The problem is, now the bankers can go to jail if the account is miss-handeled or miss used so all the bankers are scared of opening accounts for non domiciled persons. Too compensate, the charge fees to discourage you and make it very difficult for people worth less than 20 mio
So involved in election fraud and bank fraud, anything else you'd like to tell us about.
OP, do not do as suggested here - as several others have pointed out, it is an incredibly stupid idea and could potentially land you and others in jail or massively out of pocket.
Maybe see if your Swedish bank will let you open a CHF account and use your maestro card when visiting here.
Yes. Fully aware of this. Though there it needs to be said that if you have special arrangements it's a different story. Moreover, the bank actually has to check residence, if this is not EVER done, how are the bank going to know?! This is quite possible. Our experience has been the opposite to yours.
Wrong! As usual you are incorrect - and on both counts.
The "special conditions" are usually only afforded to those high net worth people, not the run-of-the-mill current accounts. If you have those "special conditions" the bank usually sends out KYC requests periodically so any falsification is quickly found out.
Can you please share actual facts of the conditions of these accounts (maybe the type of account run by PF?) of these "friends" of yours in order to add some substance to the thread otherwise it's just meaningless.
Asking "how are the bank going to know" is pretty naive, though, especially in these modern times of super-careful regulating. If the bank is even mildly suspicious that stuff doesn't stack up it will block the account if it doesn't receive a satisfactory answer.
Do you have a reference for that at all? I feel this is another generalization as I have not seen this on the forms for opening accounts. If the field was there, it certainly wasn't mandatory.
This may explain why we were not asked for this, as the last account that we opened was just before this came into force. I never said it was secret or unusual. Prior to 2017 though this was definitely not required.
Exactly - usually . This is the key word. There are always exceptions. The accounts I know of are basic/current accounts and some have been open for nearly 20 years. Nobody said what? This has already been said, so already aware.
So, just to recap, you know people who no longer live in Switzerland, who still have their bog-standard current accounts with PF they took out 20 years ago and they don't need to maintain a minimum balance and they don't get charged for them because the bank still thinks they are resident in Switzerland, and has no clue that they left?
Is that a fair summary?
If this is the case it's not an "exception". The account holder hasn't declared their new location to the bank. Pure and simple.
One of them (a relative of mine from the UK) has never even lived in Switzerland, but does own inherited property here. The account (a standard PF current) has always been domiciled at our address, so when we moved each time, that account moved with us. The property is rented out and the rent is paid into this account so it's not dormant. There's a fair bit of money in the account, but not millions.
My husband had a standard PF account for several years. We didn't have to provide proof of residence or a TIN to open it. We only closed it because we no longer thought it worth it with the introduction of fees in January this year.
Another couple of accounts are domiciled with us for colleagues. One in the UK, one in Italy. Both want to keep Swiss accounts with money in but not pay the ridiculous CHF 25 per month. I don't blame them. One has PF only (but several accounts in different currencies), the other has PF and another bank.
Total nonsense. If a bank discovers this they will simply freeze it and report it as a money laundering suspect and good luck trying to get it back. Your choice, your money at risk.