Elementary. Anything which gets you in trouble with "the law". :-)
Ask the FT: Citibank apologises for cheque shambles
Jul 24, 2004
32 Replies
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.
Join the Discussion
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Didn't find your answer?
Ask the community — no account required