Banks get drafted into the war on terrorism
Page | 1 | 2 |

Proliferation of fake IDs
Banks of all size have long had ID and verification procedures in place. The problem, according to Byrne, is that fake IDs are both easier to obtain and much harder to detect today. He and many of his colleagues say the identification onus shouldn't fall on banking.

"The governments need to do a better job of ensuring that when they issue an identification document, they've done their due diligence," he says. "It shouldn't be up to the bank to make a determination of whether the Florida license is stronger than the Georgia license. We should be able to rely with some comfort on something issued by a governmental entity. It shouldn't be our obligation."

But don't be surprised if later this year your banker looks more closely at your state driver's license, compares the information (address, telephone number, date of birth, etc.) on two or more documents, or takes a thumbprint in the course of opening an account.

Bankers are hoping you'll see it as a good thing. After all, the No. 1 fraud-related complaint to the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection involves identity theft for the purpose of opening new accounts. The forthcoming USA Patriot ID and verification regs could make it harder for others to swipe your financial life.

The high cost of compliance
The bigger question that has bankers holding their breath these days is what it may cost them -- and eventually you -- to comply with new reporting procedures and requests from law enforcement.

Banks are used to reporting suspicious transactions to the government; it's part of their federal charter and failure to do so can close their doors for good. But detecting possible terrorist account activity is problematic at best because of the low dollar amounts and the conventional accounts they use.

"I don't think anyone would say they were against it," says Rowe. "I think the concern of our membership is, how do we do it? A lot of the things that are getting under the radar screen are very small transactions that are very hard to catch. It's not a matter of willingness to support the government's efforts. It's more what do we do and how do we do it?"

Rowe doesn't like the worst-case scenario: "Just with the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of checks going through the system, if the government requires banks to start examining individual checks, the economy will come to a grinding halt. It isn't doable."

Byrne says Treasury is carefully weighing the need to track terrorist financing with the financial burden it could place on banks due to increased software and manpower needed to perform the records searches.

"The issue is really going to be how aggressive will law enforcement be in taking advantage of additional authority?" he says.

Will the money-laundering provisions of the USA Patriot Act drive up banking costs?

"Oh, no question," says Rowe. "And that will come from the customers. What we've tried to get through to the government agencies is, all of these things are costs of doing business. It doesn't just happen. It does cost money. And eventually that cost gets built back into individual account fees."

But Briggs isn't so sure.

"In terms of cost, it's too premature because I think that is something that the banking industry probably feels is its contribution to the fight."

Jay MacDonald is a contributing editor based in Florida.