Posted it again as the formatting was not great,"YesIt’spart of...

Posted it again as the formatting was not great,

"Yes

It’spart of the Paydentity KYC cascade

Ifwe can’t KYC a person using conventional techniques, then we fall back to Useof payment instrument verification.

MostAustralian or UK persons that would trade cfd orSecurities will have a socialfootprint, proof of identity and proof of address that we can backgroundverify.

Personsthat are residents in Continental Europe, Asia, South America or Africa wouldmore likely be identified by use of our patented service. Not sure whyanything thinks we would introduce friction to a process when a non frictionprocess is available. However, where no means other than paper based KYC isavailable per the above jurisdictions, then we have a killer advantage via ourpatented payment instrument verification for on boarding customers from thoseareas.

Immigrantsand GenZ are also persons that are difficult to identify using conventionaltechniques, and payment instrument verification gives us an edge.

APRAwas happy enough to mention us as a refresh to the senate regtech committee inJanuary, and the UKs JMLSG acknowledges our process in Vol I s5.3.89

Alittle bit of domain knowledge is dangerous. Clear that the poster believes heunderstands mechanisms for customer due diligence to satisfy AML/CFT, not howthey are implemented in practice

InAustralia and the UK roughly 60% of persons can be identified usingconventional digital techniques. The “last 30%” is where else make adifference.

Allexplained in presentations form as early as 2015"