Skip to main content
deleted 22 characters in body
Source Link
Lag
  • 19.5k
  • 2
  • 43
  • 73

No

So far as I'm aware there is no law explicitly against an "encrypted ledger" but retail banks have legal obligations that can only be met by awareness of activity in user accounts. They entail being able to see user accounts at transaction level.

E.g. rules relating to

  • money laundering

  • terrorism financing

  • serious crime financing

  • other activity considered suspicious in the jurisdiction

  • reporting on certain customers (persons or entities) under the Common Reporting Standard

  • risk, exposure

  • how much money the user had that is 'guaranteed' to be paid in the event of a crash

In at least the past decade the legal trends are towards greater transparency and traceability, less anonymity and financial privacy, and directly opening financial records to law enforcement authorities. And now we have Open Banking in the UK, EU and I think developing in the USA where the biggest banks are (going to be) obliged to facilitate licensed startups direct access to user accounts.

That's all aside from the bank being able to meet its obligations per the contract with the user and check the user is meeting his contractual obligations too. E.g.

  • is the user attempting to withdraw money over a threshold that he may not exceed?

  • did the user exceed their authorised overdraft (therefore can be charged higher interest and/or penalty)

  • calculating interest due either way (to the user or bank's benefit)

  • whether the account qualifies for positive or negative treatment due to frequency of withdrawals (e.g. supersaver account attracting higher interest may allow only five withdrawals a year)

  • investigating user complaints (e.g. fraudulent transactions or mistakes)

  • fixing mistakes

  • processing directcredits and debits, standing orders, payments

  • processing penalties

  • freezing or blocking certain amounts

(Indeed how could such a business operate as a retail bank?)

No

So far as I'm aware there is no law explicitly against an "encrypted ledger" but retail banks have legal obligations that can only be met by awareness of activity in user accounts. They entail being able to see user accounts at transaction level.

E.g. rules relating to

  • money laundering

  • terrorism financing

  • serious crime financing

  • other activity considered suspicious in the jurisdiction

  • reporting on certain customers (persons or entities) under the Common Reporting Standard

  • risk, exposure

  • how much money the user had that is 'guaranteed' to be paid in the event of a crash

In at least the past decade the legal trends are towards greater transparency and traceability, less anonymity and financial privacy, and directly opening financial records to law enforcement authorities. And now we have Open Banking in the UK, EU and I think developing in the USA where the biggest banks are (going to be) obliged to facilitate licensed startups direct access to user accounts.

That's all aside from the bank being able to meet its obligations per the contract with the user and check the user is meeting his contractual obligations too. E.g.

  • is the user attempting to withdraw money over a threshold that he may not exceed?

  • did the user exceed their authorised overdraft (therefore can be charged higher interest and/or penalty)

  • calculating interest due either way (to the user or bank's benefit)

  • whether the account qualifies for positive or negative treatment due to frequency of withdrawals (e.g. supersaver account attracting higher interest may allow only five withdrawals a year)

  • investigating user complaints (e.g. fraudulent transactions or mistakes)

  • fixing mistakes

  • processing direct debits, standing orders, payments

  • processing penalties

  • freezing or blocking certain amounts

(Indeed how could such a business operate as a retail bank?)

No

So far as I'm aware there is no law explicitly against an "encrypted ledger" but retail banks have legal obligations that can only be met by awareness of activity in user accounts. They entail being able to see user accounts at transaction level.

E.g. rules relating to

  • money laundering

  • terrorism financing

  • serious crime financing

  • other activity considered suspicious in the jurisdiction

  • reporting on certain customers (persons or entities) under the Common Reporting Standard

  • risk, exposure

  • how much money the user had that is 'guaranteed' to be paid in the event of a crash

In at least the past decade the legal trends are towards greater transparency and traceability, less anonymity and financial privacy, and directly opening financial records to law enforcement authorities. And now we have Open Banking in the UK, EU and I think developing in the USA where the biggest banks are (going to be) obliged to facilitate licensed startups direct access to user accounts.

That's all aside from the bank being able to meet its obligations per the contract with the user and check the user is meeting his contractual obligations too. E.g.

  • is the user attempting to withdraw money over a threshold that he may not exceed?

  • did the user exceed their authorised overdraft (therefore can be charged higher interest and/or penalty)

  • calculating interest due either way (to the user or bank's benefit)

  • whether the account qualifies for positive or negative treatment due to frequency of withdrawals (e.g. supersaver account attracting higher interest may allow only five withdrawals a year)

  • investigating user complaints (e.g. fraudulent transactions or mistakes)

  • fixing mistakes

  • processing credits and debits

  • processing penalties

  • freezing or blocking certain amounts

(Indeed how could such a business operate as a retail bank?)

added 10 characters in body
Source Link
Lag
  • 19.5k
  • 2
  • 43
  • 73

No

So far as I'm aware there is no law explicitly against an "encrypted ledger" but retail banks have legal obligations that can only be met by awareness of activity in user accounts. They entail being able to see user accounts at transaction level.

