How to withdraw cash from bank?

kenshaz

No,but have you a point to make

kenshaz

Mark7799 wrote:

Were you implying in yout post (#72) that the Data Protection Act was specifically brought in to legislate against Banks?

No but if you have a point please make it,I am interested

KenK_3

virgin_moneysaver wrote:

the money laundering act is an example of a case in point where if the cashier has suspicions & does not report it & this comes to light at a later date during a fraud investigation, the cashier has committed an offence & can be prosecuted

kenshaz wrote:

Do you not understand the justice system,to commit a crime you must have intent,please do lecture me on the legal system unless you are or have been part of the system

virgin_moneysaver is quite correct. Under the anti-money laundering laws, it IS an offence not to report a suspicious transaction, and a cashier CAN be sent to jail for it (as can anyone in the financial industry). It is also an offence not to be suspicious, if a court later decides that a "reasonable person" should have been suspicious. Intent is NOT relevant to these crimes.

If you disagree with these aspects of the laws, take it up with the Government who made them, not to cashier who has to abide by them. (no, I am not a cashier.)

kenshaz

Please show me case law,and remember all I wanted to do ,after thirty years with the bank ,was draw out my own money ,earned after thirty years employed by the government,was that a crime therefore how could the cashier be brought to task crime ,I suggest you refer to the act which states reasonable grounds,
If my wife was thrown into prison for a mistake,as a cashier in a bank,I would chain myself to number 10

kenshaz

KenK wrote:

virgin_moneysaver is quite correct. Under the anti-money laundering laws, it IS an offence not to report a suspicious transaction, and a cashier CAN be sent to jail for it (as can anyone in the financial industry). It is also an offence not to be suspicious, if a court later decides that a "reasonable person" should have been suspicious. Intent is NOT relevant to these crimes.

If you disagree with these aspects of the laws, take it up with the Government who made them, not to cashier who has to abide by them. (no, I am not a cashier.)

But you were employed by the Royal Bank of Scotland for community service please ref to http:https://www.bankactiongroup.co.uk for help in reprogramming

Anwen_2

kenshaz wrote:

Please show me case law,and remember all I wanted to do ,after thirty years with the bank ,was draw out my own money ,earned after thirty years employed by the government,was that a crime therefore how could the cashier be brought to task crime ,I suggest you refer to the act which states reasonable grounds,
If my wife was thrown into prison for a mistake,as a cashier in a bank,I would chain myself to number 10

Well of course it wasn't a crime, because it was actually you! But how are they to know that without, erm, ID? I mean, if I found your wallet, containing your bank card, in the street (and was the same age and gender as you...) I would, by the sounds of it, have all the info you think you (and therefore I, pretending to be you) should need to be able to withdraw massive amounts of cash.

wigginsmum

kenshaz wrote:

Do you not understand the justice system,to commit a crime you must have intent,please do lecture me on the legal system unless you are or have been part of the system

Wrong - I work in antimoneylaundering for an investment bank. Failure to report suspicions to the Moneylaundering Report Officer when you have them or should have reasonably had suspicions is a criminal offence. If you like, I will post the relevant extracts from the FSA Rulebook and the JMLSG Guidelines when I get to work.

In terms of training, the FSA requires that all financial industry staff (whether corporate or retail) be given antimoneylaundering awareness training at least on an annual basis and this must be documented by the firm. We have a constant battle to get the point across to our traders that we are all on the frontline when it comes to preventing moneylaundering.

I don't tend to deal with private clients (the third of the three FSA customer classifications), but if any individual wanted to opt up to Intermediate (the second customer classification) on the basis of experience, I would expect a properly certified copy of his/her passport (ie. by a solicitor or lawyer) and proof of address as a bare minimum. I would also expect to know the source of their funds so as to make sure it wasn't the proceeds of crime. Those are the rules we must comply with in the financial industry, and they're only going to get more and more stringent as time goes on.

