Ask the FT: Citibank apologises for cheque shambles

In message , Ronald Raygun writes

Thank you Dr Watson!

"john boyle" wrote

Money laundering regs spring to mind?! :-(

In message , Tim writes

But even then the bank doesnt 'judge' the client. It has no discretion to make a judgement as it MUST report ALL suspicious transactiions but still allow the transaction to proceed.

Nonsense. A transaction either is or is not suspicious. They have to make a judgement as to which side of the dividing line it falls.

"john boyle" wrote

When an account is opened, a bank may make a judgment as to how much ID etc it requires to open the account. Some banks ask some applicants for more ID than other applicants to the same bank ...

Youve obviously read the money laundering rules then.

In message , Tim writes

Thats strange, because the BBA and B/Socs association have adopted a standard set of ID requirements. 'Judgement' is specifically not allowed as RBS will tell you following their whopping fine for doing just that.

"john boyle" wrote

Try telling that to BoS! (Personal experience, just few months ago)

No, I'm just saying that, for each transaction, they have to decide, perhaps based on guidance in the rules, whether or not it is suspicious, or at least suspicious enough to report. That decision-making *is* making a judgement.

In message , Ronald Raygun writes

Like "Is this black or is it white?"

In message , Tim writes

Sounds more like sloppy admin OR not a like for like situation.

Exactly, especially when it's a nondescript shade of grey.