EFTA Document EFTA01363767
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
Summary
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
Ask AI About This Document
Extracted Text (OCR)
Technical Artifacts (1)
View in Artifacts BrowserEmail addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.
ian.saltersiwdb.comForum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.