PLUS have updated their user agreement.
The most notable are:
19.12. Withdrawals from your Trading Account should be made using the same method used by
you to fund your Trading Account and to the same remitter. We reserve the right to
decline or cancel a withdrawal request with a specific payment method and suggest
another payment method for which you will need to proceed with a new withdrawal
request and supply further supporting documentation, upon request, for our internal
checks and proper processing of the withdrawal request
22
19.13. Withdrawal from your Trading Account is carried out within a minimum of three (3)
business days and up to seven (7) business days upon receipt of the withdrawal request.
Please note, however, that withdrawals to a bank account via bank transfer may be
subject to further delays. Following receipt of a withdrawal instruction, the request is
processed and the requested withdrawal amount will be deducted from your Trading
Account balance. During such time until the withdrawal request is fully processed and
settled, the withdrawal request can be canceled either by you or by us and the
withdrawal amount requested can be used to satisfy your liabilities for any Transactions
completed during such time, pursuant to Section 19.1 in conjunction with the terms of
Section 19.3
Atb Fraser
Just some musing, I don’t have the legal answers or knowledge to determine, but “what” could the implications be:
ReplyDeleteIf clients fail the AML (Anti-Money Laundering) within PLUS, what happens to those deposits?
As in who owns the monies? Say for example, are the original monies returned to the client and any excess kept etc...? So far there's plenty of possibilities, but I cannot help but come back to two possibilities at the moment.
That "PLUS" could potentially be liable for losses of people that do not meet the AML criteria (now). As such, if PLUS kept the profits / monies from those who failed to meet the AML criteria, what that mean they have wrongfully profited from "a potential money laundering transaction?"
Have they also, by taking their monies, profited from potential money laundering where it is found that clients would not pass AML but have already withdrawn or completed transactions?
If they failed to make the "client" aware of the implications including being unable to withdraw their original monies (or remaining balance), is there an argument to be had in court that "as one wasn't entitled to an account, PLUS have failed in their duties” by not vetting the client when on-boarding.
In addition, what are the consequences for those that "pass the AML check and then complete the "client suitability questionnaire" to find they are perhaps no suitable with hindsight?
The http://erraticmarketcoverage.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/pm-bolt-on-plus-500-new-qpp.html May have further implications.
Cheers Fraser