Skip to main content

One Documentary Proof of Address - RBI further simplifies KYC Norms for Bank Accounts

RBI/2013-14/634
DBOD.AML.BC. No. 119/14.01.001/2013-14

June 9, 2014

The Chairperson/CEOs of all Scheduled Commercial Banks (Excluding RRBs)/
Local Area Banks / All India Financial Institutions

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Know Your Customer (KYC) Norms/Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Standards/ Combating of Financing of Terrorism (CFT) /Obligation of banks under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 – Clarification on Proof of Address

Please refer to paragraph 2.4 (h), (i), (j) (l), (m) and Annex I of Reserve Bank’s Master Circular on Know Your Customer (KYC) Norms/Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Standards/Combating of Financing of Terrorism (CFT)/Obligations under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, issued vide DBOD. AML. BC. No. 24/14.01.001/2013-14 dated July 1, 2013, regarding requirement of ‘proof of address’ while opening a bank account by individuals.
2. Reserve Bank has been receiving representations/references from various quarters’ especially migrant workers, transferred employees, etc. regarding problems faced in submitting a proof of current/permanent address while opening a bank account. The matter has since been examined in the light of amendment to the Prevention of Money Laundering Rules (Maintenance of Records), 2005, and accordingly it has been decided to simplify the requirement of submission of ‘proof of address’ as follows:
Henceforth, customers may submit only one documentary proof of address (either current or permanent) while opening a bank account or while undergoing periodic updation. In case the address mentioned as per ‘proof of address’ undergoes a change, fresh proof of address may be submitted to the branch within a period of six months.
In case the proof of address furnished by the customer is not the local address or address where the customer is currently residing, the bank may take a declaration of the local address on which all correspondence will be made by the bank with the customer. No proof is required to be submitted for such address for correspondence/local address. This address may be verified by the bank through ‘positive confirmation’ such as acknowledgment of receipt of (i) letter, cheque books, ATM cards; (ii) telephonic conversation; (iii) visits; etc. In the event of change in this address due to relocation or any other reason, customers may intimate the new address for correspondence to the bank within two weeks of such a change.
3. Banks may revise their KYC policy in the light of the above instructions and ensure strict adherence to the same.
4. Please advise your Principal Officer to acknowledge receipt of this circular letter.

Yours faithfully
(Lily Vadera)
Chief General Manager

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more

Registrar cannot remove trademark from record without notice to trademark holder

In Kleenage Products (India) Private Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, the petitioner had applied for registration of trademark ‘KLITOLIN’ which was accepted and from 1988 to 2009, the said trademark was renewed multiple times. The trademark was due for renewal on August 21, 2009, but the petitioner failed to tender application for renewal.  It was, thereafter, revealed that the trademark is likely to be removed from the register. The petitioner contended that the Registrar of Trademarks (respondent No.1) also failed to issue the requisite mandatory notice in Form O-3 to him (the registered proprietor) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition holding that any such removal can only be possible if prior notice, mandatory under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, has been given Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/removal-registered-trademarks-cant-done-without-giving-prior-notice-registered-proprie...
Post a Comment
Read more