3 ms·
>Banks rely on a fixed set of rules to trigger an investigation for money laundering. Mostly, yes. But there are hundreds of those rules. >One of these rules
by KptMarchewa 4y ago
>Banks rely on a fixed set of rules to trigger an investigation for money laundering.
Mostly, yes. But there are hundreds of those rules.
>One of these rules is the value of the transaction.
That happened, but I doubt that is the most important rule now. From what I've seen in my experience way bigger focus total value of transactions compared to various metrics.
Very large number of transactions on personal accounts is also one of those rules.
>Their payment would be automatically blocked and you would get a phone number they had to call to be able to make the payment. It was for example when buying a £5000 kitchen (I worked in the equivalent of home depot in the UK). If they could have split that transaction down to say 10 payments of £500 it wouldn't have triggered anything on the bank side.
That sounds like fraud, not money laundering rule.
- Dave3of5 4y agoYes you are correct there are many rules I can't list them all here. The point is they are fixed rules and one is transaction amount. > Very large number of transactions on personal accounts is also one of those rules. Yes I suspect 1000's of trx on the accounts is what flag the whole thing to the bank. > That sounds like fraud, not money laundering rule. You have to take what I've said in context with the whole comment and not take a single part out of context. As I said for money laundering you'll get consistent large transactions that don't make sense (say £250k each week from a pizza shop). Banks already know how to spot these large weird transactions so a method to hide them is to split them down into smaller transactions. My example with paying the kitchen was to show that the banks wouldn't notice the £500 transactions rather than the single £5000 transaction.