Caselaw

Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 262-04-17 Toiga Online Ltd. v. Mizrahi Tefahot Bank Ltd. - part 14

December 6, 2018
Print

According to the regulators' position, measures should be taken to reduce the risk, in accordance with the classification of the customer as a customer at risk, whether at the beginning of his activity or as a result of his definition as such during his activity, inter alia, to the extent that the customer's activity is inconsistent with the banking corporation's expectations regarding the activity in the account or there is concern regarding the source of the funds in the account.

These measures were summarized by the regulators as follows:

  1. Enhanced Know Your Client performance, which includes deepening inquiries about the client's activity, as well as requiring documents and references (including those of third parties) to back up the client's explanations, before taking an action.
  2. Reporting unusual activity to the Money Laundering Prohibition Authority in accordance with Section 9 of the Order.
  3. Increased monitoring of activity and controls;
  4. Setting limits on the scope of a certain activity - limiting the client's activity, for example by limiting the amounts of activity or limiting the types of activity (or both).
  5. Prohibition of certain types of actions;
  6. Closing the account to an existing customer or not performing an action or types of actions that are, as originally stated: "Of course, a more extreme step, but it is certainly part of the possible steps, when the customer refuses to cooperate with the banking corporation, as stated in Section 24 of the Proper Conduct of Banking Instruction No. 411 on the subject of "Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing and Identification of Customers"; Non-cooperation can be expressed, for example, in the failure to provide the necessary references and explanations for the activity, as well as in an attempt to circumvent the restrictions imposed on its activity by the banking corporation."

In the case pending my decision, the regulators pointed to a list of red flags that ostensibly constitute an indication of an increased risk of money laundering.  I will note that since these are red flags as detailed at length in the Bank's arguments, I do not find it possible to go back to detailing them.

Previous part1...1314
15...59Next part