Thursday, March 12, 2009

Why Are Banks Asking About Political Affiliation?

Do pop over to the Coffee House and read Fraser Nelson's account of his discovery that state owned banks are now asking people for their party political affiliations. It's all to protect the bank against money laundering, apparently. Yeah, right.

38 comments:

Paul Halsall said...

This is pretty dire.

It's a shame the "news elevator" that now exists in US does not exist here yet. All sorts of things come up in blogs, or in Private Eye, which should be, but are not, given wider media exposure.

Catosays said...

There are questions here that need answers.
Who's idea was this?
Under what Act of Parliament is it legally binding?
What do the FSA know of/about this?
What does Darling know about it?
What does Snotty McTwat know about it?

Michael Heaver said...

How weird is that?

North Briton 45 said...

This was on the Today programme this morning and RBS said they had stopped it and they had misinterpreted the guidelines.

There is nothing sinister in this.

Tim Carpenter said...

Day X: "Why are banks asking about political affiliation?"
Day X+1: "Why can't I get access to a credit card?"
Day X+2: "Why is someone knocking on my door at 3am?"

Unknown said...

Oh come off it! This is a total non story!

Firstly, this is about setting up a credit card processing facility, a merchant account for you to accept credit card payments. It has nothing to do with personal accounts or anything of the sort.

Secondly, RBS have explained the mistake, and the FSA have confirmed. Banks are required to ask whether someone is a "politically exposed person". When asked the FSA explained that it mainly means - for example -a member of government from a country on the international corruption list. Makes sense. Are you a member of Zanu-PF for example, or are you a government official from Nigeria, who would quite naturally be suspected of having an underhand motive for getting access to a Merchant Acoount.

RBS employees have mistaken that requirement for Political Affiliation however, and been asking people who want to set up merchant accounts what their politial affiliation is, rather than whether they are a politically exposed person as above.

RBS have now corrected the mistake.

Absolutely NOTHING to see here except scaremongering and conspiracy theories.

Yawn.

Anonymous said...

Is this a case of people not reading the story? The headline also is a bit sensationalist.

There may have been, may still be something sinister here and its worth looking at.

However

RBS say its due to money laundering regulations being misinterpreted. Now this may be a case of a child coming up with a dumb excuse having been caught with its hand in the cookie jar but at face value it does not look like the govt is using its pull to see how we all vote.

Like I say it needs some consideration but the real story here is the lack of management which took a wrong turn in the way these regulations were issued and misinterpreted (RBS - so no surprises there then)
and
the sheer dumb ignorance which allowed people to think that it was legal, was sensible, was tolerable to ask people about how they voted and for goodness sake
a) how did they know the answer was truthful and
b) what could be the bloody point?

Tomfiglio said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Awynn said...

Everyone new, nobody did anything about it! Even the public new

Windsor Tripehound said...

North Briton Hunter said...

There is nothing sinister in this.


Good grief!

TT said...

RBS are correct to say that the FSA are now requiring financial services companies to identify whether their clients are politically exposed persons. It is an industry wide initiative with plenty of very clear supporting material available. The FSA have NEVER ever suggested anything as stupid as asking clients what political party they support.

The fact that one of the largest banks in the country (not that that means much anymore) thought they had to ask whether callers support the Labour or Conservative party indicates that crass stupidity is alive and well at RBS. It defies belief that people could be that dumb.

Incidentally those of you who think this is a way for the government to find out who you vote for should check your ballot paper the next time there is an election. You will find a number that matches a number in the book the ballot paper is torn from. The government can find out who didn't vote for them with very little trouble. For many years this system was used to track those who voted for Sein Fein or the BNP.

tory boys never grow up said...

Really is a non story - RBS is just showing its now customary ineptness - the requirements about identifying politically exposed people have been in the Money Laundering Regulation for a number of years.

tory boys never grow up said...

Perhaps if Fraser Nelso had been a good journalist rather than a lazy politically motivated one he might have looked here http://www.fsa.gov.uk/Pages/About/What/financial_crime/money_laundering/peps/index.shtml

before expressing his thoughts? Or he could possibly have spoken to someone who knew something about money laundering. All this demonstrates is how most politically journalists know next to nothing about financial matters.

diogenes said...

It is a classic example of why our banks are bust. No-one with any brains is close to what is happening on the ground. The top guys are only interested in buying pups like ABN AMRO.

No-one with the slightest understanding of the PEPs issue could have built these questions into account-opening of any sort.

If the director came from Nigeria or Antigua there might be some secondary questions. But lets face it, if you are crook you will not answer honestly anyway. All money-laundering catches come from intelligence as the responsible US Treasury Under Secretary once admitted to me.

The whole thing is a political cover cocked up by jobsworths in Government and banks.

Windsor Tripehound said...

The fact that the trolls are out so quickly, shouting "nothing to see here, it's a non-story", leads me to believe that there is a great deal to see here, and it is a very worrying story.

Windsor Tripehound said...

P.S. Anonymous "John" signing off with a "yawn". One of Dolly's trademarks.

strapworld said...

But if you apply for a position on a quango you have to give your political affiliation, if you have ever stood as a candidate, which party and if you are still active in politics.

Shropshire County Council have a question on their application forms.

MALE. FEMALE. TRANSEXUAL.

