Thread Starter: BrianC
Title: Re: Address validation
|
That is is a risk adverse position which is permissible; however, not required by the USA PATRIOT Act. The law and regulation simply says that the financial institution must adopt procedures to form a reasonable belief that it has verified the identity of its customer. Each institution is free to adopt its own risk-based approach based on its CIP Risk Assessment and FACT Act ID Theft Risk Assessment in determining what it will require to resolve a "substantive discrepancy" to one of the four required pieces of information (name, address, TIN, birthdate.)
Anon points out some of the potential risks of accepting mail, but each institution should determine what risks it is willing to accept in its customer identification process. Part of the risk assessment would be to evaluate prior instances of ID Theft that you have experienced. If these are minimal/non-existent relying on a utility bill, then there may not be a not to adopt more stringent requirements.
|
|
|
|
