipping-off/#:~:text=T...
or for a longer read
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/proceeds-cri...
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff