Banks and clients

Writing on L-Orizzont of Wednesday last week, respected lawyer Anna Mallia wrote about her experience with a bank and how her qualification as a Politically Exposed Person led her to undergo an interrogation that lasted two whole hours.

And all this because she had an overdraft of €10,000 and a credit card.

The bank first sent a series of registered letters and then threatened to withdraw the overdraft facility.

Then, when she finally called, an interrogation began, going back 20 years to when she was employed with the government. Why did she leave? How did she buy her flat? What salary she had with the government? What salary she subsequently had? They wanted the contract for the flat, what does she get from Court, how did she get a cheque for €3,000 from the Central Bank.

She was also asked to present a report on her assets and debts and asked a thousand more questions.

The end result was quite predictable: she left that bank and took her account elsewhere where she was accepted without all these questions.

Dr Mallia added she met a judge who had suffered the same interrogation and an ambassador who was likewise interrogated.

She questioned the way this bank is interpreting the EU Directive about Politically Exposed Persons which, in her opinion, should not apply to her and to people like her. Nor should it apply to judges unless they are judges whose judgments cannot be appealed from. And even more this directive should not apply to members of their families.

She has publicly called for a statement from the Malta Financial Services Authority on this practice. And on whether a bank can cut off an Internet Banking service because one has not used it for a long time. Or freeze an account because it has long not been used.

We make our own Dr Mallia’s call. There is really nothing more to add.