In terms of the transaction under discussion, the FSA conduct inspections of the firms they regulate (normally every couple of years, in my experience) and the bank would be expected to have documentary evidence that they took reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of the person undertaking the transaction where the transaction is for EUR 15,000 or equivalent. Some will also undertake it for lower amounts. Failure to have this evidence can bring enormously hefty fines on the bank running into millions even when no crime has been committed regarding the transaction. Banks do not have a choice in the matter if they wish to contiinue to conduct investment business in the UK or into the UK markets.

In terms of retaining documentary evidence on file, it must be kept for at least 10 years after the termination of the customer relationship. After that it will be shredded by professional companies brought in for that purpose.

kenshaz

wigginsmum wrote:

Wrong - I work in antimoneylaundering for an investment bank. Failure to report suspicions to the Moneylaundering Report Officer when you have them or should have reasonably had suspicions is a criminal offence. If you like, I will post the relevant extracts from the FSA Rulebook and the JMLSG Guidelines when I get to work.

In terms of training, the FSA requires that all financial industry staff (whether corporate or retail) be given antimoneylaundering awareness training at least on an annual basis and this must be documented by the firm. We have a constant battle to get the point across to our traders that we are all on the frontline when it comes to preventing moneylaundering.

I don't tend to deal with private clients (the third of the three FSA customer classifications), but if any individual wanted to opt up to Intermediate (the second customer classification) on the basis of experience, I would expect a properly certified copy of his/her passport (ie. by a solicitor or lawyer) and proof of address as a bare minimum. I would also expect to know the source of their funds so as to make sure it wasn't the proceeds of crime. Those are the rules we must comply with in the financial industry, and they're only going to get more and more stringent as time goes on.

In terms of the transaction under discussion, the FSA conduct inspections of the firms they regulate (normally every couple of years, in my experience) and the bank would be expected to have documentary evidence that they took reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of the person undertaking the transaction where the transaction is for EUR 15,000 or equivalent. Some will also undertake it for lower amounts. Failure to have this evidence can bring enormously hefty fines on the bank running into millions even when no crime has been committed regarding the transaction. Banks do not have a choice in the matter if they wish to contiinue to conduct investment business in the UK or into the UK markets.

In terms of retaining documentary evidence on file, it must be kept for at least 10 years after the termination of the customer relationship. After that it will be shredded by professional companies brought in for that purpose.

Well at last some-one who knows what they are talking about,and I agree you would have to reasonably suspect and has any cashier ever been sent to prison for not reasonably suspecting,some emotive posters believe that you will

Ten years retaining copies of your pass-port seems rather a breach of my civil liberties for withdrawing my own money

The requirement to show proof of ID is OK;it is the photo copy retained for ten years ,is that a legal requirement?

The situation is going to get worse ,that means we must discuss it ,and not blindly accept.

The banks and hefty fines means pressure is put upon staff to be over zealous,and with posters shouting prison,that worries me.The responses that I have received are mainly from ex-bank staff or current ,they feel strongly because they are within and do not see the public point

I thank-you for your contribution

The right to conduct your life in an unobstructed manner is my right

kenshaz

Anwen wrote:

Well of course it wasn't a crime, because it was actually you! But how are they to know that without, erm, ID? I mean, if I found your wallet, containing your bank card, in the street (and was the same age and gender as you...) I would, by the sounds of it, have all the info you think you (and therefore I, pretending to be you) should need to be able to withdraw massive amounts of cash.

But some of the staff knew me ,but it had to be the manager,he was not on site ,and there-fore ,even though I had my pass-port ,they stated that I could not have my money until they had photo -copied the ID and filled a form in.

kenshaz

Anwen,valid point of view,but I am sure in the circumstances,discretion should be used ,I am not against ID,it is the photo copy and retaining,why should I be on file with a bank for ten years,credit reference agencies only keep documents for five years and you have access to that, can I have access to what the banks hold on me .