Vishwabalas
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2017
- Messages
- 1,092
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
The debate is not over alert for suspicious transaction, the debate is whether the suspicious transaction is alerted directly to RBI or it depends on the bank reporting it. See the difference? I had never denied the fact that banks will have software alerting transaction of a certain amount. The article just proved my point, reporting depends on the bank, and that depends on the bank manager. If the system is flawless and incorruptible as implied by you, how did 99% of the money go back into the system ? You are also mistaking tax inspectors to RBI, RBI does not decide whether the money is white or black, they only check anomalies of large transfer to and fro India. Understand genius?
If I hadn't posted that article, you would have no clue at all. So stop repeating what was stated in the article I posted.
There is nothing wrong in 99% of the money going back into the system. The objective is to make 100% of the money part of the system.
If you cannot even understand this simple fact, why are you pretending to teach me how RBI operates ?
Reporting does not depend on the Bank manager, its the job of the compliance officer who is responsible for reporting this.
Records of all suspicious transactions are maintained and audited. And if any audit finds that even 1 transactions was not reported, the compliance officer will go to jail.
No compliance officer is going to risk jail time for somebody else. Its easier to just Rob the bank.