It is not about ATM owners. Don't talk about that, those are just silly computer terminals. What matters are the national central servers. The taxman watches that central server, and if he sees many transactions from an unknown card, he has every right to inquire about it. And he will. The only solution is not to use your offshore cards in countries where you are known to the taxman.
Our valued sponsor
It is not about ATM owners. Don't talk about that, those are just silly computer terminals. What matters are the national central servers. The taxman watches that central server, and if he sees many transactions from an unknown card, he has every right to inquire about it. And he will. The only solution is not to use your offshore cards in countries where you are known to the taxman.
Its called prevention of terrorist financing and money laundering prevention. Two important factors which affect the integrity of the very financial system they own.
The taxman loves to use data obtained from these programs to hammer the novice who thinks distance and borders makes a difference to avoiding being caught for tax evasion.
So true you need to think before you use a card abroad a Visa, MasterCard or any other brand can be traced easely by any bank or financial body.
If there isn't a law that explicitly states that banks should automatically submit X, Y, Z ATM withdrawal data to gov institutions, then banks won't do it. If gov institution asks explicitly to provide data for a certain card, they will do it. Banks don't do anything on their own unless the law requires or they are specifically asked to. If you say they report ATM information, you have to provide references for law which states they should provide ATM information automatically without requests.
Ok, so can you please provide me with a law which states bank should submit ATM withdrawal information automatically to this and that institution?
Ok, so can you please provide me with a law which states bank should submit ATM withdrawal information automatically to this and that institution?
There isn't any law preventing someone to deposit cash in his account and cash it the day after, that's a fact it's legal. You can do it everyday if you want. However, in the eyes of the bank this is a suspicious behavior and they will report it to the financial authority. I've been working in the bank for quite a while. A bank is required to report any suspicious activity/behavior. So even if there is no law proventing you to cash $10,000.00 every 10 minut if you want, this is an extremely suspicious activity/behaviour and it will be reported by the bank. It's a very important part of their activity
"Suspicious" activity is determined by exact specifications. If an account X performs Y amount of transactions at total sum of Z in time span of E, then activity is triggered as suspicious by automatic system. It cannot function otherwise. So unless you can tell me the exact specifications for this, then you can't claim any sum gets reported. There are specific thresholds and these are determined by law. Things like these are never vague and abstract, but very precise.
Thank you so much for explaining this
. Why people don't want to accept the reality in what you say is beyond me. There are no hard rules to determining suspicious activity in my personal experience also. It's a bit like customs officers who stop you and not the other person. A lot of suspicious activity detection goes beyond patterns and rules. Your best letting those people who disagree to find out the hard way 
.There absolutely are hard rules, because otherwise nobody would ever agree what "suspicious activity" is. "Suspicious activity" is not based on bank managers and government employees "feels". It is based on algorithms. Show me which law states these algorithms.
It is absolutely not like that. Banks don't have time to manually go through each transaction every day and think if it is suspicious or not. They have algorithms that automatically trigger warnings on certain activities on thresholds. These trigger conditions must be government by LAW otherwise banks wouldn't give a s**t, since it would only cost them time and money to check it.
Your best letting those people who disagree to find out the hard way
So what is "suspicious activity". Define it. A person goes to ATM and withdraws 5000$ a month? Is that suspicious? What about 15'000$? Is that suspicious? If yes, then which law states at which point the amount becomes suspicious.
I absolutely believe there must be such a law, but I really can't stand people spouting vague information and being so certain when they can't even cite it and can't even define the conditions of meeting suspicious activity.
No, absolutely not. I know the example of a Polish road transport company who bought a warehouse in France, I've helped arrange this, and to my complete surprise, I've learned later that it had been reported as being suspicious. And that was in rural France, a small warehouse, no big money involved, with everything clean and normal. I can't imagine what it's like when a Russian oligarch buys an expensive villa on the Riviera.
It is the same arguments used over on this forum in such great threads such as "the moon is upside down", where anybody with an iota of common sense is described as being "vague" when trying to defend the earth being round.
Long live common sense.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice anecdotal case countryfree. And you don't think that it was simply because the transfer was flagged automatically by system since it was large sum and then the bank looked deeper into it to determine details? I mean, come on, banks don't go around checking every transaction manually. Some transactions go under the filter and some don't. Banks don't go figuring out on their own if the transactions are suspicious or not, they have strict guidelines by government or international organisations like OECD. I even remember reading such a law one time. And there definitely were clearly laid out parameters and requirements to meet for activity to be classified as "suspicious".
If it was vague and subjective the whole banking system couldn't function, because everyone would have their own idea of what "suspicious" is. So what I am asking was just to reference the original law, directive or whatever regulation it is where these classifiers for "suspicious activity" were laid out black on white.
Dude, then answer my question - what are the limits? Per month, per year? I'm waiting. At least cite the regulation. I know there is such a law, but I won't go telling everyone their transactions will meet the criteria. There are thresholds or instead literally everyone would get reported.
If it was vague and subjective the whole banking system couldn't function, because everyone would have their own idea of what "suspicious" is. So what I am asking was just to reference the original law, directive or whatever regulation it is where these classifiers for "suspicious activity" were laid out black on white.
where anybody with an iota of common sense is described as being "vague" when trying to defend the earth being round.
Dude, then answer my question - what are the limits? Per month, per year? I'm waiting. At least cite the regulation. I know there is such a law, but I won't go telling everyone their transactions will meet the criteria. There are thresholds or instead literally everyone would get reported.
Latest Threads
-
Friend money transfer via company
- Started by kristiencrimson
- Replies: 2
-
-
Recommendations for EMI or UK Bank, as a non-resident UK company- Started by TitanSan
- Replies: 2
-
-
