Why not instigate Criminal Proceedings?

CopperPlate_2

To the OP - best of luck in trying to persuade your local Police to take this seriously. They might have a cursory glance over the - no doubt comprehensive and detailed - information you would provide, but as soon as it became apparent that there was no individual at the bank committing an offence of fraud and the complaint was being made against the institution I think you would be told pretty quickly that it was "not a Police matter" and to take the matter up with your bank. To claim the banks are acting criminally would require a huge burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt of course), and one would be nigh on impossible to achieve. That said, you'd have to demonstrate that a crime had actually been committed - not that you believe (however fervently) that one had. There are many people who believe that crimes have been committed against them when they quite simply haven't. It's just getting them to listen that's the difficult part.

Paul_Herring

JohnPeard wrote:

Yes, but we are all human and do !!!! this up sometimes, and yes, we should expect to pay for our mistakes - but the whole point of much of this debate is whether the 'fines' are reasonable?

I thought the whole point of this little part of the debate was about transfer delays, not the costs incurred to an account holder as a result of them?

JohnPeard

CopperPlate wrote:

To the OP - best of luck in trying to persuade your local Police to take this seriously. They might have a cursory glance over the - no doubt comprehensive and detailed - information you would provide, but as soon as it became apparent that there was no individual at the bank committing an offence of fraud and the complaint was being made against the institution I think you would be told pretty quickly that it was "not a Police matter" and to take the matter up with your bank. To claim the banks are acting criminally would require a huge burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt of course), and one would be nigh on impossible to achieve. That said, you'd have to demonstrate that a crime had actually been committed - not that you believe (however fervently) that one had. There are many people who believe that crimes have been committed against them when they quite simply haven't. It's just getting them to listen that's the difficult part.

You are absolutely right in what you say, and I have no doubt at all in how the police would react. But I am so wrong in this?

Scenario (1) The bank returns a payment, because insufficient funds are in your account. You get charged £65. The dispute is therefore clearly a civil matter.

Scenario (2) The bank returns a a payment, because insufficient funds are in your account. The reason is that it has held the funds in it's own suspense account in the interim. (i.e You have paid in the money, but the bank holds on to it). You get charged £65. In this case the bank has gained a pecuniary advantage by deception. This is a criminal matter.

A 'John Doe' may have no chance whatsoever of proving this - but history has shown that major instutions do act fraudently, and it needs a heavy hitter like the SFO to investigate it.

A question for any lawyers out there. If the charges made by the banks are unlawful, but they deliberate continue in their practices to extract money from customers, knowing it to be so, at what point (if any) does it become criminal?

I think I'll withdraw from the debate now ! I know when I'm beaten !!

CopperPlate_2

JohnPeard wrote:

A question for any lawyers out there. If the charges made by the banks are unlawful, but they deliberate continue in their practices to extract money from customers, knowing it to be so, at what point (if any) does it become criminal?

In essence the charges are unlawful (if you want to call it that - this hasn't yet been declared by a court and we hear a lot about unlawfulness, etc. when in fact they haven't been declared so as yet to my knowledge, but I'll stand corrected) - they are relating to a breach of contract which is of course civil law. I can't speak for the crime of deception because it doesn't exist up here in sunny Scotland, but it would probably amount to a fraud of some sort - fraudulent scheme or something similar. It's too late for me to start thinking and I've not long finished work so the brain is getting slow, and to tell the truth I want to go to my bed so can't be too bothered to think too hard.

I can't see any situation where, even if it has been declared unlawful in respect of the civil breach, it could ever be deemed as criminal, as in fraudulent. But it really is too late on a Sunday night for me to start thinking in depth about this. Another time...

westernpromise

JohnPeard wrote:

How many of our banking institutions profited from the slave trade? Large companies can be corrupt, if their power is not challenged.

The slave trade was legal, like a lot of things done in the past that appear distasteful to us now: gladiatioral combat, burning of witches, the Spanish Inquisition, Stalin starving the middle-class farmers to death.

So you can't really argue that banks have a history of corruption. What they have is a history of working within the law of the day.

I think it is important to get the language right here. When we say that bank charges are 'illegal', I don't think that is correct. What they plainly are is 'unforceable', which is not the same thing at all. It's perfectly legal for a bank to get you to sign up to terms including things like £38 fines for going overdrawn. They just can't expect a court to uphold that contract, because the law of the land says they're not allowed to levy fines. Thus their terms can be legal, but unenforceable.

When I was a salesman years ago, I used to get customers to sign up for a five-year supply contract for my company's product, in return for which they got a much better price. Our inhouse lawyers advised us that although we had a supply contract, it didn't really mean anything. If a customer wanted to defect to a different supplier, all we could do was sue for our loss, based on what we would have made out of supplying him for the remainder of the term.

This would have entailed disclosing our margins and cost structure, which we weren't prepared to do. So our contract was legally but not practically enforceable.

This may be the same. We don't know why banks aren't defending, but it's either because they think they'll lose, or because they aren't prepared to dislose what they'd have to disclose in order to win.

AndyR_3

JohnPeard wrote:

Thanks for your reply, Sunil.

However, I have evidence that I am right. When money is transferred electronically, there is no 'movement' of any paper, or any human intervention. The data processing of a transfer takes, literally, milliseconds.

Would you care to post this proof? Online transfers go through the BACS system the same as any other.

JohnPeard

AndyR wrote:

Would you care to post this proof? Online transfers go through the BACS system the same as any other.

Hello Sunil

I was going to withdraw from this debate - too busy arguing with banks, rather than this, but still..

After trying to draw draw blood out of a stone of why it takes so long to get ELECTRONIC transfers cleared (not paper cheques) , I got this response from a very helpful lady at NatWest:

“When an on-line payment is made, the funds are debited from the account at close of business on the day of transfer. Up to 6.00 p.m. it is possible to recall payment, but after that time payment is made, and the paying bank [in this case NatWest] has no further control.

The funds are then held in a ‘suspense account’ by the receiving bank [i.e. Lloyds] from the commencement of business the next working day”

Sunil, ask yourself this question.

The banks in the UK are amongst the oldest finanical institutions in the world. They are based in the city, which is one of the of the leading money-hubs, and yet we are told that the reason why clearance takes so long, is that their computer systems are outdated. What? Behind Portugal?

Come on, please wise up. The reason is that it suits them - they make mints out of it - including your returned cheque fees !!

Electricity flows at 186,000 miles per sec in any country, my 10 K bytes of money data transfer takes less time than it takes to post this reply on this site.

We are being conned, me ole' china!

... and a con is a crime, not a civil matter - which is why I started this debate.

I know I can't win this, so I will definitely shut up now. But thank you for your arguments - they are appreciated.

JohnPeard

So, what the bank tells me isn't true then?

Mikeyorks

JohnPeard wrote:

So, what the bank tells me isn't true then?

Not in this case.

As Al Mac has commented - the first part regarding the credit being drawn from your account is correct. But the part regarding 'funds' being held in a suspense account, by the receiving bank, is not.

As I've explained in an earlier post, on this thread, Banks do not settle individual transfers. So there is a pseudo credit with your receiving Bank on day 2 - but the funds to satisfy that credit are not settled, in bulk, until overnight between Days 2 and 3. Hence you have cleared funds on Day 3. As endorsed by the CEO of BACS, a quote that I added to my original.

gt94sss2

JohnPeard wrote:

Hello Sunil

I was going to withdraw from this debate - too busy arguing with banks, rather than this, but still..

Just to point out that you are actually replying to a comment/question made by AndyR and not me here..

Nevertheless, it does sound as if Natwest didn't correctly answer your question...

Regards
Sunil