Australian banks appear to be holding up international digital money transfers to people who have an initial as the first part of their name, due to what are claimed to be provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Act.
A transfer made by this writer through the National Australia Bank on 15 October never reached the intended recipient. It was sent to a gentleman in Bangalore, India, whose name begins with an initial.
It should be noted here that tens of millions of Indians have names that begin with initials; the Western system of Christian name plus surname is not followed. Rather, one uses an initial to indicate one's family name, then either an initial or full version of one's father's name, and finally one's given name.
This is done for convenience: if one has a name like Sambasiviah Vadivelayutham Thirunnavakarasu, it may not be possible to enter it on any standard form requiring one's full name. And many people do have names that stretch to that length.
{loadposition sam08}What was peculiar about the rejection of this transfer was that this writer has sent money to the same individual using NAB on at least three previous occasions. The details of these, no doubt, reside in the bank's archives as they were all made after December 2014, the month when I began dealing with this bank.
When the money had not reached its intended recipient by 18 October, and was not showing in the debit column of my account either, I contacted the bank to find out why this was so.
By the same evening, I had this response from NAB:
"To ensure NAB continues to comply with the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Acts, we have recently tightened our processes regarding international transactions.
"Under the regulations, international accounts that begin with an initial (as opposed to a middle name initial) require further review before they are processed.
"We apologise for any inconvenience caused to customers, however this change has been made to ensure NAB complies with government regulations. Customers can be assured that we are working to improve our systems so that transactions such as these are able to be made in the future more seamlessly."
I must add that the intended recipient possesses an Indian passport, an Indian identity card (issued by the federal government of that country), a mobile phone, a birth certificate, and a driving licence, all in the same name which the Australian government appears to find objectionable. The last time I looked, India has not been listed by any country as one that funds terrorism or related activities.
As the NAB's reply was somewhat unclear, I wrote to them again, asking:
"I read the entire 374-page Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Act this evening. I cannot find a single reference to justify the judgement you have mentioned. Can you let me know the particular clause which led your bank to come to this conclusion?
"Do these restrictions apply only to residents of India? Or are they universal?
"And, finally, your own bank records will show that I have remitted money to this individual — who happens to be married to my sister for the last 37 years — on at least three occasions before 15 October. What is the logical basis to prevent a transaction taking place now? Or is the bank unwilling to operate as anything but a dumb bureaucratic institution?"
To which, the same NAB spokesperson responded:
"To ensure NAB continues to comply with the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Act, we have recently tightened our processes regarding international transactions.
"Under the Act, a full name and physical address of both beneficiary and remitter is required for a transaction to be processed; names that start with an initial are not normally considered as being full. This applies to all overseas transactions, and similarly most overseas jurisdictions have similar requirements."
As the Act referred to is under the jurisdiction of the justice minister, I sent the following query to Michael Keenan; no media contacts appear to be listed for him, so I had to send it directly to the man himself. After explaining the circumstances of my query, I wrote:
"Having gone through the entire 374 pages of the Act, I can find nothing to justify what NAB has told me. Can you point me to the section that does mention the fact that someone who has an initial as the first part of their name cannot receive an international money transfer from someone in Australia? For your information, I have sent money to this relative several times since December 2014.
"Secondly, does this restriction only apply to some countries, or is it applicable to countries like the US as well?
"And finally, what is the logic behind this? There are millions of people in India who have an initial as the first part of their name. Are they all suspicious individuals before Australian law?"
Keenan's office has acknowledged receiving the query and says it will reply. No doubt that will happen in the fullness of time.