A New Way Of Banking!

Sandy Grant | Monday August 18, 2014 14:33

When I asked why it had taken this action, I was told that it was because I had provided neither proof of residence  nor proof of income. The fact that neither had anything to do with updating and that they hadn’t even requested this information, bothered them not at all. My account was blocked until I gave them what they wanted. 

I was shocked and extremely angry. It had never occurred to me that any bank could take such action without prior warning and without compelling reason.  But it had done so – and its action was to me unethical, belligerent, hostile, punitive and I assumed, illegal.

Obviously the bank had discarded notions of customer care and consigned all notions of public relations to the dustbin. It was also obvious that the request for this information was unrelated to any attempt to upgrade its service.

In the event after many hours in Stanbic, either waiting or discussing - with no less than seven different people - three at the branch and four at its Fairground HQ, a picture of sorts eventually emerged as a result of inference, suggestion and occasionally direct explanation. Thus, it would seem, that with international authorities pressurising the Bank of Botswana to tighten up its money laundering measures it was, in turn, leaning on the commercial banks to do likewise.

Stanbic therefore was only doing what it had been compelled to do and was, therefore, under no obligation to apologise or even explain.

Further, it became obvious that Stanbic’s own staff had very different ideas about what was being required.  Some said one thing, some another.  What, for instance, did proof of income mean? One insisted that it meant future income – unaware that no one can produce proof of something that it is yet to happen. Another was adamant that it referred to past income. 

But why would it now require this information when it already possesses the relevant records for all its account holders?  It must therefore be acting on behalf of either BURS or the DIS or both. But BURS, like the bank, already possesses this information via my annual returns for the last century or so. Which leaves the DIS. 

But surely not.  It has enough on its plate in keeping a careful watch on the political opposition. So let’s discount it.  Equals it all comes down to the Bank of Botswana – which could have been explained in the first place! But let’s return to what must have been its twin demands, residence and income. For those with fixed salaries, there should be no problem. But for those who are self employed with fluctuating incomes, the problems were obvious. Sources of income had to be provided but these might vary from year to year - and did income relate to a month, a year or to the last five years?  And, in most instances, how could proof be provided?  And then residence. 

Those of us who live in tribal, non-freehold parts of the country have long been obliged to produce utility bills as the one and only means of establishing precisely where we live.

But now that the old invoicing system is being scrapped and all that is left is to provide an affidavit stating in which ward of which village or tribal town we happen to live. (It’s only now that I learn that in the North East villages, there are no wards) But of course an affidavit of this kind can only relate to an area, not to the precise place in that area in which a residence is located. So, why is it demanding what cannot be satisfactorily produced?  The most sensible reaction from a bank employee was that each case would need to be individually considered because they could not all be the same. But had this been previously realised? In retrospect, I conclude that this exercise was clumsily initiated, without careful thought, without careful explanation, and obviously without any sensitivity or concern for the effect it would have on the perhaps 200,000 bank account holders (I guess). 

A preliminary statement by the Bank of Botswana about the general problem, the need to tighten procedures, an explanation about the involvement of the banks coupled with a request for the cooperation of those who were about to be targeted would have made a huge difference – especially if this had been followed up by a similar statement from each bank.

As it has turned out, however, the lives of many very angry people will have been unnecessarily disrupted. It could and should have been done very differently.