Can't Withdraw Money/Banks Preparing For Collapse...

[Big A.D.]

A few times I've been asked by the teller 'what the money will be used for'. This is for cash withdraws less than 8K.

Can I ask;

Is that legal? and,
Can they refuse to give you the money based on any answer or lack there-of?

They're actually required by law to ask under the Know Your Customer regulations. If you're a used car dealer who regularly buys and sells cars for cash, they wouldn't bother asking after a week or so of you opening the account because depositing and withdrawing $5k, $10k, $15k is normal behavior for you, but if you just walk in one day and ask to clean out your savings account, yeah, they'll probably ask why.

Whether or not they refuse to give you the full amount you ask for comes down to how much physical cash they actually have in the branch.

If you really don't want to tell them anything, just say you're opening an account with another bank because you don't want to be left in the lurch if their IT system craps itself.

 

[goldpelican]

Give them a crap answer and you'll find yourself the subject of an AUSTRAC suspicious matter report.

 

[JulieW]

Check out the new Rolling Stone Matt Taibbi column on BOA and the US banking system. It could be worth your while extracting all except living expenses until it's safe to go inside again.

 

[SilverStan]

A few times I've been asked by the teller 'what the money will be used for'. This is for cash withdraws less than 8K.

Can I ask;

Is that legal? and,
Can they refuse to give you the money based on any answer or lack there-of?

They're actually required by law to ask under the Know Your Customer regulations. If you're a used car dealer who regularly buys and sells cars for cash, they wouldn't bother asking after a week or so of you opening the account because depositing and withdrawing $5k, $10k, $15k is normal behavior for you, but if you just walk in one day and ask to clean out your savings account, yeah, they'll probably ask why.

This is untrue. KYC obligations are about knowing customer identity before they conduct transactions, not about knowing what the funds are being used for. Typically this identity check will occur when you open an account at the bank .

Banks are also obliged to report on suspicious matters but they have no proactive obligation to make enquiries to confirm there aren't suspicious matters occuring when transactions take place. They also have to report transactions over $10k and foreign transfers.

Assuming they have already confirmed your identity, a single transaction for $8k is not at all suspicious and so they won't refuse to give you the money, even if you tell them to buzz off and mind their own businesss. Funnily enough, even if they do believe a transaction is suspicious, they will still likely give you your money (particularly such a relatively small amount) because entities that have to complete suspicious matters reporting are not allowed to tip off the person conducting the suspicious transaction, which refusing the withdrawal would obviously do.

All info from austrac.gov.au for those interested.

 

[goldpelican]

Funnily enough, even if they do believe a transaction is suspicious, they will still likely give you your money (particularly such a relatively small amount) because entities that have to complete suspicious matters reporting are not allowed to tip off the person conducting the suspicious transaction, which refusing the withdrawal would obviously do.

They're obliged to give you your money. It's still yours. Not the bank's call on whether or not you get access to your funds if they decide they need to report a suspicious matter.

There's a few people participating in this thread who work at AUSTRAC designated service providers, and are not just pulling information off a website.

 

[Big A.D.]

Banks are also obliged to report on suspicious matters but they have no proactive obligation to make enquiries to confirm there aren't suspicious matters occuring when transactions take place.

See: http://www.austrac.gov.au/rg_8.html

 

[SilverStan]

They're obliged to give you your money. It's still yours. Not the bank's call on whether or not you get access to your funds if they decide they need to report a suspicious matter.

In practice, this will depend on the size of the transaction.

There's a few people participating in this thread who work at AUSTRAC designated service providers, and are not just pulling information off a website.

...including myself. But that is not really relevant given the info is public on the Austrac website. Not sure why you are having a dig. Have I said anything incorrect?

 

[SilverStan]

Banks are also obliged to report on suspicious matters but they have no proactive obligation to make enquiries to confirm there aren't suspicious matters occuring when transactions take place.

See: http://www.austrac.gov.au/rg_8.html

Yep - relates to customer identification. No requirement to check what funds are being used for.

 

[SilverJay]

They're obliged to give you your money. It's still yours. Not the bank's call on whether or not you get access to your funds if they decide they need to report a suspicious matter.

There's a few people participating in this thread who work at AUSTRAC designated service providers, and are not just pulling information off a website.

Have they ever approached you to hand over member information?

 

[Big A.D.]

Banks are also obliged to report on suspicious matters but they have no proactive obligation to make enquiries to confirm there aren't suspicious matters occuring when transactions take place.

See: http://www.austrac.gov.au/rg_8.html

Yep - relates to customer identification. No requirement to check what funds are being used for.

What is OCDD?

OCDD is part of a reporting entity's overall CDD obligations.

Broadly speaking, CDD involves:

collecting and verifying initial KYC information, and
providing ongoing monitoring of customers and their transactions.

The systems and processes for collecting initial KYC information are to be set out in Part B of an entity's AML/CTF program. This is discussed in detail in chapter 4 of this Guide.

OCDD requires a reporting entity to monitor its customers with a view to identifying, mitigating and managing any ML/TF risk that may be posed by providing one or more designated services.

Examples of when a reporting entity may need to collect additional KYC information, or update or verify existing KYC information, are where:

a significant transaction or series of transactions (in amount, size or volume) takes place that are inconsistent with previous transaction activity;
a significant change occurs in the way an account was previously operated by the customer; or
there are some doubts about the identity of a customer.

 

[SilverStan]

KYC info is info about the customer's identity, right? Is that the point you are disagreeing with?

