Do I have a right to see an AML/KYC check?
Discussion
I don't know the answer but 'Tipping off' could apply, if the check shows up something positive and they have to report you or someone else has already reported you, it's a criminal offence to let you know.
I don't know if giving you a report that is clear would also constitute tipping off as refusing it when it's not could in itself be tipping off.
I don't know if giving you a report that is clear would also constitute tipping off as refusing it when it's not could in itself be tipping off.
I'd be surprised if a 3rd party would give a yes/no to a solicitor, or any other organisation completing their obligations under the ML Regs. Unless you are a politically exposed person (PEP), or otherwise a "person of interest" to law enforcement, the checks would be broadly identity verification (most likely by a credit reference agency) and a scan of any open source intelligence. Might be some CIFAS etc checks too, depending on the nature of the transaction.
It would then be up to the solicitor to decide if there are any suspicions arising from the report and act accordingly on those. Lots of third party companies have tried to get in on this and claim their systems have "AI" and are better than the others, but in reality humans still make better judgements (generally) - technology can be helpful though when scanning a vast amount of open source data.
There's also quite a bit of reliance on other parts of the transaction chain - i.e. they have a bank account and therefore XYZ bank must have completed comprehensive KYC checks - if they were dodgy, they would have their account closed. Doesn't always work like that though!
To answer your question though, you don't have a right to see it (but that doesn't mean to can't ask!) You can make subject access requests to any organisation that holds data about you, but they have the right not to disclose if it's related to criminality checks.
It would then be up to the solicitor to decide if there are any suspicions arising from the report and act accordingly on those. Lots of third party companies have tried to get in on this and claim their systems have "AI" and are better than the others, but in reality humans still make better judgements (generally) - technology can be helpful though when scanning a vast amount of open source data.
There's also quite a bit of reliance on other parts of the transaction chain - i.e. they have a bank account and therefore XYZ bank must have completed comprehensive KYC checks - if they were dodgy, they would have their account closed. Doesn't always work like that though!
To answer your question though, you don't have a right to see it (but that doesn't mean to can't ask!) You can make subject access requests to any organisation that holds data about you, but they have the right not to disclose if it's related to criminality checks.
Thanks for the answer. It seems that Veriphy use a company called Armalytix to get a report from your bank account using the Open banking API thing. Now you do get to see that report before it goes back. I'm just curious as to what Veriphy do an send back to the solicitor.
As you can imagine, I'm not too thrilled at the prospect of two companies poking around in my financial details so the solicitor can be lazy! And so far the solicitor and I are not in agreement on the matter!
Mind you (with my conspiracy hat on) all of this intelligence gathering about us goes on a lot more than we imagine. Just have a read of this...
https://veriphy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Ver...
As you can imagine, I'm not too thrilled at the prospect of two companies poking around in my financial details so the solicitor can be lazy! And so far the solicitor and I are not in agreement on the matter!
Mind you (with my conspiracy hat on) all of this intelligence gathering about us goes on a lot more than we imagine. Just have a read of this...
https://veriphy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Ver...
Although not to the same level as this we built a system that verifies someone's driving licence and home address.
The company using it simply gets a red cross or a green light symbol.
Behind the scenes we get some raw data that we have to keep for a certain length of time then delete completely.
The subject has the right to ask us for the data, but we don't explain to the company using it why they get a red.
The company using it simply gets a red cross or a green light symbol.
Behind the scenes we get some raw data that we have to keep for a certain length of time then delete completely.
The subject has the right to ask us for the data, but we don't explain to the company using it why they get a red.
rlw said:
Why, or how rather, is the solicitor being lazy? They have to do this stuff like it or not.
That's a good question. My comment is a little tongue in cheek and relates to my not particularly happy dealings with them. We have gone round the loop a bit now with me supplying bank statements and the like and I have heard a #lot# of guff back about the process. Now they have decided that they are using an outsourced service (I suspect that I am a guinea-pig for it).In conversation it is clear that the solicitor doesn't actually know how to do this. I'm one page ahead in the book as it were, as I have been reading the guidance on the Law Society website which actually makes it quite a simple task for him.
He doesn't know what he has to do and can't be bothered to find out. After me putting in a lot of effort to get him info, he can't be bothered to try and understand it and has decided to outsource it and I'll have to start again. He has no idea how the outsourced service works. And not to mention the conversation I had with their amazingly rude and condescending "compliance officer"
And breath.
Camelot makes some good points further up and sums up the check
If you want to see it complete a SAR once its complete, here are the reasons they could refuse: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-free...
Makes me chuckle how organizations rely on KYC from other parts of the transactional chain...brave!
If you want to see it complete a SAR once its complete, here are the reasons they could refuse: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-free...
Makes me chuckle how organizations rely on KYC from other parts of the transactional chain...brave!
A lot of solicitors (and other professional services firms) don't like doing compliance checks, because they get in the way of business and they don't feel it is their job to stop criminals. I expect some banks feel that way too!
I have some empathy to that - for a lot of smaller firms, not taking on a big but questionable client might be what stops everyone being paid that month. However, I would argue that all of us, and especially firms like banks, lawyers and accountants, do have a role to play to stop criminals laundering their stolen or corrupt money.
There is evidence that criminals infiltrate firms to make laundering easier. Very hard to catch insiders but you do hear about that in the news occasionally. A lot of organised crime money is from human trafficking and modern slavery, which I would hope everyone would find abhorrent. Firms doing KYC and sending SARs into law enforcement do make a difference. I'm aware of plenty of cases where woman and children have been rescued following a SAR or other intelligence from a business.
I can appreciate that these checks can feel intrusive if you are not a criminal and just want to complete your transaction. But I would still argue they are for the greater good, and we are all better off because they happen.
I have some empathy to that - for a lot of smaller firms, not taking on a big but questionable client might be what stops everyone being paid that month. However, I would argue that all of us, and especially firms like banks, lawyers and accountants, do have a role to play to stop criminals laundering their stolen or corrupt money.
There is evidence that criminals infiltrate firms to make laundering easier. Very hard to catch insiders but you do hear about that in the news occasionally. A lot of organised crime money is from human trafficking and modern slavery, which I would hope everyone would find abhorrent. Firms doing KYC and sending SARs into law enforcement do make a difference. I'm aware of plenty of cases where woman and children have been rescued following a SAR or other intelligence from a business.
I can appreciate that these checks can feel intrusive if you are not a criminal and just want to complete your transaction. But I would still argue they are for the greater good, and we are all better off because they happen.
BertBert said:
Thanks for the answer. It seems that Veriphy use a company called Armalytix to get a report from your bank account using the Open banking API thing. Now you do get to see that report before it goes back. I'm just curious as to what Veriphy do an send back to the solicitor.
As you can imagine, I'm not too thrilled at the prospect of two companies poking around in my financial details so the solicitor can be lazy! And so far the solicitor and I are not in agreement on the matter!
Mind you (with my conspiracy hat on) all of this intelligence gathering about us goes on a lot more than we imagine. Just have a read of this...
https://veriphy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Ver...
It's interesting though that their sources of intelligence are all open (not necessarily free!). Giving permission to use Open Banking is different, but that still relies on your consent. Banks can obviously do their own checks - for 99% of people, you have a salary, you pay your bills and it's logical where your funds have come from to pay for whatever transaction it is.As you can imagine, I'm not too thrilled at the prospect of two companies poking around in my financial details so the solicitor can be lazy! And so far the solicitor and I are not in agreement on the matter!
Mind you (with my conspiracy hat on) all of this intelligence gathering about us goes on a lot more than we imagine. Just have a read of this...
https://veriphy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Ver...
Where the "fun" starts is where you note illogical or suspicious transactions. Money mules are a good example - young person (generally) has no or limited income, but starts to get money in from unlinked accounts from various geographical locations. Very easy for a bank algorithm to spot. Much harder when criminals use multiple layers of legitimate companies to mask the journey.
There's some discussion going on in government about faster payments and by their nature it's hard for banks to spot the bad ones and stop them quickly enough before the money disappears overseas. I think we would all be annoyed if our faster payments stopped being fast! Not sure what the solution is. One is perhaps around more education to stop people responding to scams and I would argue social media and telecoms should do more to stop them at source. But it's not easy!
Camelot1971 said:
A lot of solicitors (and other professional services firms) don't like doing compliance checks, because they get in the way of business and they don't feel it is their job to stop criminals. I expect some banks feel that way too!
I have some empathy to that - for a lot of smaller firms, not taking on a big but questionable client might be what stops everyone being paid that month. However, I would argue that all of us, and especially firms like banks, lawyers and accountants, do have a role to play to stop criminals laundering their stolen or corrupt money.
There is evidence that criminals infiltrate firms to make laundering easier. Very hard to catch insiders but you do hear about that in the news occasionally. A lot of organised crime money is from human trafficking and modern slavery, which I would hope everyone would find abhorrent. Firms doing KYC and sending SARs into law enforcement do make a difference. I'm aware of plenty of cases where woman and children have been rescued following a SAR or other intelligence from a business.
I can appreciate that these checks can feel intrusive if you are not a criminal and just want to complete your transaction. But I would still argue they are for the greater good, and we are all better off because they happen.
I understand your view and agree to a large degree. I do have a scepticism about how effective all this is versus the cost in time from the institutions (banks, solicitors etc), but I have no data/evidence on its effectiveness. You say that it does make a difference, is there any reliable published info on that do you know? Not being antagonistic, genuinely interested as to whether I should stop being a sceptic.I have some empathy to that - for a lot of smaller firms, not taking on a big but questionable client might be what stops everyone being paid that month. However, I would argue that all of us, and especially firms like banks, lawyers and accountants, do have a role to play to stop criminals laundering their stolen or corrupt money.
There is evidence that criminals infiltrate firms to make laundering easier. Very hard to catch insiders but you do hear about that in the news occasionally. A lot of organised crime money is from human trafficking and modern slavery, which I would hope everyone would find abhorrent. Firms doing KYC and sending SARs into law enforcement do make a difference. I'm aware of plenty of cases where woman and children have been rescued following a SAR or other intelligence from a business.
I can appreciate that these checks can feel intrusive if you are not a criminal and just want to complete your transaction. But I would still argue they are for the greater good, and we are all better off because they happen.
However, it's such an utter shambles. This is the third time I've had to be part of it. Firstly my bank HSBC were "updating their info". Then as I find HSBC an inept bunch generally, I decided to move my banking to a more personal service and the new bank had to do it. And now with a conveyancing solicitor. And simply as well as hating it (as do I) they have absolutely no idea what they are doing or how to go about it. The chances of them spotting something actually suspicious must be minimal!
And there's the whole "doublethink" aspect. I have heard many times that it is to protect me and my affairs from criminals/fraud/cyber crime. No it's not. It's to find out whether I am a crim or not. Of course the more that criminals are prevented from being criminals, there is a benefit to me. So it's not an absolute lie, but it is certainly intended to mis-lead.
I'm quite intrigued to see how the service from Veriphy and Armalytix works if we get there - I'll report back. Apparently according to the solicitor Veriphy is "government approved". I don't think they are!
TwistingMyMelon said:
Is this your solicitor ? If so find a new one
If they struggle with basic compliance documentation, how on earth are they going to cope with the intricacies of a complex house sale?
Sadly not mine. I made a modest gift to an offspring which they are using as part of a house deposit. Although in my other recent dealings with conveyancing (selling my Mother's house), finding any that are any good is quite challenging!If they struggle with basic compliance documentation, how on earth are they going to cope with the intricacies of a complex house sale?
BertBert said:
I understand your view and agree to a large degree. I do have a scepticism about how effective all this is versus the cost in time from the institutions (banks, solicitors etc), but I have no data/evidence on its effectiveness. You say that it does make a difference, is there any reliable published info on that do you know? Not being antagonistic, genuinely interested as to whether I should stop being a sceptic.
That's a fair question. There is a significant amount of intelligence that will never enter the public domain. Criminals do go to prison as a result of firms taking their MLR obligations seriously, and reporting suspicion.By it's nature, if there was complete transparency about how the public/private sector relationship to fight economic crime works, criminals would immediately exploit that. I get it's easy to be sceptical about "trust us, it makes a difference" and I would love if there was more measurable evidence that the MLRs actually work in practice. But the reality is it's very difficult. How do you measure a crime that hasn't happened because systems and controls prevented it in the first place? Answers on a postcard.....
