UAE bank customers caught in crossfire over US sanctions
Gregor Stuart Hunter – Mar 2, 2013 – TheNational
…RAKBank, for example, warned its US customers in a letter in September that it was reviewing all of its compliance procedures.
The letter states that one option under review might require RAKBank “to cease banking for individuals who fall under Fatca regulations”…
…Even US banks are hesitant to reveal where they stand.
“We’re an American bank, so we’re fully compliant with Fatca and are ensuring we are compliant,” said Dinesh Sharma, the managing director and head of consumer banking at Citibank.
“By definition as a US bank, we ensure 100 per cent compliance to any sanctions … without diluting our customer proposition.”
The bank declined to comment on whether any accounts had been closed or transferred as a result of either Fatca or sanctions exposure.
….without diluting our customer proposition….. that needs to be seen but I highly doubt it in the long run.
Fact-checkers asleep over at The National? Foreign branches of US banks are explicitly not defined as FFIs. In other words they have no compliance burden under FATCA. So US persons will be kicked out of Citibank’s foreign competitors and forced to open accounts at Citibank.
No wonder Citi’s spokesman is keeping his cards close to his vest. His employer is getting a massive sop from the US government in violation of any reasonable definition of WTO rules, and he sure as heck doesn’t want local governments all over the world figuring that out. (Of course PFIC taxes are another blatant violation of WTO rules, forcing US citizens all over the world to only use US mutual fund providers — and those have already lasted 25 years, so don’t get your hopes up for a successful challenge).
Interesting use of the term “sanctions” — as opposed to the usual “withholding,” “tax,” etc. “Sanctions” is more apt, perhaps even “reprisal,” “extortion,” “confiscation,” or “expropriation,” which refer to a taking in punishment for disobeying an illegitimate demand.