Topic: AML/KYC Explained - page 9. (Read 473691 times)

I believe most US based entities would have to check OFAC sanctions list compliance to make sure customer is not involved in illicit activities. Circle must already be compliant imho.

It might have some negative aspects as mentioned above. But in general, supposing good faith, KYC is a good thing in my view. It makes the whole ICO process more trustworthy and could lead to cut out suspicious scammers in a certain extent.

I do not know what they say professors, experts and other assholes about the AML/KYC.
But in darknet now a lot of personal information is sold for 5-10 dollars per package, and wholesale is much cheaper, thanks to ICO. Now scammers are actively using it to get free profits.
Millions of packages of up-to-date personal information. Now on these bots you can draw up any activity.

It's precisely, also even you, me, or anybody can make an ICO and harvest for selling the information that we get by that, that's very bad for usual people

KYC I find it very necessary for the Blockchain project ... It guarantees the rights of investors..Deep the phishing situation

Hi! Is someone maybe aware of a trustworthy company that does KYC? I am looking for one with good reputation with reasonable pricing. Data storage is also an important issue. Thanks in advance!

o 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.

Sometimes I feel the KYC process is overkill, and it looks like it's fairly easy to fake photographs or document. More of a formality than anything else.

I saw most of the bounties using KYC these days. are they really necessary? bounty hunters are not investors.how can they laundering money by doing bounties.

What about issues like Terrorism funding

I think, KYC is needed for each account. It shows the transparency of your property.

KYC is a regulatory requirement for crime detection purposes.

This is good article. I have been researching about KYC and AML for a while and this write us is an eye opener. Thanks for sharing

Thank you so much for the information. I'm not that familiar in KYC but now I know it. thanks again.

Yeah me too like is there a law or at least a regulation that can protect our identity from being use to fraudulent acts and identity theft? We never know when sh*t can happen. On the other hand, can we us customers can demand a Know the Company? Of course we really want to know them like can they be also transparent? Showing some proof of their identity and other personal stuff. Of course LinkedIn accounts can be falsified.

What kind of irrelevant questions, I wonder?
And how can they protect them in court?

good explanation, very useful thank u

In the U.K. following the financial crisis and scandals around the mis-selling of financial services and products all financial institutions are going to extraordinary lengths to cover their arses by asking  irrelevant questions, just in case they get taken to court  by their disgruntled  ex customers. It also helps the with their AML and Proceeds  of crime act, responsibilities.

It is possible to get around the regulations but there are risks involved    

Blockchain KYC for DEXes will be the next step to increase adoption of decentralized technology in the traditional fintech world.

Thank you for such detailed information!