TwistingMyMelon said:
Is this your solicitor ? If so find a new one
If they struggle with basic compliance documentation, how on earth are they going to cope with the intricacies of a complex house sale?
It may be that the solicitor is dealing with many other complex house sales, is focusing their time helping clients deal with difficult matters which require urgent advice and doesn’t want to waste time prioritising the stuff which (unless there is anything dodgy afoot) is usually the simple admin that the junior staff undertake and the solicitor checks. If they struggle with basic compliance documentation, how on earth are they going to cope with the intricacies of a complex house sale?
RichardDastardly said:
It may be that the solicitor is dealing with many other complex house sales, is focusing their time helping clients deal with difficult matters which require urgent advice and doesn’t want to waste time prioritising the stuff which (unless there is anything dodgy afoot) is usually the simple admin that the junior staff undertake and the solicitor checks.
It may well be that the solicitor is too busy. However when you speak to said solicitor and understand that they really don't have a clue about how to do their basic AML checks, you realise it's to do with competence not being over worked.As failure to complete KYC and source of funds checks, keep adequate records, or report suspicions of ML/FT in a timely matter are all criminal offences (with consequences to professional standing on top), don't be too surprised if your solicitor takes time and care on AML/FT checks.
As already mentioned by another poster, he/she cannot discuss any concerns which arise with you for fear of tipping off. The world went a bit bonkers on AML after 9/11 as Bush used war on terror as an excuse to impose US extra territorial financial information gathering.....morphing later into FATCA. So for better or worse, AML is here to stay; but broadly serves its purpose so long as the Financial Intelligence bodies around the world can process and react effectively on SARs disclosures. I have my suspicions though that many SARs simply head to the big filing cabinet in the sky (read some of the Moneyval jurisdictional audit reports as an eye opener).
At the end of the day, most professionals have sufficiently attuned danger antennae to spot a scumbag money deal, but I acknowledge that after repeated layering that is much harder to identify. I never shared AML checks with clients, so expect your lawyer to be reticent to go there.
As already mentioned by another poster, he/she cannot discuss any concerns which arise with you for fear of tipping off. The world went a bit bonkers on AML after 9/11 as Bush used war on terror as an excuse to impose US extra territorial financial information gathering.....morphing later into FATCA. So for better or worse, AML is here to stay; but broadly serves its purpose so long as the Financial Intelligence bodies around the world can process and react effectively on SARs disclosures. I have my suspicions though that many SARs simply head to the big filing cabinet in the sky (read some of the Moneyval jurisdictional audit reports as an eye opener).
At the end of the day, most professionals have sufficiently attuned danger antennae to spot a scumbag money deal, but I acknowledge that after repeated layering that is much harder to identify. I never shared AML checks with clients, so expect your lawyer to be reticent to go there.
HocusPocus said:
As failure to complete KYC and source of funds checks, keep adequate records, or report suspicions of ML/FT in a timely matter are all criminal offences (with consequences to professional standing on top), don't be too surprised if your solicitor takes time and care on AML/FT checks.
As already mentioned by another poster, he/she cannot discuss any concerns which arise with you for fear of tipping off. The world went a bit bonkers on AML after 9/11 as Bush used war on terror as an excuse to impose US extra territorial financial information gathering.....morphing later into FATCA. So for better or worse, AML is here to stay; but broadly serves its purpose so long as the Financial Intelligence bodies around the world can process and react effectively on SARs disclosures. I have my suspicions though that many SARs simply head to the big filing cabinet in the sky (read some of the Moneyval jurisdictional audit reports as an eye opener).
At the end of the day, most professionals have sufficiently attuned danger antennae to spot a scumbag money deal, but I acknowledge that after repeated layering that is much harder to identify. I never shared AML checks with clients, so expect your lawyer to be reticent to go there.
Yes I get that they have to do it.As already mentioned by another poster, he/she cannot discuss any concerns which arise with you for fear of tipping off. The world went a bit bonkers on AML after 9/11 as Bush used war on terror as an excuse to impose US extra territorial financial information gathering.....morphing later into FATCA. So for better or worse, AML is here to stay; but broadly serves its purpose so long as the Financial Intelligence bodies around the world can process and react effectively on SARs disclosures. I have my suspicions though that many SARs simply head to the big filing cabinet in the sky (read some of the Moneyval jurisdictional audit reports as an eye opener).
