The article speaks of 40,000 cases in just one Indian state vs one case in France. It's really not comparable. That being said the French administration is particularly infuriating and being locked out of everything because "opening bank account requires a proof of residence" coupled to "you need a check (thus bank account) to get your university dormitory room" can definitely happens. And while
honest citizens are easily screwed it doesn't even remotely stop fraud which is massive, with a billion of euros scammed out of the wealthfare every year (https://www.google.fr/amp/s/lexpansion.lexpress.fr/actualite...)
In Spain there's a very similar immigration catch-22. You need to be registered as a resident (and hence have a stable address) to get an identity card, but good luck doing pretty much anything (including opening a bank account or renting a flat, which almost always requires a bank account) without the identity card. It's possible to open a bank account as a non-resident to break the loop, but this requires a certificate of non-residence (!) which takes several weeks to get.
Everyone I know who came to work here from abroad just either went to a "friendly" bank branch where they turn a blind eye and open an account for them without the certificate of non-residence, or "cheated" the system by registering as a resident at the address of some coworker, boss, acquaintance, etc. (without really living there, of course). The latter is so widespread that many websites for immigrants describe it as "the" way to do things, they don't even mention the "orthodox" way, which makes sense because it's just not practical. It's ridiculous.
I am from Brazil, living in Brazil, have accounts in Brazil, and so on.
And got stuck for a while in a similar loop when I decided to get married.
The marriage office wanted me to prove my residence, and it had to be MY residence, not partner, not parents, it had to be mine.
Meanwhile the places I attempted then to rent to fix the previous issue, wanted proof I had a high enough income to rent them, but wouldn't accept my future wife contribution to it properly.
The deadlock was broken only when one day the broker called me, saying some dude was offering his apartment for a really cheap rent because it was an emergency for him. (his mom got cancer and he decided to live with her and use the rent money to help pay her treatment)
I accepted, and had to live in the apartment alone for some 2 months before I could go register my marriage.
If it wasn't for my landowner misfortune I wouldn't been able to get married.
Then right after got stuck in another loop: I was candidate for council elections once, the party lawyer promised to take care of everything for me, but he didn't, despite the fact I spent 0 money and got 0 donations, government decided I was potentially corrupt and took away my voting rights (and in Brazil this means you basically become a non-citizen, you can't get a passport, certain IDs, participate in competitions and so on).
I found that out AFTER I married and took my new wife to the voting office to change her name in the registry. So I went to see how to get my citizen rights back, and found out a need a lawyer, it is mandatory, you can't just represent yourself to send the missing documents, you need a lawyer. So I need money, so I need a job (I have a company but not enough money for lawyer, wnated extra money). Then I found out to get a job legally, you need to have the voting rights.
I am breaking now this deadlock by getting hired by a foreign company instead, then I will use the money I get working from the foreign company to pay the lawyer.
But it made me wonder, I am fortunate, what about people that don't work with stuff that allow them to get a remote job with a foreign company? Will them be forever non-citizens?
> "cheated" the system by registering as a resident at the address of some coworker, boss, acquaintance, etc. (without really living there, of course).
This could be a feature of the system, not a bug. In order to make it work you need the implicit endorsement of the person whose address you are using; presumably there could be repercussions for that person if you turned out to be problematic, which would apply a "character test" of sorts to the residency system.
Yeah, I have thought about that, and I also think it may be intentional, for the reasons you mention.
But it's quite ugly that in order to implement that "endorsement system", they push you to lie, because both the letter of the law and the forms that both the immigrant and the "helper" person sign are quite unambiguous: you are declaring that the person physically lives in that address, which is not true.
If they want an endorsement system, they could explicitly create one.
I just want to say that these are unrelated: opening a bank account doesn't actually require a proof of residence in France by law, it's the banks themselves that often require it (but when you move abroad they are generally happy to update your address without proof), needing a check for renting is absolutely infuriating but also not a legal requirement, only something private landlords usually ask (publicly subsided housing and student accommodation organisations that regularly see foreign students generally allow other means of guarantee).
So these are entirely problems with private actors, not the French administration - you will find that the French administration is often very helpful when you need to pay things to them, most means of payment are possible, foreign credit cards are no problem for example, and they even take American Express for paying fines.
And wealthfare fraud is not conducted with checks, although it might require false proofs of residence.
Proof of residence is not required by law for bank accounts, but banks are on the hook when dealing with non residents, in particular regarding anti-laundering laws. Technically it’s a private sector decision, in practice it’s a result of the different gov entities requirements that lead to the current situation.
Of course it’s not just french banks, having foreign accounts is just becoming more complicated in general IMO.
While proof of residence isn’t necessary, you do need some sort of identification right? This due to anti money laundry laws. A bank in Europe must be able to prove that an individual is who he is. The identification will indirectly prove that someone else has verified the individual’s residence. If you then move, it doesn’t matter since you are already identified.
Yes, you need ID either way. I think Bank of France will open you an account without any other condition than proving your existence, but without any convenience on it outside of the bare minimum (it’s part of their role as a societal service)
Well, the thing is that the ID asserts that there is a government party that is a guarantor to that you exist and you are who you say you are. So by showing them the ID they know that all the work is done to assert this and they only need to match the persons face/bio to the card to assert the identity.
All banks in the EU are bound by law to assert that the person doing a transaction is who he is and is identifiable. So it’s not just because their “role as a societal service”.
In France the problem with fraud and excess registrations has got to do with data segregation. Files can't legally be cross-referenced between the ID system, the fiscal system, the healthcare system and so on. That leads to a lot of cruft. In Japan they've got tons of dead people still legally alive, it's a pretty common issue.
As for bank accounts, you need KYC everywhere, at least in Europe. I don't see how France is specifically problematic in that respect.
