French banking supervisor: Why did you cover Ing Direct?
Further to my letter dated 7th December 2011 whereby I accused Ing Direct of unlawfully blocking the online access to get data about wages and estate, the Prudential Supervision Authority (ACP) finally broached that issue one more time.
According to its reply of 7th February 2012, article L.561-8 (1) of the Monetary and Financial Code allowed to proceed that way. Ing Direct would have lawfully acted, whereas the minister of the Economy had previously reprobated it.
Fine! Let’s see what that article means.
''Where an entity referred to in Article L. 561-2 is unable to identify its client or to obtain information on the object and nature of the business relationship, it shall not execute any transaction, regardless of the particulars, and shall not establish or pursue any business relationship. Where it has been unable to identify its client or to obtain information on the object and nature of the business relationship and the relationship has nevertheless been established pursuant to Article L. 561-5, it shall terminate it.''
This article prohibits banks to sign a contract and implement any transaction when some information is missing from people wanting to be customer. If they have already been customers, contracts must be terminated.
Ing Direct did not terminate the business relationship when blocking the online accesses. It kept the money of these customers and did not resign their contract. It continued to carry out the transactions that they did by means of their chequebook or bank card. It only removed the online access and gave it back when the data was provided.
Given that the ACP assumed I did not know what occurred meanwhile, it twisted the meaning of an article to refute any misjudgment and exonerate Ing Direct (2).
(2)
 |