3 ms·

> This comes up every time from people who don't understand the regulatory landscape I work in finance, are obliged to complete a number of yearly trainings re

> This comes up every time from people who don't understand the regulatory landscape I work in finance, are obliged to complete a number of yearly trainings regarding KYC and money laundring and understand the regulatory lanscape very well, thank you very much. Regulatory requirements do not mandate to treat your customers like shit. Throw in algorithms that just decide that You! Are Banned! for wild and wonderful reasons and a totally shitty customer support by design. It's funny that as soon the press gets involved, or if it explodes on social media that "this specific cae didn't live up to our high standards, blablabla". As the article states nicely: It takes a second to lock an account. But for the guy on the receiving it's the difference between paying the rent (if she can) and feeding the kids. Such callous behavior, iced by such statements by the press drone is beyond the pale.

lol768 6y ago
>Regulatory requirements do not mandate to treat your customers like shit. Throw in algorithms that just decide that You! Are Banned! for wild and wonderful reasons and a totally shitty customer support by design. What can they say other than "your account has been frozen" if there's legislation that says "tipping off" is an offence offence that carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine? They can't explain they've made a suspicious activity report. They can't explain what has caused the account to be frozen. And there's no way for the bank or other participants in the regulatory process to defend themselves or explain why customer X was flagged. All we ever see are the customer's side of the story. And yes, there will be false positives. Yes, there will be consequences. That's what happens when bank accounts get frozen. Why is it surprising that this happens when there's personal liability, though? I agree it's far from ideal, but change here needs to take place way above the individual banks.
- hakfoo 6y ago
  >What can they say other than "your account has been frozen" "Our system is absolute rubbish, we have absolutely no clue when it will be deborked?" It's accurate. It doesn't leak information about the subject being under investigation, either directly, or by the lack of a normal excuse. It cleverly straddles the border between a technology problem and a regulatory one. And it provides plenty of opportunity to string along the account holder as long as necessary so they don't panic and move to cover their asses.
growse 6y ago
> > This comes up every time from people who don't understand the regulatory landscape > I work in finance, are obliged to complete a number of yearly trainings regarding KYC and money laundring and understand the regulatory lanscape very well, thank you very much. Funny, you said earlier that you don't live in the UK, which makes me think you don't understand the UK retail banking regulatory landscape at all. > Regulatory requirements do not mandate to treat your customers like shit. Throw in algorithms that just decide that You! Are Banned! for wild and wonderful reasons and a totally shitty customer support by design. This regulations literally say that you're not allowed to tell the account holder why their account got restricted. If you think that's treating "customers like shit", your problem is with the legs, not the banks. As for 'algorithms', what's the alternative? Human review (doesn't scale, still doesn't work) or not doing it at all (not legal)? Automated fraud detection systems are far from perfect, but it's an incredibly hard problem to solve.

lol768 6y ago

>Regulatory requirements do not mandate to treat your customers like shit. Throw in algorithms that just decide that You! Are Banned! for wild and wonderful reasons and a totally shitty customer support by design. What can they say other than "your account has been frozen" if there's legislation that says "tipping off" is an offence offence that carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine? They can't explain they've made a suspicious activity report. They can't explain what has caused the account to be frozen. And there's no way for the bank or other participants in the regulatory process to defend themselves or explain why customer X was flagged. All we ever see are the customer's side of the story. And yes, there will be false positives. Yes, there will be consequences. That's what happens when bank accounts get frozen. Why is it surprising that this happens when there's personal liability, though? I agree it's far from ideal, but change here needs to take place way above the individual banks.

hakfoo 6y ago
>What can they say other than "your account has been frozen" "Our system is absolute rubbish, we have absolutely no clue when it will be deborked?" It's accurate. It doesn't leak information about the subject being under investigation, either directly, or by the lack of a normal excuse. It cleverly straddles the border between a technology problem and a regulatory one. And it provides plenty of opportunity to string along the account holder as long as necessary so they don't panic and move to cover their asses.

growse 6y ago

> > This comes up every time from people who don't understand the regulatory landscape > I work in finance, are obliged to complete a number of yearly trainings regarding KYC and money laundring and understand the regulatory lanscape very well, thank you very much. Funny, you said earlier that you don't live in the UK, which makes me think you don't understand the UK retail banking regulatory landscape at all. > Regulatory requirements do not mandate to treat your customers like shit. Throw in algorithms that just decide that You! Are Banned! for wild and wonderful reasons and a totally shitty customer support by design. This regulations literally say that you're not allowed to tell the account holder why their account got restricted. If you think that's treating "customers like shit", your problem is with the legs, not the banks. As for 'algorithms', what's the alternative? Human review (doesn't scale, still doesn't work) or not doing it at all (not legal)? Automated fraud detection systems are far from perfect, but it's an incredibly hard problem to solve.