Paris, 15 May 2021
Dear Sir,
On 7 December 2011, I sent a letter to the Minister of the Economy F.Baroin. I questioned the process of the bank Ing that takes off the online bank access of customers to force them to provide data about their standard of lIving.
As result of this, the Minister ordered that the bank be in compliance with the regulation.
On 2, 3 and 5 January 2012, I sent him some documents. He did not get them and were passed to his ministerial department of Treasury.
Based on them, I questioned the banking supervisor (Acpr) for accepting the process and the data protection authority (Cnil) for being unresponsive.
The members of these authorities should have been held liable.
In a letter addressed to me on 30 January 2012, the Treasury referred to the monetary and financial Code (CMF). It indicated that financial entities had to update customers files within the framework of the Fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.
The Treasury argued that article L.561-8 of the CMF allowed the process.
A complete legitimacy was given to the authorities and the bank Ing.
The letter was issued by the Bank and general interest financing division. It had a perfect knowledge of the regulation.
The process had no legal authorization.
Article L.561-8 is valid when the business relationship is terminated; the contracts were maintained in the case in point.
Articles 226-18 of the penal Code and 6.1 of Act 78-17 of 6 January 1978 1 prohibit anyone from using unfair ways to collect data. Article L.612-1 of the CMF provides that the Acpr has to check that financial entities respect the law.
However, the Treasury aimed to exonerate the authorities and no longer minded the respect for the law when noticing from my documents that the Cnil had informally admitted the process too.
The Treasury distorted the meaning of an article while assuming I was unaware about the regularisation.
The Acpr communicated with the Treasury and sent me misinformation the same way in a letter dated 7 February 2012.
An abuse of an article features in the letter dated 30 January 2012. It is a false written statement issued from a ministerial agent for the sake of the bank Ing, the Acpr, and the Cnil.
On 7 April and 18 May 2020, I asked you if you were the instigator.
Seeing that I have not got any clarification, I reiterate my question.
Yours sincerely
1 : amended by Act of 6 August 2004