Practice question
A person claims to act for another when opening an account and says identifying the representative alone is enough. What customer-identification requirement is relevant?
- The principal's identity is always legally irrelevant.
- A handwritten alias replaces every official identity record.
- Authority is presumed conclusively from wearing a business suit.
- The covered person must also verify the representative's authority and the true identity of the person for whom the account is maintained.
- Only the representative's preferred account number matters.
Legal references
- RA 9160, Section 9(a)-(b), customer identification and recordkeeping: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2001/ra_9160_2001.html
- RA 10365, Sections 1 and 7, covered persons and reporting amendments: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2013/ra_10365_2013.html
- RA 10927, casino coverage and casino covered-transaction threshold: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2017/ra_10927_2017.html
- RA 11521, amended covered-person and covered-transaction provisions: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2021/ra_11521_2021.html
- RA 12312, Sections 8 and 17, Anti-POGO Act AMLA amendment: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2025/ra_12312_2025.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.