Vulnerable Person who opened an account using a fake name now struggling to withdraw cash using his real name

Status
Not open for further replies.
DirectDevil said:
Did OP's father have mental competence at the time he opened the account ?
In other words, did he have contractual capacity, at the time of opening the account, to enter in to a contract ?
If not, all that followed the opening of the account might be null and void.
The contract thus formed might be regarded as void ab initio i.e. as if it never existed.
Click to expand...
I am not sure this is the right approach. Trying to prove psychological capacity four decades ago and ever since could be a tricky and expensive task. And if the OP's father cannot prove a lack of mental capacity then what?

I think the OP's father should make the following case: "EBS accepted my request in the 1980s to open an a/c under a different name than my own. EBS never sought address or any ID details. I made lodgements and withdrawals using the books still in my possession with comparison of signature and branch staff who I was familiar to. I believe a contractual relationship existed on that basis and EBS should honour it by allowing me to withdraw my deposits to another institution under my own name."

I'm too young to remember but from the comments on the thread it seems that this practice was not uncommon and for sure there are other cases for banks that did business in that era. This was their business model and there were always going to be consequences from it. EBS has an obligation to allow a depositor continuing access to their funds and it really is their problem if they never insisted on proof of address or likeness. Finally, OP should get this done sooner rather than later as it will be even more difficult if not impossible when his father is deceased.
 
THE_Chris said:
They are just doing a "computer says no" here. There are situations which don't fit their rulebook and they don't seem willing to even discuss it, let alone investigate and reach a solution.

This is the kind of situation that may get resolved by heading to the newspapers. Then EBS may well suddenly decide that this is a special circumstance that needs to be sat down and discussed logically, and empathatically.
Click to expand...

The Central bank guidelines on Anti Money Laundering and Terrorist Finding require EBS to
to identify which ML/TF risks they are, or would be, exposed to as a result of entering into, or maintaining, a business relationship or carrying out an occasional transaction. Firms should gather sufficient information at the beginning of a business relationship and throughout the business relationship as determined by the level of ML/TF risk presented by a customer, and before carrying out an occasional transaction in order that they can be satisfied that they have identified all relevant risk factors.

Now, the legislation was different when the accounts were open but EBS should have been updating their records and satisfying the AML requirments over the years by potentially asking the account holder to come in and provide up to date information. My local Credit Union required myself and my wife to do that recently. It's unclear from the OP if that actually happened.

So EBS are doing the right thing at the minute in my mind, perhaps too late but they are doing the right thing. Hence, if EBS were to pay out, without satisfying the law, they risk a significant fine and the staff in question risk a criminal record. We don't know the sum of money involved here or the scale of it but the fines in the past have been in 7 figures and in the case of Nat West in 2022, €300m
 
thedaddyman said:
Now, the legislation was different when the accounts were open but EBS should have been updating their records and satisfying the AML requirments over the years by potentially asking the account holder to come in and provide up to date information.
Click to expand...

This is covered in literally the first paragraph of the post which opened this thread.

There was no AML legislation in the 1980s.
 
T McGibney said:
This is covered in literally the first paragraph of the post which opened this thread.

There was no AML legislation in the 1980s.
Click to expand...
So what?

My point is that firstly, EBS should have been updating their records like other institutions have and secondly, it's there now and it applies not just to accounts being opened but also to transactions. They have to meet their legal requirements in 2023.
 
thedaddyman said:
So what?

My point is that firstly, EBS should have been updating their records like other institutions have and secondly, it's there now and it applies not just to accounts being opened but also to transactions. They have to meet their legal requirements in 2023.
Click to expand...
Those legal requirements, specifically the anti-"tipping off" provisions therein, also extend to a requirement to operate the account normally even if there are genuine suspicions of money laundering by the account-holder.

They cannot merely use AML as an excuse to stonewall him or his representatives indefinitely.
 
thedaddyman said:
So what?

My point is that firstly, EBS should have been updating their records like other institutions have and secondly, it's there now and it applies not just to accounts being opened but also to transactions. They have to meet their legal requirements in 2023.
Click to expand...

And, when he refused or was unable to do provide the required information, requested in 2011, then presumably they should have blocked the account and reported it to the relevant authorities (CAB?). Perhaps the OP should report them to the Financial Regulator for their failure to do so.
 
Shirazman said:
then presumably they should have blocked the account and reported it to the relevant authorities (CAB?).
Click to expand...
That is not remotely how AML/CFT compliance works.

thedaddyman said:
EBS should have been updating their records like other institutions
Click to expand...
You can only do that with the active cooperation of the account holder and, importantly, the risk profile of the account is also relevant.

The vast, vast majority of dormant accounts are situations not unlike the OP's father (minus the fake name of course) and there is zero suspicion of criminal activity nor should there be.
 
