Please help barclays took all money out my account

d.ross_2

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Sorry don't agree.

If they are acting as a result of Money Laundering/Terrorism triggers these may well have been imposed on them and they will have a legal duty to follow through the process. In similar way they have to freeze accounts in Bankruptcy/Insolvency cases they are compelled by legislation.

The reason they don't tell you is obvious.

The staff will be embargoed from discussing the matter no doubt.

Once they have the green light the money will be returned.

So if that was the case then all banks would do the same, but they don't do they??

d.ross_2

grizzly1911 wrote: »

mazy_m wrote: »

I really do think Barclays is being unfairly blasted here.

Banks don't steal money (overcharge, penal rates for default and recover money owing yes).

If as seems to be the case here they are more than likely legally bound to follow said procedure.

As another OP has said money laundering or for that matter terrorism funding isn't all about loads of money it can also be slow drip.

You appear to be very nieve

meer53

d.ross wrote: »

And both payments were made by bankers draught, that can easily be traced......I don't think so, do you?

I do think so ! Yes it can be easily traced, but where did the money for the draft come from ? What makes you think that a bankers draft means that the money is not part of a money laundering procedure ?

You're the naieve one here !

meer53

d.ross wrote: »

So if that was the case then all banks would do the same, but they don't do they??

All banks have to comply with Money Laundering regulations, they all have to take action if they suspect this is happening, they aren't allowed to discuss this with the person whose account they are looking into, sort of defeats the object a bit really doesn't it if they say "well, we think you might be a bit dodgy, so we've just borrowed the money you just paid in, until we've had a good look at where it came from, then you can have it back"

If there aren't any problems, the OP will get their money back as soon as Barclays have finished doing what they need to do.

JuicyJesus

allpine99 wrote: »

the last two credits that went into my account were two cheques from a member of my family from there halifax bank , one was for £3000 and one for £4000 one cleared last monday and the othe cleared thursday thats when they took my money, the cheques were deposited into my account to pay off some credit cards which i have been unable to do now thats why im so angry .

This may be it. Cheques can still be returned up to the sixth working day after they are paid in. That sort of amount is in the ballpark for clearing cycle fraud (e.g. you get sent a cheque, you pay it in and are asked to remit funds back by Western Union or whatever before it inevitably bounces - a very common scam, usually perpetrated against the customer rather than the customer knowingly defrauding the bank). They are probably holding the funds until the cheques are definitely paid.

As to why the entire balance of your account is held... pass.

grizzly1911

d.ross wrote: »

grizzly1911 wrote: »

You appear to be very nieve

Ever worked in Fraud Investigation?

staffie1

d.ross wrote: »

You are completely missing the point here. Due to the poor way that Barclays handle this, it has left to OP with no money for food, petrol, etc. And I preume it will leave any payments due out of their account unpaid, which could lead to them defaulting on payments. This is all through no fault of their own. If the bank had handled this properly, then they wouldn't have taken the money (without authorisation) from the OP. So what they have done is actually theft. So they need to be forced to change their policies to ones that are more friendly to their customers.

I'm not missing the point d.ross, I understand the argument. In law, "A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it".

Let's not forget that we have only one side of the story here - Barclays are not here to put their point of view. There are anti-terrorism and money-laundering laws which require financial institutions occasionally to take certain actions (and yes, that means emptying the account sometimes) to check out suspicious activity. As has been said in another post, this doesn't necessarily mean that OP is directly involved either.

Also don't forget (and I realise we don't know OP's full life story), but IF they owe money elsewhere within Barclays group, the bank probably has a right to take money out of one account to settle a debt in another. They probably wouldn't notify you about that either. I'm not suggesting this is fair but it's the way it is.

Another thing that struck me is if someone has substantial amounts of money in an account, surely it would be wise to hold some in a different account in case of emergencies? For example, if you lost your debit card or your bank's system went down, etc how would you get at your money then? This is what credit cards are for or second bank account.

pmduk

There are anti-terrorism and money-laundering laws which require financial institutions occasionally to take certain actions (and yes, that means emptying the account sometimes) to check out suspicious activity

Why do the anti-money laundering investigations require an account to be emptied? No other bank appears to operate this way.

staffie1

pmduk wrote: »

Why do the anti-money laundering investigations require an account to be emptied? No other bank appears to operate this way.

Either because all of the funds in that account are being investigated, or because a hold has been placed on the entire account for some other reason.

willo65

I would think it's possible the banked thought it was odd to have 2x cheques of similar values paid in one week apart. If this was from the relative couldn't they have given you 1 cheque?