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

M

michaelm

Registered User
Messages
2,105
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.
 
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
http://www.bluewaterfp.ie (www.bluewaterfp.ie)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I've also received this request from Danske/Pepper and I don't intend to comply with it.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

That is assuming you don't find that the account has been frozen!
 
llgon said:
They chanced their arm with me before and it cost them so they'll be brave to try it again.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top