1 duplicate copy in the archive
EFTA Document EFTA01363767
Title Matchefta-efta01363767
Case Filesd-10-EFTA01363767Dept. of JusticeEFTA Document EFTA01363767
Unknown1p
Case File
sd-10-EFTA01363767Dept. of JusticeEFTA Document EFTA01363767
Other
If the BSF is required for all WM OTC Derivatives accounts going forward, that's fine (though I'm not sure why this changed and who made that decision), but my overriding concern at this point is this: if GM will not rely on the WM KYC anymore, why are they relying on a (questionable) WM determination of PEP status of the UBO? We are being told this account needs AFC exception approval to onboard, but I'm not sure who made this determination. Thank you, Davide From: Funda Bozkurt Sent: M
Date
Unknown
Source
Dept. of Justice
Reference
sd-10-EFTA01363767
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
Loading document viewer...
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.
Support This ProjectSupported by 1,550+ people worldwide
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.