RBI

Customer due diligence for re-activation of dormant bank accounts. Ensuring genuineness of transaction, signature verification and identity-RBI

Customer due diligence for re-activation of dormant bank accounts. Ensuring genuineness of transaction, verification of signature and identity – RBI

Reserve Bank of India

Requirement of customer due diligence and need for maintenance of records

RBI/2016-17/173
DBR.AML.BC.No.44/14.01.001/2016-17

December 06, 2016

All Regulated Entities (REs)

Dear Sir/Madam,

Requirement of customer due diligence and need for maintenance of records

It has been reported that, of late, a lot of customers are approaching banks for re-activation of dormant accounts.

2. In this regard, we invite attention to paragraph 24.2 (ix) of the Master Circular on ‘Customer Services in Banks’ dated July 1, 2015, requiring that operation in dormant accounts with banks may be allowed after due diligence as per risk category of the customer. As stated therein, ‘due diligence’ would mean ensuring genuineness of the transaction, verification of the signature and identity etc.

3. Attention is also invited to Chapters VI and VII of our Master Direction on KYC dated February 25, 2016, addressed to all Regulated Entities (REs) in terms of which

  1. as part of the Customer Due Diligence Procedure, certified copies of officially valid documents for proof of identity and address are to be obtained while establishing an account based relationship;
  2. REs shall, among others, take steps for preserving the customer account information including preservation of records pertaining to the identification of the customers and their addresses obtained while opening the account, for at least five years after the business relationship is ended.

4. It is reiterated that REs shall ensure compliance, inter alia, with the above mentioned instructions as applicable on activation of dormant accounts, customer due diligence and record management, scrupulously.

(S.S.Barik)
Chief General Manager – in – Charge

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

AO not justified in rejecting registered valuer’s report without reference to DVO – ITAT

AO not justified in rejecting registered valuer’s report without making a reference to the DVO - ITAT In a recent…

4 days ago
  • FCRA

FCRA specifies list of 105 purposes to be selected for which registration is applied

FCRA specifies list of purposes to be selected for which registration is applied.  The Ministry of Home Affairs has notified…

1 week ago
  • Income Tax

Withholding tax u/s 40(a)(i) not required on cost-to-cost reimbursement made to parent company

Assessee was not liable to withhold tax at source u/s 40(a)(i) on cost-to-cost reimbursement made to parent company In a…

1 week ago
  • Government

Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App not disproportionate – Delhi High Court

Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App under section 69A of IT Act 2000 is not disproportionate - Delhi HC…

1 week ago
  • Income Tax

High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA

High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA to means a project or an undertaking owned…

1 week ago
  • Income Tax

Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash not owner who came up to own it

Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash and the real owner had come forward owning the cash…

2 weeks ago