Will Revolut annoy me for 100k a month incoming (personal account) and outgoing (to Bitstamp)?
- Thread starter diatessaron
- Start date
- Status
I have concerns over Revolut being a Russian laundromat.
The owner is Nikolay Storonsky
"Nikolay Storonsky is a British businessman of Russian origin. He is the co-founder and CEO of the financial technology company Revolut.
Storonsky was born into the family of a senior Gazprom manager."
The owner is Nikolay Storonsky
"Nikolay Storonsky is a British businessman of Russian origin. He is the co-founder and CEO of the financial technology company Revolut.
Storonsky was born into the family of a senior Gazprom manager."
And a KGB agent is hiding in your wardrobe.
Toggle signature
@JohnnyDoe ”“ Your #1 Source for Guidance in Different Offshore Fields
Terrible Idea,
Keep in mind that moving such a large amount of money through personal accounts and cryptocurrency exchanges will most likely get your account frozen, specially with revolut, as it's not an EMI to play fire with, they have a very strict anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) policies, and any suspicious activity may result in your account being blocked without questions.
If you want to proceed with this plan, your best bet is to ensure that you have a good and credible source of funds (SOF) that can satisfy Revolut's AML/KYC policies.
Again, I want to stress that this is a risky strategy without good SOF, and it's important to weigh the potential consequences before moving forward.
Keep in mind that moving such a large amount of money through personal accounts and cryptocurrency exchanges will most likely get your account frozen, specially with revolut, as it's not an EMI to play fire with, they have a very strict anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) policies, and any suspicious activity may result in your account being blocked without questions.
If you want to proceed with this plan, your best bet is to ensure that you have a good and credible source of funds (SOF) that can satisfy Revolut's AML/KYC policies.
Again, I want to stress that this is a risky strategy without good SOF, and it's important to weigh the potential consequences before moving forward.
Totally agree, they won't accept this without lots and lots of questions.
Toggle signature
Find help to the ultimate anonymous setup on OffshoreCorpTalk - Tried, Tested & Works
Need help to get things done, ping me inside the Mentor Group Gold forums.
Oh well the dirt at Revolut isn't about to grill me then. Would Starling be a better option? This money has to go through personal accounts, not business ones. I don't mind them asking for SoF, I just don't want that money to get stuck for days while the chimps at their office verify them.
I would say good luck to move such amounts through new personal EMI accounts if you have no history of doing so.
All will trigger questions and most will block the transactions and freeze the account until they are satisfied with the answers and proof provided. This can take one day to months.
The only best way I can come up with is to use multiple EMIs and bank accounts and transfer small amounts over a prolonged period of time.
Repeated 5k from personal to personal with a different beneficiary name is definitely a red flag.
There are many ways to move 5 or 6 digits but either between your own personal accounts (and build up some history with the bank depending on the jurisdiction) or use corporations in between (as loan etc..).
To conclude, you can be assured that any personal EMI will trigger questions after the second or third transfer and mostly block the transfer and account.
All will trigger questions and most will block the transactions and freeze the account until they are satisfied with the answers and proof provided. This can take one day to months.
The only best way I can come up with is to use multiple EMIs and bank accounts and transfer small amounts over a prolonged period of time.
Repeated 5k from personal to personal with a different beneficiary name is definitely a red flag.
There are many ways to move 5 or 6 digits but either between your own personal accounts (and build up some history with the bank depending on the jurisdiction) or use corporations in between (as loan etc..).
To conclude, you can be assured that any personal EMI will trigger questions after the second or third transfer and mostly block the transfer and account.
It's nothing personal from the banks, but you need to remember that banking is a risk management game. It is profitable, but you need a licence from a regulator to play.
Regulators put obligations on licence holders so that the government's policies and the laws are enforced. If they don't comply with those obligations, they lose their licence and cannot make any profits.
How each bank implements or operationalises its obligations may vary, but that is a function of risk tolerance within a given bank.
The problem you're facing here is that you want to move not insignificant amounts of cash. Governments don't like that being done, so they put obligations on Banks to prevent it.
To be honest, dividing it up into 5k lots is likely to be more suspicious to the bank than if you were to transact the entire amount.
It would be a pretty unsophisticated bank that was not able to detect the type of movement you're contemplating. Just
keeping it below a certain threshold (in this case 5k) will be unlikely to avoid attention.
It may be true that 100k is above the transaction reporting threshold, but 5k is below. But that is only considering one type of reporting. Other AML reporting obligations include suspicious or unusual transactions, which do not necessarily have threshold amounts.
A better option may be to reframe your arrangements in a way that allows you to restructure your transactions to a more reliable method of transferring the funds.
Regulators put obligations on licence holders so that the government's policies and the laws are enforced. If they don't comply with those obligations, they lose their licence and cannot make any profits.
How each bank implements or operationalises its obligations may vary, but that is a function of risk tolerance within a given bank.
The problem you're facing here is that you want to move not insignificant amounts of cash. Governments don't like that being done, so they put obligations on Banks to prevent it.
To be honest, dividing it up into 5k lots is likely to be more suspicious to the bank than if you were to transact the entire amount.
It would be a pretty unsophisticated bank that was not able to detect the type of movement you're contemplating. Just
keeping it below a certain threshold (in this case 5k) will be unlikely to avoid attention.
It may be true that 100k is above the transaction reporting threshold, but 5k is below. But that is only considering one type of reporting. Other AML reporting obligations include suspicious or unusual transactions, which do not necessarily have threshold amounts.
A better option may be to reframe your arrangements in a way that allows you to restructure your transactions to a more reliable method of transferring the funds.
I think you overshoot that 100k by a 0 at the end. 10k and less per months are usually fine. 100k ? No way. Also batches or not, does not matter. It would be actually more suspicious if you move it in batches. Anyway you need SOF and just send it all.
No SOF ? Send it less than 10k per month.
No SOF ? Send it less than 10k per month.
Right or wrong, banks are going to think this is money laundering. No one will accept this. It's only a matter of how much slips through before the automatic systems kick in.
Go back to the drawing board. Restructure the whole flow.
Toggle signature
This is the probably the answer to your question.
Go back to the drawing board. Restructure the whole flow.
Toggle signature
This is the probably the answer to your question.
it's funny that we fear CBDCs and it's impact on our "transactional" freedom but it's already here in way... one always has to think about whether we don't transact too much, too often, if it's not looking too fishy or whether the recipient is "acceptable" - it's an open war that most people didn't notice yet, pure madness
- Status