Copy article

Are excessive AML checks delaying customers accessing their own money?

ended 18. September 2026

Financial adviser Scott Gallacher has questioned whether excessive anti-money-laundering checks are creating unnecessary delays for clients trying to access their own money.

Gallacher, a Director at Leicester-based Chartered financial planners Rowley Turton, raised the issue after encountering what he believes is a disproportionate ID requirement from ReAssure.

The case involves a long-established trust which needs to withdraw just a few hundred pounds to pay its annual legal fees. The identities have previously been verified.

ReAssure requested ID and was provided with a valid passport and driving licence. The driving licence also confirms the client's current address.

But ReAssure says this isn't enough. Because both documents fall into its "List 1", it also wants a utility bill, bank statement or council tax statement for the current tax year.

Gallacher said:

"I've got absolutely no problem with providers carrying out proper anti-money-laundering checks. We all want that.

"But this is a long-established trust, the identities have previously been verified and we're taking out a few hundred pounds to pay the annual legal fees. We're hardly dealing with a suspicious multi-million-pound transaction.

"The client has provided a passport and driving licence, and the driving licence confirms their address. Yet apparently we still need another document because both pieces of ID happen to sit on the same ReAssure list.

"My question is a simple one. What additional money-laundering risk is that utility bill or bank statement actually addressing?

"JMLSG guidance is supposed to be risk-based. Consumer Duty also specifically talks about firms asking customers for unnecessary information or evidence and creating unreasonable barriers.

"Of course there will be cases where additional checks are needed. But surely there has to be some common sense and proportionality as well.

"If a provider already knows who the client is, has previously verified them, has two current pieces of ID and is dealing with a routine withdrawal of a few hundred pounds from a long-established trust, how much more evidence do they reasonably need?

"AML rules are there to prevent financial crime. They shouldn't become a convenient excuse for unnecessary bureaucracy that delays people getting their own money."

Questions for other experts

  • Have you encountered similar ID demands from ReAssure or other providers?
  • Are some providers going unnecessarily beyond JMLSG guidance rather than taking a genuinely risk-based approach?
  • And are excessive AML checks now creating unreasonable barriers for customers under Consumer Duty?

4 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Star Quote
Copy

Pro
Scott GallacherVerified
Director at Rowley Turton
The cynic in me might wonder why providers sometimes seem to make withdrawals and transfers harder than they need to be.

I'm sure ReAssure would say that isn't the intention here, but the effect of requirements like this can undoubtedly be to frustrate and delay clients trying to access their own money.

That's why proportionality matters. If a long-established, previously verified client making a routine withdrawal of a few hundred pounds still has to jump through additional ID hoops, providers should be able to explain what additional risk those hoops are actually addressing.

AML checks are important, but they shouldn't become an excuse for unnecessary bureaucracy.
Copy

Pro
Tony SanchezVerified
Founder at Bridging Loan Directory
In property finance, a delayed payment can have consequences beyond inconvenience, particularly where a completion deadline is involved. Customers need clear document requirements early, prompt review and someone who can resolve a query.

I would not assume a check is unnecessary simply because the withdrawal is small or the customer has supplied ID before. But firms should make their routine requirements understandable and explain what acceptable alternatives are available.

The question I would ask is how much of the delay is spent verifying information and how much is spent waiting for somebody to look at it. Those are different problems.

Proper checks deserve time and resources. Customers also deserve a process that moves once they have supplied what was requested.
Copy

Pro
Nouran MoustafaVerified
Practice Principal & IFA at Roxton Wealth
There is a point where protecting the client starts looking remarkably similar to obstructing the client.

Nobody sensible is arguing against robust AML checks, but “risk-based” should actually mean risk-based. If a provider has an established relationship, previously verified identities, current identification and a routine transaction consistent with the trust’s history, additional evidence should have a clear purpose rather than simply satisfy a checklist.

Advisers see the human consequence of this: clients become frustrated, transactions are delayed and confidence in the financial system falls.

Technology should also be making verification smarter. We have more tools to establish identity than ever before, yet sometimes clients are still being asked to prove themselves repeatedly.

AML should be a security system, not an obstacle course. More paperwork does not automatically mean less financial crime.
Copy

Tim Geoghegan
Chartered Financial Planner at G&C Financial Services Limited
I find the biggest delays around Money Laundering often impact are more elderly clients who often no longer have a valid passport and driving license, I had a recent client who was dealing with a major online provider were it took us 3 attempts and as many weeks for his ID to be accepted. Generally clients who have accounts that we have set up and retain us as Financial Adviser have much less issues and if the are identified issues we know exactly who to contact to get this resolved. I appreciate that clients want the money quickly but its really important for us and providers to ascertain that request for funds is genuine.