E.g. rules relating to

  • money laundering

  • terrorism financing

  • serious crime financing

  • other activity considered suspicious in the jurisdiction

  • reporting on certain customers (persons or entities) under the Common Reporting Standard

  • risk, exposure

  • how much money the user had that is 'guaranteed' to be paid in the event of a crash

In at least the past decade the legal trends are towards greater transparency and traceability, less anonymity and financial privacy, and directly opening financial records to law enforcement authorities. And now we have Open Banking in the UK, EU and I think developing in the USA where the biggest banks are (going to be) obliged to facilitate licensed startups direct access to user accounts.

That's all aside from the bank being able to meet its obligations per the contract with the user and check the user is meeting his contractual obligations too. E.g.

  • is the user attempting to withdraw money over a threshold that he may not exceed?

  • did the user exceed their authorised overdraft (therefore can be charged higher interest and/or penalty)

  • calculating interest due either way (to the user or bank's benefit)

  • whether the account qualifies for positive or negative treatment due to frequency of withdrawals (e.g. supersaver account attracting higher interest may allow only five withdrawals a year)

  • investigating user complaints (e.g. fraudulent transactions or mistakes)

  • fixing mistakes

  • processing direct debits, standing orders, payments

  • processing penalties

  • freezing or blocking certain amounts

(Indeed how could such a business operate as a retail bank?)

No

So far as I'm aware there is no law explicitly against an "encrypted ledger" but retail banks have legal obligations that can only be met by awareness of activity in user accounts. They entail being able to see user accounts at transaction level.

E.g. rules relating to

  • money laundering

  • terrorism financing

  • serious crime financing

  • other activity considered suspicious in the jurisdiction

  • reporting on certain customers (persons or entities) under the Common Reporting Standard

  • risk, exposure

  • how much money the user had that is 'guaranteed' to be paid in the event of a crash

In at least the past decade the legal trends are towards greater transparency and traceability, less anonymity and financial privacy, and directly opening financial records to law enforcement authorities. And now we have Open Banking in the UK, EU and I think developing in the USA where the biggest banks are (going to be) obliged to facilitate licensed startups direct access to user accounts.

That's all aside from the bank being able to meet its obligations per the contract with the user and check the user is meeting his contractual obligations too. E.g.

  • is the user attempting to withdraw money over a threshold that he may not exceed?

  • did the user exceed their authorised overdraft (therefore can be charged higher interest and/or penalty)

  • calculating interest due either way (to the user or bank's benefit)

  • whether the account qualifies for positive or negative treatment due to frequency of withdrawals (e.g. supersaver account attracting higher interest may allow only five withdrawals a year)

  • investigating user complaints (e.g. fraudulent transactions or mistakes)

  • fixing mistakes

  • processing direct debits, standing orders

  • processing penalties

  • freezing or blocking certain amounts

(Indeed how could such a business operate as a retail bank?)

No

So far as I'm aware there is no law explicitly against an "encrypted ledger" but retail banks have legal obligations that can only be met by awareness of activity in user accounts. They entail being able to see user accounts at transaction level.

E.g. rules relating to

  • money laundering

  • terrorism financing

  • serious crime financing

  • other activity considered suspicious in the jurisdiction

  • reporting on certain customers (persons or entities) under the Common Reporting Standard

  • risk, exposure

  • how much money the user had that is 'guaranteed' to be paid in the event of a crash

In at least the past decade the legal trends are towards greater transparency and traceability, less anonymity and financial privacy, and directly opening financial records to law enforcement authorities. And now we have Open Banking in the UK, EU and I think developing in the USA where the biggest banks are (going to be) obliged to facilitate licensed startups direct access to user accounts.

That's all aside from the bank being able to meet its obligations per the contract with the user and check the user is meeting his contractual obligations too. E.g.

  • is the user attempting to withdraw money over a threshold that he may not exceed?

  • did the user exceed their authorised overdraft (therefore can be charged higher interest and/or penalty)

  • calculating interest due either way (to the user or bank's benefit)

  • whether the account qualifies for positive or negative treatment due to frequency of withdrawals (e.g. supersaver account attracting higher interest may allow only five withdrawals a year)

  • investigating user complaints (e.g. fraudulent transactions or mistakes)

  • fixing mistakes

  • processing direct debits, standing orders, payments

  • processing penalties

  • freezing or blocking certain amounts

(Indeed how could such a business operate as a retail bank?)

added 91 characters in body
Source Link
Lag
  • 19.5k
  • 2
  • 43
  • 73

No

So far as I'm aware there is no law explicitly against an "encrypted ledger" but retail banks have legal obligations that can only be met by awareness of activity in user accounts. They entail being able to see user accounts at transaction level.

