2019.4733

THEMA

Betalingen en betaalrekeningen - Zichtrekening (algemeen)- Beëindiging/Afsluiting/Blokkering

ADVIES

Aanwezig :
De heer A. Van Oevelen, Voorzitter ;
De heren J. Vannerom, R. Steennot, A. Guigui, leden
Mevrouw N. Spruyt, lid.

Datum : 14 februari 2020

1. EXPLANATION OF THE FACTS - SHORT HISTORY
In 2019, the bank has sent the client a questionnaire concerning his identity and his assets. He did not want to answer the questions concerning his assets since he had heard from a bank employee that a client is not obliged to provide information on the assets if he is having a normal account with the bank and is not asking for a credit.
The bank has ended the client relations and has charged him without any explication the sum of 100 EUR. He does not understand why she decided to close the account and why she would charge him 100 EUR for this.
He wants to know if there are legal grounds for the behavior of the bank.
2. THE BANK’S POINT OF VIEW
The client received a questionnaire in March 2019. The questions concerned his identification data, his revenue and his global assets. The bank explained that she did have to ask him this information under the AML Act. He was asked to answer the questions before May 2019.
In May, he received a reminder. He was informed that the bank would have to block the accounts in case he did not answer within a certain delay.
In September, the bank has contacted him by phone and he has had a meeting in his agency. There he has confirmed that he did not want to answer the questions concerning his assets, as he did not think this was necessary since he was not asking for a credit.
In October, his account was closed and the bank charged him the sum of 100 EUR since the closure was caused by his refusal to reply to the questionnaire. This cost is explicitly included in the list of tariffs of the bank.
3. OPINION OF THE BOARD OF EXPERTS
He opened an account with the bank in 2016. This is before the implementation of the Anti-Money-Laundering law. (AML law of 18.09.2017) This law obliges the banks to identify their customers. (Article 34 AML law) The law also demands that the banks are all the time vigilant and take care to update the identification information regularly.
It is not enough that the bank updates his identity data, but she also has to know the revenue and the global assets of the client. (Explanatory Statement to the AML Act). The FSMA controls if the banks execute these obligations. (Circular letter of the FSMA of 27.06.2019)
The bank asked him twice to answer the questionnaire. The letters he received were clear as to the purpose of the questioning. He refused manifestly to give response to the questions. He defaulted to answer the questions so that the bank was not able to fulfil her legal obligation to update his data.
When the bank cannot update the data, since she did not receive an answer from the client as it is the case with him, she does not have another option than to end the client relation (article 35, §2 AML Act). In a recent communication of 28.05.2019, the FSMA states that not every ending of the client relation means that it concerns money laundering. The ending of the client relation can be the consequence of the fact that a client refuses to communicate his information or keep them updated.
In the list of tariffs of the bank, the cost of 100 EUR for the ending of the client relation in case of refusal to communicate the identification data as required by the AML Act is clearly stated. The cost is therefore justified.
Based on the above-mentioned elements, the Board declares the complaint admissible but unfounded. The bank, confronted with his refusal to cooperate, had to end the client relation with him and she was entitled to charge him the correctly announced cost of 100 EUR.
4. THE OMBUDSMAN’S OPINION
The Ombudsman therefore joins the advice of the Board.