At the end of the day, most professionals have sufficiently attuned danger antennae to spot a scumbag money deal, but I acknowledge that after repeated layering that is much harder to identify. I never shared AML checks with clients, so expect your lawyer to be reticent to go there.
My question is around the fact that once the solicitor decided to outsource the check, there is a definite set of information coming back from the outsourced service (Veriphy) which I'd like to see. This is both out of general curiosity but also a "how much is there out there about me, and is it true, daily mail outrage perspective"
I'm interested to see if the info is just info or is it an opinion of how suspiciousi I am? I get that the law stops me seeing the latter.
Then what does the solicitor do if he's not happy with the check? Does he have to do more checks? Or is he obliged to generate the SAR? Is it binary, check says no, SAR generated? Then I assume the transaction has to be stalled? What reason would the solicitor use? Would he just have to obfusticate?
And back to my other question? Does this provincial nonsense actually work to catch money laundering.
Cheers!
It is a while since I retired. So not used the outsource provider you named.
Typically what came back from KYC information providers was a lot of jumbled news cuttings about the subject plus confirmation of basic address etc. Anyway I never believed everything in the press as journos are often inaccurate. Court judgments on subjects were more entertaining and reliable.
Better to focus upon the profile of the client and the type of transaction being proposed. Serial entrepreneurs have different modus operandi than say a civil servant, so what I looked for was unusual activity or deals which simply make little commercial sense. For instance, an employed bloke with a string of CCJs contributing 200k to his daughter's first home would stand out, whilst a serial entrepreneur with offshore funding and holding structures worth gazillions buying an apartment development might not (although some of those can be scumbags too).
If the lawyer forms a suspicion of AML/FT, then the lawyer has a legal duty to file a SAR, about which he/she cannot tell anyone. Clients can mistake this delay as the lawyer being lazy or slow. However, after a certain period the transaction may proceed unless the authorities deny consent.
I am not sure private individuals have access to the KYC information providers. So I do not think you will see your subiect file very easily.
AML/FT is a minefield for professionals. Rule changes occur frequently, often revisions within each year. Compliance is actually a new profession with its own bodies, training, qualifications, CPE programs etc. Imagine your kid saying 'daddy when I grow up I want to be a compliance officer.' Wtf!!
In the olden days if you really needed to know about a subject, you would hire a security firm with certain connections. They could verify passport details internationally and access deep down intel from very reliable sources. For all the new rules etc in the past 20 years, I am not sure the tuned danger antennae is yet beaten by the modern form filling, record keeping bureaucratic AML/FT rules.
Typically what came back from KYC information providers was a lot of jumbled news cuttings about the subject plus confirmation of basic address etc. Anyway I never believed everything in the press as journos are often inaccurate. Court judgments on subjects were more entertaining and reliable.
Better to focus upon the profile of the client and the type of transaction being proposed. Serial entrepreneurs have different modus operandi than say a civil servant, so what I looked for was unusual activity or deals which simply make little commercial sense. For instance, an employed bloke with a string of CCJs contributing 200k to his daughter's first home would stand out, whilst a serial entrepreneur with offshore funding and holding structures worth gazillions buying an apartment development might not (although some of those can be scumbags too).
If the lawyer forms a suspicion of AML/FT, then the lawyer has a legal duty to file a SAR, about which he/she cannot tell anyone. Clients can mistake this delay as the lawyer being lazy or slow. However, after a certain period the transaction may proceed unless the authorities deny consent.
I am not sure private individuals have access to the KYC information providers. So I do not think you will see your subiect file very easily.
AML/FT is a minefield for professionals. Rule changes occur frequently, often revisions within each year. Compliance is actually a new profession with its own bodies, training, qualifications, CPE programs etc. Imagine your kid saying 'daddy when I grow up I want to be a compliance officer.' Wtf!!
In the olden days if you really needed to know about a subject, you would hire a security firm with certain connections. They could verify passport details internationally and access deep down intel from very reliable sources. For all the new rules etc in the past 20 years, I am not sure the tuned danger antennae is yet beaten by the modern form filling, record keeping bureaucratic AML/FT rules.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff