# What if I don't furnish Proof of Address/ID?



## michaelm (4 Nov 2015)

Dankse/Pepper, who my mortgage is marooned with, have written to annoy me about a requirement to hold up-to-date proof of address and ID under anti money laundering (AML) legislation.  I can't really be bothered to comply with this request.  I assume that if I don't reply then exactly nothing will happen.  Does anyone on AAM know any different? Thanks.


----------



## Steven Barrett (4 Nov 2015)

I don't think anything will happen. 

I would guess that they didn't get the required AML documentation off you when you took out your mortgage originally and need to get their compliance up to date. It's been a while since I read the AML requirements but I don't think institutions are required to hold up to date AML docs, otherwise banks would be writing to you every 6 months looking for new docs. 

Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## 44brendan (4 Nov 2015)

Requirements are that this documentation should be held on file for all existing bank clients. Also if a new facility or amendment is requested and documentation is >5 years old then updated info is required.
Michaelm, as you appear to have requested nothing new from your bank you are under no obligation to provide them now with information that they should have demanded some years ago. Response to the bank is up to you.


----------



## elcato (4 Nov 2015)

And the mistrust in banks suggest to me that there _could _be an alterior motive to see if you are still in the same address should they require to chase you later down the line.
Note: I'm not suggesting any untoward from your behalf.


----------



## Asphyxia (5 Nov 2015)

michaelm,

Ignore the letter, unless you took out your mortgage after 2010. The requirements of section 33 of the Criminal Justice ( money laundering and terrorist financing ) Act 2010 state that prior to establishing a business relationship with a customer you must ..... If the business relationship was established prior to this Act becoming law you do not have to give any further information to the financial institution (no retrospectivity of the said legislation) , the financial institution would have been statutory bound to collect this information from you, as required by the Criminal Justice Act of 1994. Methinks there are alterior motives for this letter.


----------



## Eeyore (5 Nov 2015)

I've also received this request from Danske/Pepper and I don't intend to comply with it.


----------



## llgon (5 Nov 2015)

Me too!


----------



## elcato (5 Nov 2015)

It sounds like a fishing expedition to make their loan book more sellable.


----------



## newtothis (5 Nov 2015)

I received one from Danske/Pepper too. The wording, which seems to me to be incorrect, is "Danske Bank, like all financial institutions, is required under the Criminal Justice Act 2010 to hold up to date proof of identity and proof of address for all customers no matter how long those customers have been with the bank". Firstly, what does "up to date" mean? is it referenced in the Act? Secondly "all customers"? As has already been pointed out, surely this does not include customers prior to the Act?


----------



## Gerry Canning (6 Nov 2015)

If any Bank included chapter and verse of any Act on ID requirements, it doubtless would create confusion.

I am far from a Bank fan , but suggest that all that is happening is that Bank is complying with the Act .
Having written to you they have probably complied with the Act.
I see no downside in sending in fresh ID , eg phone bill less than 3 months old and copy live passport/driving licence.


----------



## newtothis (6 Nov 2015)

The downside is they're looking for certified copies. I really don't have the time or inclination to organise this. They are saying that they have to periodically ask for "up to date proof of identity", even when no new business is being transacted: keep in mind this is a "bank" that doesn't do any new business. I don't believe this to be the case, though I'm no expert. Is it a requirement of the act? If it is, do all banks send out similar letters? If not, why not? If it isn't a requirement, why are they sending such a misleading letter out unnecessarily? Incompetence? Some other reason?


----------



## Codogly (6 Nov 2015)

What will be interesting is if they follow up with a further request when the receive little or no response.  i would be far more concerned if they do follow up to know what they are up to.


----------



## Asphyxia (6 Nov 2015)

newtothis said:


> The downside is they're looking for certified copies. I really don't have the time or inclination to organise this. They are saying that they have to periodically ask for "up to date proof of identity", even when no new business is being transacted: keep in mind this is a "bank" that doesn't do any new business. I don't believe this to be the case, though I'm no expert. Is it a requirement of the act? If it is, do all banks send out similar letters? If not, why not? If it isn't a requirement, why are they sending such a misleading letter out unnecessarily? Incompetence? Some other reason?



I do not believe it is a requirement under the Act. A mortgage would be an unusual method, to say the least, to fund terrorism or indeed to money launder. I suspect the poster elcato could be right.


----------



## newtothis (6 Nov 2015)

One further thought: am I correct in assuming that the obligation to meet the demands of the relevant Act are with the financial institution, and not the end customer? Normally of course if you don't comply with a request like this you don't get to do business with the bank, but in this case that's hardly relevant. In other words, even if they are correct in their claim, why should anyone bother to comply? It's the bank's problem, not the customer's, no?


----------



## llgon (6 Nov 2015)

Was planning a withdrawal from my offset deposit account later in the month so I think I'll put the prepaid envelope to good use for this and save on a stamp.


----------



## Jim2007 (6 Nov 2015)

llgon said:


> Was planning a withdrawal from my offset deposit account later in the month so I think I'll put the prepaid envelope to good use for this and save on a stamp.



That is assuming you don't find that the account has been frozen!


----------



## llgon (6 Nov 2015)

Jim2007 said:


> That is assuming you don't find that the account has been frozen!


They chanced their arm with me before and it cost them so they'll be brave to try it again.


----------



## Asphyxia (7 Nov 2015)

llgon said:


> They chanced their arm with me before and it cost them so they'll be brave to try it again.



IIgon

How did Danske bank chance their arm with you before ? The reason I ask is that I am quite interested in how this bank has deceived customers to date.


----------



## llgon (7 Nov 2015)

I have an offset mortgage with them and they unilaterally removed the offset element a few years back for all customers. Following complaints to the ombudsman they had to reinstate the offset element and pay compensation. There is a long, comprehensive thread about this on boards.ie.


----------



## llgon (7 Nov 2015)

Deleted repeat post


----------



## Jim2007 (7 Nov 2015)

llgon said:


> I have an offset mortgage with them and they unilaterally removed the offset element a few years back for all customers. Following complaints to the ombudsman they had to reinstate the offset element and pay compensation. There is a long, comprehensive thread about this on boards.ie.



Right so a totally different matter and at their discretion.  Compliance with the money laundering laws and directives is not a discretionary matter and taking one as a precedence for the other is not very wise.

I have no idea what Dankse/Pepper will do with someone who fails to comply, but what I can say for experience is  that the half hour or hour you will spend updating your details is nothing compared with the countless hours will spend if your name gets on the black list and the authorities start an investigation.


----------



## llgon (7 Nov 2015)

What black list?


----------



## Asphyxia (7 Nov 2015)

Jim2007 said:


> Right so a totally different matter and at their discretion.  Compliance with the money laundering laws and directives is not a discretionary matter and taking one as a precedence for the other is not very wise.
> 
> I have no idea what Dankse/Pepper will do with someone who fails to comply, but what I can say for experience is  that the half hour or hour you will spend updating your details is nothing compared with the countless hours will spend if your name gets on the black list and the authorities start an investigation.



Jim2007,

Being a frequent poster I would have thought you would have read the previous posts in the thread before posting. I asked IIgon for any information about Danske bank previously chancing their arm. With regards to the offset matter that LLgon talks about, what makes you believe this was a discretionary matter, it certainly was not.

The F.S.O. received numerous complaints from borrowers about this arbitrary change in the terms of their respective contracts by Danske Bank. The F.S.O. made an adjudication on the matter and directed Danske bank to return all lost monies due to their draconian actions together with compensation, to every borrower affected. Danske Bank did not appeal the F.S.O. decision to the High Court, as they would have received legal advice to the effect that they would lose.
This action coupled with their overcharging of variable rate home loan mortgagors between February 2009 and November 2011 shows you the contempt at which this bank treats it's customers.

As previously posted, borrowers with this bank DO NOT have to comply with Danske Bank letter alluding to a/c identification reguirements under the Criminal Justice Act 2010 as all these borrowers would have been already compliant under the requirements of the 1994 Act. This letter is nothing more than a ruse to allow the bank to tidy up their loan book and get their formal a/c idenfication requirements in order. If they want this information, by law, they should already have it. Danske bank have probably lost a lot of this information during their hasty withdrawal from the Irish marketplace. This is a problem for them and not their customers, as the C.B.I. are currently investigating same


----------



## Lone Star (7 Nov 2015)

Interestingly they posted these letters from Denmark!

They sent another delegation of their staff from Copenhagen recently to meet solicitors of those being chased through the courts - with a view to doing deals as Guess what - Litigation is costing them too much!

Are they finally realising the ineptness of the likes of Ivor Fitz & Co


----------



## newtothis (7 Nov 2015)

Jim2007 said:


> I have no idea what Dankse/Pepper will do with someone who fails to comply, but what I can say for experience is  that the half hour or hour you will spend updating your details is nothing compared with the countless hours will spend if your name gets on the black list and the authorities start an investigation.



That's exactly why I asked the question about whether the customer have any responsibility, or is it up to the bank to comply with the Act? Is it really a crime not to give information to a company with which you have no interest in conducting future business? Why on earth would anyone by investigated or "black listed" in those circumstances? Who exactly are these authorities with this black list?


----------



## Buddyboy (9 Nov 2015)

newtothis said:


> The downside is they're looking for certified copies. I really don't have the time or inclination to organise this. They are saying that they have to periodically ask for "up to date proof of identity", even when no new business is being transacted: keep in mind this is a "bank" that doesn't do any new business. I don't believe this to be the case, though I'm no expert. Is it a requirement of the act? If it is, do all banks send out similar letters? If not, why not? If it isn't a requirement, why are they sending such a misleading letter out unnecessarily? Incompetence? Some other reason?



Having read the letter (which is a bit obtuse and required a few readings (with my finger under the words)), it looks like they want certified copies or will accept two copies of each type of Proof of Identify and Proof of address. So you can send in either certified copy of your passport _or_ driving licence and a certified copy of _a_ utility bill/revenue letter - _or_- an uncertified copy of your passport _AND_ driving licence, and an uncertified copy of _Two_ utility bills/revenue letters etc. (which are less than 6 months old)
As our (joint) mortgage is in both our names, this requires four documents each (uncertified) and I don't know if my wife even has a utility bill in her name, never mind two.

As I seem to remember sending this information in some time ago, when it was last asked for, and certainly long after my mortgage was originally taken out, I think I've spend enough time on it, and will line the budgie cage with it.


----------



## newtothis (9 Nov 2015)

Buddyboy said:


> Having read the letter (which is a bit obtuse and required a few readings (with my finger under the words)), it looks like they want certified copies or will accept two copies of each type of Proof of Identify and Proof of address. So you can send in either certified copy of your passport _or_ driving licence and a certified copy of _a_ utility bill/revenue letter - _or_- an uncertified copy of your passport _AND_ driving licence, and an uncertified copy of _Two_ utility bills/revenue letters etc. (which are less than 6 months old)
> As our (joint) mortgage is in both our names, this requires four documents each (uncertified) and I don't know if my wife even has a utility bill in her name, never mind two..



I nearly had to lookup a textbook on Boolean logic to make sense of the sentence referenced. As you point out, for a joint mortgage with two people living together, the chances of getting four proof of addresses is slim (and impossible in our case). I'm not bothered in the slightest about not returning the information, but as ever it is the weak and vulnerable that will bit hit by nonsense like this. Those of an older generation who may fall into this category are precisely those who will see any communication from a bank as something to be treated seriously.


----------



## michaelm (10 Nov 2015)

Buddyboy said:


> As our (joint) mortgage is in both our names, this requires four documents each (uncertified) and I don't know if my wife even has a utility bill in her name, never mind two.


My situation exactly (as quoted).  My mortgage is post 2010 but I don't believe that makes any material difference to me, and I won't be replying.


----------



## ardmacha (12 Nov 2015)

This money laundering excuse is used by financial institutions as an excuse to suit themselves. It is an anti consumer alliance   between lazy bureaucrats and capricious banks which does very little to actually reduce crime.


----------



## Lone Star (12 Nov 2015)

If they want my ID and Bills they can pay me for photocopying and time and solicitors fee to certify. I'm happy to accept Krone!


----------



## diceyreilly (18 Nov 2015)

I have just read this thread as I too have received this request.I have heard of no other bank asking for this information to date. It seems an onerous task to apply to an existing customer.
I would be very surprised if there are any alterior motives given the banks exemplary record over the past few years. 
However, if an existing customer could not produce all of these proofs could,(as in the case of a mortgage for a principal private residence.ppr) the bank assume it wasn't the customers ppr and move the mortgage unto a higher commercial rate. I would not like to put any ideas into their minds so please modify this post if necessary.


----------



## HelpingHand (18 Nov 2015)

What exemplary record are you talking about. This bank charges one of the highest variable rate mortgage interest rates in the Irish market at present. The bank has been involved in overcharging both variable rate mortgage holders and offset mortgage holders. Has been seven times more likely to seek Summary Judgment for borrowers in arrears than any other mortgage provider. To suggest that a bank could move a PPR mortgage to another higher commercial interest rate due to failure to comply with their recent letter is frankly, a nonsense.


----------



## llgon (24 Feb 2018)

https://www.independent.ie/business...y-the-vulture-funds-came-for-me-36639042.html

The headline is a touch dramatic but Charlie Weston has received his letter and he's not going to comply with the request.


----------



## 24601 (26 Feb 2018)

Section 33(1)(d) of the 2010 Act requires firms to complete "customer due diligence" where there are reasonable grounds to doubt that existing customer documents and information are accurate and adequate for the purposes of verifying or confirming customer identity. The likelihood here is that they identified gaps in what they have on file for people and are attempting to rectify this. They can't do anything if you don't comply given the nature of the product, and the obligation is on them so I wouldn't be too bothered. If it was a current account or a deposit account it'd be a different story.


----------



## michaelm (26 Feb 2018)

I never replied to the request for info in 2015 and happily I was able to move my mortgage away from Danske/Pepper since then (I was concerned that they might sell on the mortgage to some crowd that could cause me problems).


----------



## Thirsty (26 Feb 2018)

I ignored it, was never asked again.


----------



## llgon (26 Feb 2018)

Thirsty said:


> I ignored it, was never asked again.



Same here.




24601 said:


> The likelihood here is that they identified gaps in what they have on file for people and are attempting to rectify this.



I don't share your faith in them, given my experiences.


----------

