The difficulties with providing proof of identity

Mar 29, 2013 Letters

---

 

 

Dear Editor,
My experience at GBTI is proof that Guyana is on the brink of being a failed state A few days ago I attempted to apply for a re-loadable VISA card from the Regent Street branch of GBTI. I was required to provide proof of address and two forms of identification. I had three pieces of ID (drivers’s licenses, passport and National ID); I provided an extract from an EMS envelope (with both sender’s and receiver’s address), it was rejected as a proof of address. The bank believed it was not authentic because it was handwritten; is there any other way in which EMS is prepared?
Even though I believed that was ludicrous, I did not raise a voice of objection. However I was in for the shocker of my life when I was told that government issued documents were not acceptable proofs of address which included a driver’s licenses, TIN certificate, overseas shipping Invoices attached to customs clearance certificates, a business registration and motor vehicle registration certificate.
The argument of the bank is that upon obtaining those documents there is no address verification at the issuing agency as such they are not reliable. It is also extremely bizarre that the bank was not prepared to accept a sworn affidavit from a Commissioner of Oaths that judges and magistrates accept in depositions.
If the bank believes that these agencies should be a little more stringent or diligent in their information collection procedures then they should take that up with the agency and law makers, not take it out on poor customers.
We are on the precipice of failed a state when a private business entity subordinate to the state decides that government-issued and approved documents are invalid and do not meet their standards. Perhaps the board, directors, managers and staff of the bank have dreams of grandeur of running a parallel government.
All banks require proof of address to fulfill a legal statute that is aimed at eliminating money laundering, the prevention of international tax evasion (tax havens) and secret offshore banking transactions and provide traceability for financing of international terrorist operations etc.: so that customers should not be faceless gypsies.
In the same breath the international limit on such transactions is US$10,000. A transaction of $100,000 (US$500) transaction (such as the one I was attempting to do) hardly qualifies to meet clothes laundering expenses much less for creation of secret offshore banking, international tax evasion, terrorism financing and money laundering.
Judging from our last census and other available stats we have an adult population of over 200,000 persons who are not principal property holders or head of households and are not likely to have utility bills made out in their names.
Then there is the huge squatter phenomenon where people just set up dwellings on dams or a piece of unsurveyed public land with no form of utility and no real postal address. There is also the growing housekeeper phenomenon where home owners migrate leaving a friend or relative (without official documentation) to tend their homes. The dying postal mail and the growth of BBM, Facebook, e-mail, e-greetings cards, Skype and a whole host of instant communication methods also make it difficult for one to have paper proof of an address outside of government issued documents.
It is not proper (and probably illegal) for a non-state agency to refuse to accept official documents issued by the state.
State documents are official in every respect for the duration of their validity period, we cannot have any Tom, Dick and Harry invalidating state documents and procedures at their own whim even if the process utilized by the state is not entirely fool proof.
If the bank accepts a valid state issued document with an address on it, it would have satisfied the bank’s obligation under the law.
Furthermore everyone in Guyana who has a National Identification (NID) Card has already fulfilled the legal requirements for a trace of location. GECOM’s house to house registration and the Claims and Objections was designed to sift village imposters, as such Guyanese living in Guyana in possession of an ID card has fulfilled the phantom proof test.
The essential intent of the law is to prevent anonymous banking and I can’t see how one could be a phantom when (s)he is listed on a public list (at the risk of jail time for giving wrong information) in a particular village which is periodically scrutinized by villagers and political organizations to weed out false addressees.
Because the GBTI was being so unreasonably inflexible, I ended up doing business with the only other bank that offers this service. I was reluctant to do business with the other bank because of poor courtesy issues I had encountered at that bank in the recent past. I urge GBTI and other private entities (including a popular telephone company) to desist from this illegal, illogical and repressive business practice.
Lenno Craig

---

---