E.g. rules relating to

  • money laundering

  • terrorism financing

  • serious crime financing

  • other activity considered suspicious in the jurisdiction

  • reporting on certain customers (persons or entities) under the Common Reporting Standard

  • risk, exposure

  • how much money the user had that is 'guaranteed' to be paid in the event of a crash

In at least the past decade the legal trends are towards greater transparency and traceability, less anonymity and financial privacy, and directly opening financial records to law enforcement authorities. And now we have Open Banking in the UK, EU and I think developing in the USA where the biggest banks are (going to be) obliged to facilitate licensed startups direct access to user accounts.

That's all aside from the bank being able to meet its obligations per the contract with the user and check the user is meeting his contractual obligations too. E.g.

  • is the user attempting to withdraw money over a threshold that he may not exceed?

  • did the user exceed their authorised overdraft (therefore can be charged higher interest and/or penalty)

  • calculating interest due either way (to the user or bank's benefit)

  • whether the account qualifies for positive or negative treatment due to frequency of withdrawals (e.g. supersaver account attracting higher interest may allow only five withdrawals a year)

  • investigating user complaints (e.g. fraudulent transactions or mistakes)

  • fixing mistakes

  • processing direct debits, standing orders

  • processing penalties

  • freezing or blocking certain amounts

(Indeed how could such a business operate as a retail bank?)

No

So far as I'm aware there is no law explicitly against an "encrypted ledger" but retail banks have legal obligations that can only be met by awareness of activity in user accounts. They entail being able to see user accounts at transaction level.

E.g. rules relating to

  • money laundering

  • terrorism financing

  • serious crime financing

  • other activity considered suspicious in the jurisdiction

  • reporting on certain customers (persons or entities) under the Common Reporting Standard

  • risk, exposure

In at least the past decade the legal trends are towards greater transparency and traceability, less anonymity and financial privacy, and directly opening financial records to law enforcement authorities. And now we have Open Banking in the UK, EU and I think developing in the USA where the biggest banks are (going to be) obliged to facilitate licensed startups direct access to user accounts.

That's all aside from the bank being able to meet its obligations per the contract with the user and check the user is meeting his contractual obligations too. E.g.

  • is the user attempting to withdraw money over a threshold that he may not exceed?

  • did the user exceed their authorised overdraft (therefore can be charged higher interest and/or penalty)

  • calculating interest due either way (to the user or bank's benefit)

  • whether the account qualifies for positive or negative treatment due to frequency of withdrawals (e.g. supersaver account attracting higher interest may allow only five withdrawals a year)

  • investigating user complaints (e.g. fraudulent transactions or mistakes)

  • fixing mistakes

  • processing direct debits, standing orders

  • processing penalties

  • freezing or blocking certain amounts

(Indeed how could such a business operate as a retail bank?)

No

So far as I'm aware there is no law explicitly against an "encrypted ledger" but retail banks have legal obligations that can only be met by awareness of activity in user accounts. They entail being able to see user accounts at transaction level.

E.g. rules relating to

  • money laundering

  • terrorism financing

  • serious crime financing

  • other activity considered suspicious in the jurisdiction

  • reporting on certain customers (persons or entities) under the Common Reporting Standard

  • risk, exposure

  • how much money the user had that is 'guaranteed' to be paid in the event of a crash

In at least the past decade the legal trends are towards greater transparency and traceability, less anonymity and financial privacy, and directly opening financial records to law enforcement authorities. And now we have Open Banking in the UK, EU and I think developing in the USA where the biggest banks are (going to be) obliged to facilitate licensed startups direct access to user accounts.

That's all aside from the bank being able to meet its obligations per the contract with the user and check the user is meeting his contractual obligations too. E.g.

  • is the user attempting to withdraw money over a threshold that he may not exceed?

  • did the user exceed their authorised overdraft (therefore can be charged higher interest and/or penalty)

  • calculating interest due either way (to the user or bank's benefit)

  • whether the account qualifies for positive or negative treatment due to frequency of withdrawals (e.g. supersaver account attracting higher interest may allow only five withdrawals a year)

  • investigating user complaints (e.g. fraudulent transactions or mistakes)

  • fixing mistakes

  • processing direct debits, standing orders

  • processing penalties

  • freezing or blocking certain amounts

(Indeed how could such a business operate as a retail bank?)

Source Link
Lag
  • 19.5k
  • 2
  • 43
  • 73
Loading