TLO said:
Father presents the book. The teller verifies the signature.
Click to expand...
I doubt signature verification is any part of their procedures today. It's a long time since a financial institution were allowed to use a signature as a proof of identity.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
It is absolutely not EBS's fault. This is a very odd situation. Probably unprecedented.
Click to expand...
I disagree with the last bit. On a separate note, I think there's a sense of two sides to this argument regarding the reason/blame for the predicament and I guess the real reason lies somewhere in the middle.
 
T McGibney said:
Those legal requirements, specifically the anti-"tipping off" provisions therein, also extend to a requirement to operate the account normally even if there are genuine suspicions of money laundering by the account-holder.

They cannot merely use AML as an excuse to stonewall him or his representatives indefinitely.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct they should not stonewall and EBS have not covered themselves in glory here and have to accept some responsibility, especially in relation to their "know your customer" obligations. Root cause is the behaviour of the account holder on Day 1 and whilst I understand the mitigating factors, those factors are not EBS's fault but since then, EBS have to bear some responsibility for allowing this to continue.

Having said that, unless they are satisfied that the person trying to withdraw the funds is the original owner or benificiary as, for example, a result of probate, they are also probably correct in not allowing that withdrawal to happen. I fear the OP will need to get either a sworn avidavit or a court order to resolve.
 
ClubMan said:
Can you cite a comparable case involving the EBS?
Click to expand...
Approx 30k people die in Ireland every year. Most of them have a bank account, some several. Let’s say 50k bank accounts needing closure.

Most of these accounts were opened many decades ago when ID and address requirements were very different. As several posters have pointed out, this kind of practice involving address care of bank and no ID requirement was not uncommon in the 80s.

EBS have maybe 5% of market share. So they have to deal with closing 2,500 accounts a year. I am hypothesising here but I don't think my point would be different if it was 500 or 5,000.

So, yes, it is pretty reasonable to assume EBS has encountered the situation before of an elderly person with an account in a fake name. They should know what to do here.
 
NoRegretsCoyote said:
I think the OP's father should make the following case: "EBS accepted my request in the 1980s to open an a/c under a different name than my own. EBS never sought address or any ID details. I made lodgements and withdrawals using the books still in my possession with comparison of signature and branch staff who I was familiar to. I believe a contractual relationship existed on that basis and EBS should honour it by allowing me to withdraw my deposits to another institution under my own name."
Click to expand...
I think this is very good advice.

You want to regularise the situation and free up the funds for your father in his old age.

A hand writing expert comparing your fathers writing (back when the account was active) to the account signature would be helpful. Tracking down retired staff who dealt at the counter with your father under the fake name would be useful.

Gather all the evidence you have, and could possibly need. Then get your solicitor to write to the bank and ask for the account to be regularised and the correct name and address associated with it, so your father has access to the funds.

Balance how much is in the account with the effort needed to bring about the resolution you require.

If they say no keep asking for a further review, their proposal to regularise the account and or a final statement and finally go to the ombudsman for their resolution.

Being a squeaky wheel with the bank may indeed force them to accept on the balance of the evidence you produce that your Dad is the beneficial owner. They are never going to get simple proof like birth certificate and proof of address for a false name, so they need to make a determination on the evidence provided.

But if there is less than a few grand in the account the effort may not be worth it.
 
Just to add to what has already been suggested. I opened an account with the EBS. At the time I was asked for my passport details. My passport was in my maiden name and the account I opened was in my married (family) name. When I went to withdraw money subsequently I produced my passport as photo id together with my EBS pass book. Because they differed I was told to go home and get my marriage certificate. I took exception to this. The Ombudsman found in my favour. In my opinion this should be the posters first step.
 
Silversurfer said:
Just to add to what has already been suggested. I opened an account with the EBS. At the time I was asked for my passport details. My passport was in my maiden name and the account I opened was in my married (family) name. When I went to withdraw money subsequently I produced my passport as photo id together with my EBS pass book. Because they differed I was told to go home and get my marriage certificate. I took exception to this. The Ombudsman found in my favour. In my opinion this should be the posters first step.
Click to expand...
Why did you take exception to a simple commonsense request?

I find it breathtaking to think that the Ombudsman’s time is wasted with nonsense such as this.

You should have been hit with whatever costs arose for all sides as part of that farce!
 
I remember as a kid opening up a BoI account. I absolutely had no ID and im pretty certain same went for my parents.. no passports, no drivers licenses. Seems that this was par for the course back then and it was only over the years that banks started to retrospectively look for ID for these accounts.

Do you know if your father used the name elsewhere? Was there ever any direct debits tied to the account?
Whete did they send the statements over time did he always collect them from the bank?
Would an affidavit from a solicitor work?
Lots of people used different first names to their given name over the years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: POC
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top