Brought to you by my discovery that some people think that “the customer is always right” isn’t the slogan of a long-dead department store, but rather it’s an actual call the cops law.

  • Chaotic Entropy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Working in a financial call centre, a certain type of person considered us to have stolen their money if they sent us funds for an investment and refused to send anti-money laundering documents with it, because we also couldn’t return the money without them. Sorry, buddy.

    • Galluf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That honestly should be the law. If you can’t accept it without documentation, you should be required to return it. Of course you can also report it, but that’s separate.

      • ddh@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, since people can just wire you money. Then, if you return it, they can attempt to use that transaction to prove dirty money is clean. If it is clean in the first place, they should be able to provide documentation.

        • Galluf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not seeing how that proves the transaction is clean.

          If I put money in a bank account, then transfer it to another account, then back to the same one, the transfer back doesn’t obfuscate anything. If it’s not caught on the initial deposit in the banking system, then I’m not seeing how any subsequent transactions matter.

          • ddh@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            OK, well I disagree that it ‘doesn’t obfuscate anything’. Additional transactions are in a launder’s interest.

            But also consider that If unknown monies can just be returned, then a launderer can keep trying, with multiple institutions in multiple ways, until they are successful in investing it.

            • Galluf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Then you shouldn’t let the transaction occur in the first place.

              Sure, that sounds like it’s best addressed with enforcement of the requirements before keeping the money.

      • Chaotic Entropy
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Speaking for the UK, that’s every financial institution. The whole point is that everyone is required to complete checks to make sure you are who you say you are, if you refuse them then that is an indicator of money laundering. Even just receiving and returning money helps a money launderer establish a paper trail and assists in layering to legitimise the money they gave you. That’s a big no-no, obviously, so it can’t simply be returned without risking significant legal implications from the regulator. All expectations are set up front on this when beginning transactions.

        • Galluf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I understand that’s the law as it currently is. I’m saying that it shouldn’t result in any legal ramifications.

          It seems they weren’t well setup, if they were then he wouldn’t have gotten to the point that he wired money before filling the required paperwork out.

          • Chaotic Entropy
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Okay, do you work in the UK financial services industry, or an associated regulatory body? Because this was an infrequent circumstance that came as a result of the inattentiveness and belligerence of specific customers. There’s no industry wide issue and this was whilst working for one of the largest investment platforms in the UK.

            If you don’t like how things work, then that’s fine, but it was working as intended and would have been no issue if the client had just followed the required, and explained, process. I feel it goes without saying that it is very important to maintain anti-money laundering processes in our financial systems, both legally and conceptually.

            • Galluf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not saying it’s a common issue. I’m saying that something like this should never occur.

              I’m also not saying that I don’t value anti money laundering process. I agree those are very important.

              However, I also think it’s even more important that people aren’t deprived of their money without due process. If you can’t accept it, because they’re not proving the required evidence then you should be required to return it unless there’s more to it. In order to keep the money, there needs to be some form of evidence showing money laundering not just an absence of evidence altogether.

              • Chaotic Entropy
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                If you receive money without verification and return it no questions asked, then you are opening yourself up as an avenue by which people can launder money. Every receipt and retransfer of that money legitimises that money further and makes you party to the crime. The money is in limbo and can be returned as soon as the regulatory needs are met, but to do otherwise just voids the whole process.

                At this point they are depriving themselves of the money by refusing to verify themselves, it’s a basic identify and address check. This is an investment company, they weren’t sending us their rent money, they wanted to invest it. They were just pissed that we expected them to follow the same process that every client needs to follow when investing.

                • Galluf@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It doesn’t void the whole process. It may very slightly increase the degree to which it’s easier to launder money (I’m not convinced on that aspect since the money already originated from within the banking system).

                  Rather it prioritizes people’s right to their own property.

                  What you’re saying makes sense to me if you’re talking about a deposit of cash that was mailed. It doesn’t make sense to me for a wire or electronic transfer.