So, suspicious transactions might result in you collecting additional identification information, but asking what funds are being used for is not identification information and is not required to be collected. There is no obligation to ask for that.

If you are asking you clients for that, you are going further than the government intended/requires. But, if your customers will put up with it, then good luck to you...

EDIT: Typos

 

[Big A.D.]

KYC info is info about the customer's identity, right? Is that the point you are disagreeing with?

So, suspicious transactions might result in you collecting additional identification information, but asking what funds are being used for is not identification information and is not required to be collected. There is no obligation to ask for that.

If you are asking you clients for that, you are going further than the government intended/requires. But, if your customers will put up with it, then good luck to you...

Well, it is the banks' customers that are putting up with it, but the law that AUSTRAC oversees (pretty sensibly) says that businesses like banks are in the best position to figure out how to identify dodgy people by their patterns of behavior. How the banks and other reporting entities do this is largely up to them, but generally it's just pretty common sense stuff.

If a customer walks into a bank and asks for a large sum of cash - way more than their usual transactions are worth - don't you think it would be common sense for the teller to ask about it? Maybe they're just buying a car, maybe they're setting up a new business running a market stall, maybe they're about to buy a kilo of methamphetamine. Maybe the customer appears to be under the influence of methamphetamine while they're standing at the counter saying they need the cash now man!

If the teller doesn't ask, they don't have much other information to figure out if the transaction is suspicious or not.

Know Your Customer and Ongoing Customer Due Diligence overlap in lots of areas. Simply being able to identify the customer is all well and good, but if you don't know anything else about them, you're not in a position to say whether their transactions are suspicious.

If identifying customers was all that mattered, it would be called Identify Your Customer but they use the word "know" for a reason.

 

[Jislizard]

My local ANZ branch only has $3k on hand per day + 1k from the cashpoint machine. I am more than welcome to visit a couple of branches which is what I did when I went to buy my car. We did get into a conversation as to why I needed the money but it seemed more about them wanting to know if I was going to need anymore and whether I wanted to order some in.

A combination of online transfers, ATM withdrawals and visiting different banks over a couple of days did the trick and I managed to withdraw around $40k with norestrictions other than what the bank had to hand. Not sure what would have happenned if another customer had come in wanting to make a similar withdrawal, maybe it is $3k max per customer and they have enough to service a couple of people.

Maybe I hoovered up the whole lot (I did get a nice consecutive run of 25 last prefix '08 $100 bills in crisp uncirculated condition, catalogue value = $4375, actual value = $2500)

 

[SilverStan]

KYC info is info about the customer's identity, right? Is that the point you are disagreeing with?

So, suspicious transactions might result in you collecting additional identification information, but asking what funds are being used for is not identification information and is not required to be collected. There is no obligation to ask for that.

If you are asking you clients for that, you are going further than the government intended/requires. But, if your customers will put up with it, then good luck to you...

Well, it is the banks' customers that are putting up with it, but the law that AUSTRAC oversees (pretty sensibly) says that businesses like banks are in the best position to figure out how to identify dodgy people by their patterns of behavior. How the banks and other reporting entities do this is largely up to them, but generally it's just pretty common sense stuff.

If a customer walks into a bank and asks for a large sum of cash - way more than their usual transactions are worth - don't you think it would be common sense for the teller to ask about it? Maybe they're just buying a car, maybe they're setting up a new business running a market stall, maybe they're about to buy a kilo of methamphetamine. Maybe the customer appears to be under the influence of methamphetamine while they're standing at the counter saying they need the cash now man!

If the teller doesn't ask, they don't have much other information to figure out if the transaction is suspicious or not.

Know Your Customer and Ongoing Customer Due Diligence overlap in lots of areas. Simply being able to identify the customer is all well and good, but if you don't know anything else about them, you're not in a position to say whether their transactions are suspicious.

If identifying customers was all that mattered, it would be called Identify Your Customer but they use the word "know" for a reason.

We disagree on the interpretation of the law. As do you and at least three major financial services organisations, including one Big 4 bank that I am familiar with. Nevertheless, I have spent far too much time on this argument today and I don't plan on continuing - if you want to overreach your requirements then this is up to you.

 

[Jislizard]

I was finding that interesting, thanks to all the contributors!

 

[Old Codger]

I wonder what will happen when I eventually walk into a Big 4 bank State Office, and ask for $45,000 (at call savings account) in one go?


OC

 

[aleks]

its not a big deal if you just call the branch the day before and they will have it ready for you the next day

 

[Big A.D.]

It isn't the interpretation of the law, it's just the differences in implementation at a business level.

The big banks have different risk profiles for money laundering and terrorist financing than the businesses I've worked in. Their procedures will therefore be different to the ones I've had to follow.

 

[Newtosilver]

I wonder what will happen when I eventually walk into a Big 4 bank State Office, and ask for $45,000 (at call savings account) in one go?


OC

They will look a bit surprised talk between themselves and then get the cash for you if they have that much available, you sign for it and leave. Better to ring and ask them to get $100 bills in as $50 bills are bulky in my opinion.

If you want say $100,000.00 you have to give 5 days notice and arrange a time to pickup. The armed security walk in to the bank, the girls sign for it and hand you the sealed bag and you sign for it. They do not count it for you as it has come from the people who deliver it. They also suggest that you have a escort but it is your decision. If you want you can put it in a bag and walk out of the branch your call.

 

[DanielM]

I wonder what will happen when I eventually walk into a Big 4 bank State Office, and ask for $45,000 (at call savings account) in one go?


OC

I wonder what will happen if you walked in with a wheel barrow and asked for it in $1 coins