Hacker News Reader

Comment by ptaipale | Hacker News Reader

Depends on what your "salary" is. In the EU, the banks are obligated to find out where you get your money. And they have an obligation to close your account if they don't get satisfactory answers. "Know your customer".

My bank has recently started to ask customers to clarify transfers, and even shoot and send some video of themselves, smiling, and explaining things. I haven't got that myself yet but several colleagues have. I'm thinking I should change banks, but am unsure if any other bank is any better, because this is the result of government regulation.

The EU laws to fight money laundering are in conflict with national laws for privacy. And because laws for money laundering impact tax revenue, they will triumph over privacy.

View on HN

My business got a KYC letter last year. So far I've ignored it. They haven't shut the account yet.

These things are usually treated as box ticking exercises, not as fervent investigative due diligence.

I would guess money laundering happens elsewhere.

For as little as $1m you can set up or buy a bank of your own. For $10m or more you can buy a regulated operating bank with employees and deposits.

The process is more complicated than plain old incorporation, but I would guess it won't be unduly troubling to people with a lot of spare cash at hand.

I suppose you can ignore the letters, if having your bank account suspended for some weeks doesn't cause major business risks to you. The downside with box ticking exercises is that eventually, someone may calculate the ticks, and his/her guidelines will say that this account belongs to a risky category.

In EU there is an anti-money laundering directive, but it’s mostly up to member countries how they’ll implement it.

As usual some countries implemented it reasonably while others didn’t.

There are new stricter rules coming in 2020, which is, some theorise, a major motivation behind brexit ...

The regulation is rather new, and at least Scandinavian banks seem to be hyper sensitive to be on the safe side from the money laundering risk point of view. In part this is due to the allegations and campaigns against Nordea and the actual laundering scandal at Swedbank. The privacy of customers (against having to provide personal information to the bank) is secondary.

Your bank doesn't need to be so invasive, so if they are you need to switch. There is no EU directive that tells them to clarify things using some sort of weird video proof.

But that may still be the easiest of ways required by the financial authority - which comes up with its own rules, the EU rules only being the minimum of what regulators in each country must implement. Often regulators want to be stricter, in order appear as "good tax collectors" and to avoid being targeted by social media campaigns etc.

This is what puzzles me. Why they need an explanation how money flows in their own system? Don't they see all transfers?

They may see who is the sender of transfer, but that in itself is not a sufficient explanation for where the funds actually come and whether they are legitimate.

Series of transfers are a basic step in money laundering processes, so from that point of view the need for clarification of each step is understandable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com