List of HISA's that have completely electronic signup? | General comparisons | Discussion forum

mrmike said
Even an offhand listing of the ones listed on this site would be helpful.  

I'm working on that, Mike, for a "Services chart" update, which I expect to be able to post by August.

Nevertheless, it depends what you mean by "completely electronic". For example, Hubert Financial, and soon Implicity Financial, offers 100% electronic sign-up but requires a paper-based signed application form to be sent in. What about mailing in a cheque that can, optionally, be submitted via mobile app?

If including those latter categories, then you could say that all accounts in the comparison chart, to my knowledge, save for maybe Bridgewater Bank, can be signed up for electronically.

In the interim, let's use your discussion post to share which ones can be signed up electronically:

- EQ Bank's Savings Plus Account

Cheers,
Doug

There is a new process allowed by banking regulations (I think in 2018 but could be earlier) that at least some FIs are adopting (like EQ Bank) whereby the mere presence of another valid bank account at another Canadian FI is sufficient to validate identity to open an account. IOW, EQ will allow opening an account by providing them with certain bank account information from another bank account. They test it by making tiny deposit(s) to that bank account which one must then advise EQ of the correct numbers to complete the process. This is how I opened my EQ account last year. Is the way all such things should be done these days, albeit I suspect brokerages that fall under a different regulator won't be doing that any time soon.

The trouble with composing a list of "electronic sign up" banks is that it will never be current, i.e. as more institutions including perhaps the likes of Tangerine adopt the new process, the list will always be 'incomplete'.

The credit bureau method requires a Canadian credit bureau file that's at least three years old with matching name, address, and date of birth.

Otherwise, the FINTRAC guidance requires the financial institution to somehow confirm two of the following three items:

1. name and date of birth
2. name and address
3. name and a deposit, credit card or other loan account with a financial entity

The microdeposits AltaRed mentioned is not enough. A successful microdeposit can only confirm #3.

Loonie said
This past week, there was a new round of sensational allegations about money laundering, and the Feds vowed to stamp it out, again.
So, I would anticipate tighter regs in future at some point, likely with no better results but with a lot more nuisance.

If they don't know I'm not laundering my money by now, they aren't using all the info they already have too much access to.  

I know...and I was struck by B.C. Attorney General David Eby's remark, when referring to B.C. colleges and universities used in money laundering whereby a student brings in bags of cash, "deposits" it to their student account, and then requests a "withdrawal" after paying for a course or two, about wondering who would've thought that those colleges and universities would be used in such a way. I did! Sure, the college or university doesn't pay you "interest" on your "deposits" to your student account, but what government needs to realize is that any time someone can "deposit" funds into a segregated account of some kind - regulated or not - it's a potential vehicle for money laundering.

When I worked in the self storage industry, for example, we would, on occasion, take cash payments on customers' storage locker "accounts" from persons unaffiliated with said storage locker "accounts". Some of it was, I'm sure, a friend helping out a friend, but I imagine some of it could've been, perhaps, someone owed a debt for some unsavoury activity and they were instructed to pay the person's storage locker bill.

It was interesting that David Eby said the B.C. government is considering requiring all B.C.-based businesses (i.e., those with operations in B.C. or that deal with B.C. residents, not just those incorporated in B.C.) to report large cash and suspicious transactions to FINTRAC. That typically requires businesses to register with FINTRAC, but may not. At any rate, it will require extensive anti-money laundering training of businesses in terms of their obligations. Can you imagine Starbucks having to file a suspicious transaction report for a guy that came in and wanted to load $2000 in cash onto a Starbucks card? 😉

Cheers,
Doug

The most egregious examples are fixable by not accepting large cash deposits in the first place. Going cashless would be even better.

Also, changing laws so that beneficial ownership has to be declared in corporate entities, land titles, etc. While it is true that can still be somewhat overcome with layers of shell companies, aka Panama Papers, it would dramatically reduce money laundering.