It is also now quite normal for a question of sexual orientation to beasked...how that has a bearing on the ability to do the job is beyond me!

BUT it is a creeping cancer and we should stand against this. Some things should remain personal and private.

Simon Gardner said...

And remind me - why was ‘religion’ on the last census form. I can’t actually recall the excuse?

(Not that I filled any of it in of course.)

{I'm still steaming because a relevant post was just censored by Mrs Harris in a religious thread on Tom Harris’s blog.}

Unsworth said...

@ Simon Gardner

"{I'm still steaming because a relevant post was just censored by Mrs Harris in a religious thread on Tom Harris’s blog.}"

Yes, and?

Trend Shed said...

State owned banks asking about political affiliation, ID cards, 42 days in the slammer without charge, backdoor DNA database, CCTV, speed cameras, unelected Prime Minister, legally dubious wars........



...... luckily John Major and his vision of a "warm beer" Britain were defeated and Labour with their more "progressive" policies came into government.


O.K. - so this particular issue is cock-up rather than conspiracy - but it blends in very well with the rest of Labour's policies.

Anonymous said...

PEPs are not new, it's true. But that fact that an organisation, especially a state-controlled one, should even think that asking (and thus recording) political sympathies is acceptable is worrying.

That it arises out of a glitch in the bureaucracy might possibly make it even worse.

(Blogged)

Simon Gardner said...

“Yes, and?”

And nothing. I thought it might make me feel better. It didn’t.

Tom Harris’s blog sucks.

Nope. I still don’t feel any better.

Craig Ranapia said...

Hum... am I the only person tempted to go and start the F**k Off Party? :)

Craig Ranapia said...

And, John, I don't believe this is just a "beat up" and a "non-story".

If the Royal Bank of Scotland isn't capable of rationally and/or correctly interpreting anti-laundering regulations, you will pardon me for coming to the conclusion they lack the skills and judgement to properly invest my money or competently provide financial services.

Unknown said...

This may be a non story but it does show the mire of bureaucratic c**p that we are falling into.

The fact that the Bank believed that they should ask the question and our reaction to it is a very sad reflection of how far we have fallen under New Labour since 1997.

Martin S said...

There is nothing sinister in this.

No, of course not. And if anyone really believes that there is "nothing sinister in this" I have several bridges and popular landmarks for sale...

Jimmy said...

I'm staggered that anyone covering this area had never come across the expression "Politically Exposed Person" before. It's been a cornerstone of anti-money laundering mechanisms worldwide for years.

Manfarang said...

Craig
In the 1973 local elections "The Get Stuffed Party" stood candidates in Hull.They got about 20% of the vote.Their slogan-"Youth is on our side".

Johnny Norfolk said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cynic said...

Having worked in financial services it would take a stunning degree of incompetence to translate the rules on PEPs into this set of questions. It may be that it is just cock up. But I do think it needs to be better explored.

And if RBSs understanding of the money laundering controls are so poor what the hell is the 'light touch' FSA doing about this? Either it shows something sinister in RBS or it shows that RBS's controls and compliance system are dysfunctional.

You should complain to the FSA - after all Hector says its no more mister nice guy

Cynic said...

"But that fact that an organisation, especially a state-controlled one, should even think that asking (and thus recording) political sympathies is acceptable is worrying."

Sorry but dont you know that every time you apply for a public appointment now you have to fill in a 'Political Activity' questionnaire on anything you have done politically in the last 5 years. This includes donations, working for a party, membership, even lobbying.

Of course all of this is just for the purposes of 'monitoring' and 'fairness'.

In Northern Ireland they are more open about it. All those deemed suitable for a job are now put before Ministers who choose the candidate 'to provide balance'. Like to guess what that means?

Anonymous said...

It's a cock up, but it's Red Nose Day, you have to laugh!

Paul Donnelley said...

Assuming that this is a cock-up rather than something more sinister, how many times these days do you hear of companies "misinterpreting" laws?

"No, sir, under the Data Protection Act I cannot give you that information..."

"No, sir, sorry, no can do - Human Rights Act, dontcha know?"

Scrap the lot of them...

Jimmy said...

For heaven's sake I would have thought this was obvious. Banks have no interest in your views. They are however required to know if you are suddenly making suspiciously large deposits whether or not you have recently been appointed to the local planning committee.

Twig said...

I doubt anyone would tell the truth anyway, why would they? A more worrying conspiracy theory is the one about the EU reinstating the death penalty in times of unrest etc. I though they were dead against it.
See Link
Archbishop Cranmer's take

Jimmy said...

"Cranmer has not bothered to check this footnote to a footnote"

You'll be relieved to know that Cranmer's rant is in no way inhibited by this.

Giles Marshall said...

'Today' had this story some time before Nelson, playing the recording of their conversation. Sounds more like bureaucratic overkill than sinister political control.

Simon Gardner said...

Twig said... “the one about the EU reinstating the death penalty in times of unrest etc. I though they were dead against it”

WTF? The EU and the Council of Europe are indeed “dead” against the death penalty. It’s been a condition of entry for new members to abolish it and historically some older members were forced to abolish the death penalty.

EU states (including the UK) will not extradite to countries that will not promise not to execute any ‘extraditee’ (?!). Needless to say this causes frequent problems with the US.