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.

  • Galluf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    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@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      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.