[Xymist]

Strong disagree that such a responsibility exists. I should be able to open a bank account with _nothing_, save perhaps a _de minimis_ initial deposit (one penny, or similar).

I can walk into a shop with a handful of cash, buy an item, and leave without anyone knowing who I was. That should be true of any good or service, including banking, that does not require additional data for direct practical reasons related to the provision of the service, e.g. cleaners need to know where you live. "Prevention of fraud/laundering/terrorism/whatever" is not such a reason.

[MyNameIs_Hacker]

That is fine for opening a deposit account. The fraud we're talking about is for obtaining credit or future financial obligations. It is wrong to let this be done with so little proof of identity and enforce the obligation in courts.

Banks have notaries of the public. After you have established a relationship with a bank, the notary may have enough evidence to authenticate you for others. If you have continued to use the bank in an anonymous manner, then you should not be authenticated to others.

[mindslight]

I'm sympathetic to your comment, but we are talking about the issuing of credit. Surely you see that this idea is a non-starter for a bank issuing credit?

This is further complicated by US bank accounts including an intrinsic bit of credit from writing checks and other ACH debits.