more on tracking old money

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Arthur Evans Jr <EvansSL21 () earthlink net>
Date: August 9, 2006 9:36:16 AM EDT
To: Barry Ritholtz <ritholtz () optonline net>
Cc: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] tracking old money

Dave: For IP if you want.

At 19:22 -0400 2006.08.08, Barry Ritholtz wrote:

> I work in the securities industry, an this call struck me as a scam.

The call was legitimate. The caller knew names of the Investment  
Contact and Administrative Contact for the account. Moreover, the  
caller ID identified the bank and was a known bank phone number.  
(Yes, I know, caller ID can be faked.) Moreover, no data that I was  
asked for would be useful for ID stealing.

> All the Patriot act rules I am familiar with primarily involve the  
> "know your client rule" and typically apply to opening new  
> accounts. While there are specific details you have to be familiar  
> with on existing accounts, tracking the lineage of a family trust  
> half a century old certainly ain't one of them.

I believe that. Indeed, I queried the caller about precisely that  
matter.

> Arthur should contact his bank customer service, or better yet go  
> into his local branch, and inquire about this rather odd line of  
> questioning. Then I would check the credit agencies to see if any  
> new accounts have been applied for or opened in his name.

I just had a lengthy chat with the supervisor of the person I earlier  
talked with. (I reached him by calling the phone number listed on my  
monthly statements from the bank.) He reports that the bank is  
complying with provisions of the Patriot Act and the Bank Secrecy Act  
that require that banks use due diligence to identify sources of  
funds of large accounts, both new accounts and legacy accounts. Both  
of us agree that doing so for new or recent accounts is fully  
justified; we equally agreed that doing so for legacy accounts  
established long ago makes little sense (if that much). However, the  
bank's auditors have decreed that the bank must do what they are  
doing to remain in compliance with the law.

My contact promised to send me a brochure (or something) explaining  
the specific provisions of the relevant laws. I'll be away till next  
Wednesday, after which I hope to post further details.

> Something doesn't sound kosher about that call . . .

The call was legitimate, in the sense that it came from the proper  
bank. The need for the facts sought has yet to be explained to my  
satisfaction -- or yours or many others on IP.

Art Evans


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/