Topic: AML/KYC Explained - page 12. (Read 403135 times)
I dont know guys. As for me i very worry about private information. day by day KYC become more strict
Thanks a lot!!!! Is difficult to understand all of the different terms. 
Could someone could explain me what is KYB??
I heard about KYC but nothing about KYB
Regards!!
I heard about KYC but nothing about KYB
Regards!!
KYB = Know your business - Know Your Business is the due diligence review of your business and industry which when reviewed against Money Laundering techniques allows you to develop policies and assess suspicious activities or transactions.
or Kick Your Butt )))
Could someone could explain me what is KYB??
I heard about KYC but nothing about KYB
Regards!!
I heard about KYC but nothing about KYB
Regards!!
Does anyone know how accurate are the data from the kycmap.com ?
Last blog/news post is from 2015... Since that time many things happend in case of cryptocurrency policies but in the kyc/aml as well.
Last blog/news post is from 2015... Since that time many things happend in case of cryptocurrency policies but in the kyc/aml as well.
AML/KYC is a barrier. I don't have a utility bill in my name. It is normal here that utility bills stay in the landlord's name.
That's also what I'm facing right now. I want to participate in an ICO but the name on the bill is entitled to my father which is not allowed. They should consider two ids instead of one id and one bill.
can anybody explain exactly how do you detact AML in the crypto world ?
i mean in order to launder money you need to hack the blockchain am i wrong ?
i mean in order to launder money you need to hack the blockchain am i wrong ?
Both of them are related to jurisdiction, But there are international laws and rules that countries have to follow to be good. Usually fatf try to establish such rules.
AML/KYC is a barrier. I don't have a utility bill in my name. It is normal here that utility bills stay in the landlord's name.
That's also what I'm facing right now. I want to participate in an ICO but the name on the bill is entitled to my father which is not allowed. They should consider two ids instead of one id and one bill.
Services design their own AML/KYC policies and risk management processes with the over-arching guidelines and statutory requirements in mind. Conventional financial institutions tend to have extremely conservative risk assessment frameworks because they're at risk of fines in the hundreds of millions if they're found to be non-compliant.
strongly agree with AML and KYC because it can be a strong security to enter the exchange.
the example of it when there are certain parties in other countries will corruption and the money in the run to Bitcoin, automatically enter the exchange exchanges and when the money deposit and buy Bitcoin then we will see where the transaction and how much deposit. and that's his function from KYC and AML.
the example of it when there are certain parties in other countries will corruption and the money in the run to Bitcoin, automatically enter the exchange exchanges and when the money deposit and buy Bitcoin then we will see where the transaction and how much deposit. and that's his function from KYC and AML.
I see more and more ICO asking for KYC and AML, also more and more exchange are asking for it. I hope they wont use our information for bad uses.
Important aspects. But i think MTGOX should be removed from this nice article. When i see it's name i become different, furry.
AML/KYC is a barrier. I don't have a utility bill in my name. It is normal here that utility bills stay in the landlord's name.
The thread opens the eyes. From the very beginning, the authorities were interested in having a clear idea of the monetary markets / holders and were wondering about the best way to adjust fiscal rules, etc. Thus, it was only a matter of time when more stringent rules were set for exchange, it does not matter if they change fiat vs. Cryto.
Really helpful, thanks!
To expand a bit on what all this means at local level.
Services design their own AML/KYC policies and risk management processes with the over-arching guidelines and statutory requirements in mind. Conventional financial institutions tend to have extremely conservative risk assessment frameworks because they're at risk of fines in the hundreds of millions if they're found to be non-compliant.
The risk assessment/management procedures individual institutions use are developed by them. They get to decide which customers and what transactions are "high risk" and can and do choose to cease providing services to high risk accounts rather than apply enhanced AML/KYC compliance procedures to those accounts. They are under no legal obligation whatsoever to allow you to operate a high risk account and don't have to justify a refusal to do so (under some circumstances, they may even be prohibited from giving you a specific reason).
Compliance is a huge administrative burden for financial institutions and it's both cheaper and easier for them to dump accounts/customers who add to that burden. They not only don't care if you take your business elsewhere, they actively want you to do so - they want your accounts to be someone else's headache.
When your financial institution refuses to process a transaction or closes your account, they are not telling you what to do with your money. They don't actually give a fuck what you do with your money. What they're doing is refusing to act as the middleman in transactions which expose them to potential liability. Any fees they might have earned from that transaction pale into insignificance compared to the fines which allowing a single transaction which breaches AML/KYC requirements can attract (it's 11 million per breach here in Australia for a corporation and a single transaction can involve multiple breaches). It's not about your right to send funds to potentially flaky Bitcoin services or Nigerian "princes" - it's about their right (and, to a large extent, obligation) to not involve themselves in high risk transactions.
People in general greatly over-estimate their importance as customers to financial institutions. You may believe that you're giving them "a lot of business", but in the overall context of their operations you're not bringing them enough profit to justify the risks involved in servicing your account. They can always find low risk customers to replace you.
Services design their own AML/KYC policies and risk management processes with the over-arching guidelines and statutory requirements in mind. Conventional financial institutions tend to have extremely conservative risk assessment frameworks because they're at risk of fines in the hundreds of millions if they're found to be non-compliant.
The risk assessment/management procedures individual institutions use are developed by them. They get to decide which customers and what transactions are "high risk" and can and do choose to cease providing services to high risk accounts rather than apply enhanced AML/KYC compliance procedures to those accounts. They are under no legal obligation whatsoever to allow you to operate a high risk account and don't have to justify a refusal to do so (under some circumstances, they may even be prohibited from giving you a specific reason).
Compliance is a huge administrative burden for financial institutions and it's both cheaper and easier for them to dump accounts/customers who add to that burden. They not only don't care if you take your business elsewhere, they actively want you to do so - they want your accounts to be someone else's headache.
When your financial institution refuses to process a transaction or closes your account, they are not telling you what to do with your money. They don't actually give a fuck what you do with your money. What they're doing is refusing to act as the middleman in transactions which expose them to potential liability. Any fees they might have earned from that transaction pale into insignificance compared to the fines which allowing a single transaction which breaches AML/KYC requirements can attract (it's 11 million per breach here in Australia for a corporation and a single transaction can involve multiple breaches). It's not about your right to send funds to potentially flaky Bitcoin services or Nigerian "princes" - it's about their right (and, to a large extent, obligation) to not involve themselves in high risk transactions.
People in general greatly over-estimate their importance as customers to financial institutions. You may believe that you're giving them "a lot of business", but in the overall context of their operations you're not bringing them enough profit to justify the risks involved in servicing your account. They can always find low risk customers to replace you.
Great contribution. I like the new perspective your post took. Thanks
Great job! I've learned a thing or two from your post. Thanks.
thank you very much for this picked valuable info. 
If I had a merit I would share 
If I had a merit I would share
Thanks
Jump to: