Barclays removed all my money !!

chexum

tagq2 wrote: »

They've already been effectively told the moment you tell them you're not telling them.

Madness, isn't it? They are effectively telling that if you see your transaction delayed without reason, or disappearing in weird, but official looking circumstances, you're being investigated.

Based on the Ombudsman news, if the transaction will be allowed to continue after seven working days, unless the appropriate powers come back with a no before that. After that, it's 31 days and then it should be on the go again or you'll have visitors before

What's worse, the FOS is instructed to assist the banks stalling operation:

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/29/29-crimeact.htm
This means that a financial firm, and the Financial Ombudsman Service:
- cannot, at the time, tell a customer that a transaction is being delayed because a report has been made under the Proceeds of Crime Act; and
- cannot later – unless NCIS agrees – tell a customer that a transaction was delayed because a report had been made under the Proceeds of Crime Act.


So, practically, you can expect any of your transaction to be delayed for up to seven working days at the whim of a staff or a computerised decision - no explanation must be given, and the banks (and the FOS) is free to invent excuses.

That also means they must not acknowledge the reason for the delay, so they cannot refute it's their incompetence, hence you should be qualified for a compensation :rotfl:

vacheron

Though I understand that banks are required to assist in the prevention of money laundering, I'm curious as to what these checks are and how they can realistically be performed?

Other posters in this thread are are asking the questions that I would expect the investigation to ask. i.e. where did you get the money, can you produce evidence of receipts etc.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the bank didn't ask the OP where the funds came from when the money was deposited as I have deposiited similar or greater amounts a few times this year (two of which were also to Barclays) and was never asked myself.

The deposited money will, in all probaility have been placed in the safe and mixed up with the rest by now (as I clearly saw happen with mine) making linking serial numbers to the transaction very difficult.

Though I am not suggesting for one moment that this is the case, carla99 , The OP could have been given 8K by Tony the Knife McFrenzy or, alternatively, just sold her car. This piece of knowledge alone would make someone either an accessory to organised crime, or a completely innocent person. So how on earth can any definitive conclusions be drawn without speaking a word to the account owner? :huh:

tagq2

vacheron wrote: »

Though I understand that banks are required to assist in the prevention of money laundering, I'm curious as to what these checks are and how they can realistically be performed?

<Bank computer or human> NCIS, this transaction happened.
<NCIS computer> OK, let me check to see whether this guy has a history of suspicious transactions or this transaction is particularly egregious. Stall the transaction.
<Bank computer> OK.
<NCIS computer> Hm, I don't like it, let me notify a human to review matters. Continue stalling.
<Bank computer> OK.
(when a human gets round to it)
<NCIS human> Let me look through other records about this guy from banks or elsewhere... I wonder if any other government department has details...
<Other government department computer> Nothing to see.
(when another human gets round to it)
<Other government department human> I don't have anything interesting on this guy.
<Yet another " " "> Ditto.
(when overworked initial human gets back round to it)
<NCIS human> Seems legit.
<NCIS computer> Bank, let him have his cake.
<Bank computer> OK.

The difference between this and normal police work is that the police don't get to restrict someone's freedom without telling them why they are doing so. The right to be informed when the system is taking action against you - even temporarily - is an essential component of civilised justice. To do otherwise harms only the innocent (and gives the guilty a hearty laugh, I expect).

vacheron

Cheers tagq2.

So it sounds like it works as I suspected, that the system or overworked human looks back at the customers history to see if there is anything suspicious while their money is denied to them.

The question then is: How can anyone's first transaction be caught? If Tony the knife gave me 8K to deposit at "tony the knifepoint", and I have no previous, the system will go:

This guy has deposited a lot of cash.
Does he have previous evidence of suspicious transactions?
No.
Oh, that's ok then
Do you want to ask him where the money has come from?
Nah.
Do you want to ask him to provide any receipts?
Nah.
Do you want to ask him if he has "anything to declare"?
Nah.
OK, he is clearly completely innocent. We'll give him all his money back.

Cue my transition being marked as "not suspicious", so if I am then "asked" by Tony to do this again in the future I will probably also be condisered ok then too!

carla99

They just make innocent people desperate, that's what they do! Still can't find any answers, I wonder how many days are they legally allowed to keep people's money, until they finish their "investigations" ? I am sure they are well covered, but what about us, the customers? It seems like our rights are minimum! As far as I know, FOS takes your case if the bank doesn't solve it within 8 weeks.... Really hope it won't be the case! I'm going to do whatever it takes and fight for my money, they can't steal it!

tagq2

A particularly representative transaction (amounts/timing) could prompt immediate questions. Any smart criminal will drip feed from and to various locations, though, won't they? They'll do all sorts of roundabout stuff like buy mobile 'phone top-ups and dial their own premium rate international number (this was IIRC the method of laundry for the Lush attack a few months ago, although in that case it was stolen credit/debit card details rather than cash used to buy the top-ups).

But I guess it's a cost-benefit thing: if you make it more of a pain to launder money by depositing certain sums of cash into bank accounts, fewer people will launder money by depositing cash into bank accounts (or use cash at all, which is a plus for banks). It's like pre-2001 airport security: there was just enough in the UK to stop the casual terrorist so people intent upon causing mischief would generally try something other than carry a device onto a 'plane. Alleviate one symptom until another pops up...

carla99

tagq2 wrote: »

<Bank computer or human> NCIS, this transaction happened.
<NCIS computer> OK, let me check to see whether this guy has a history of suspicious transactions or this transaction is particularly egregious. Stall the transaction.
<Bank computer> OK.
<NCIS computer> Hm, I don't like it, let me notify a human to review matters. Continue stalling.
<Bank computer> OK.
(when a human gets round to it)
<NCIS human> Let me look through other records about this guy from banks or elsewhere... I wonder if any other government department has details...
<Other government department computer> Nothing to see.
(when another human gets round to it)
<Other government department human> I don't have anything interesting on this guy.
<Yet another " " "> Ditto.
(when overworked initial human gets back round to it)
<NCIS human> Seems legit.
<NCIS computer> Bank, let him have his cake.
<Bank computer> OK.

The difference between this and normal police work is that the police don't get to restrict someone's freedom without telling them why they are doing so. The right to be informed when the system is taking action against you - even temporarily - is an essential component of civilised justice. To do otherwise harms only the innocent (and gives the guilty a hearty laugh, I expect).

So do you think my case is investigated by NCIS? They must be wasting their time with me, missing the real cases! It's ridiculous!! I thought the bank was into this, as it was taken by Manchester Premier, which is part of the bank.

tagq2

carla99 wrote: »

So do you think my case is investigated by NCIS?

It's possible that the teller or some automated system kick-started the process to report a suspicious financial transaction to NCIS (it would now be an entry in SOCA's ELMER database). Fifteen years ago around 15k reports were made a year. Now it's over ten times as many. It's all very silly.

But as to whether anyone actually made the report, I do not know. Anyone who does is gagged by law from telling you. Did I mention that it's all very silly?

bengalknights

tagq2 wrote: »

<Bank computer or human> NCIS, this transaction happened.
<NCIS computer> OK, let me check to see whether this guy has a history of suspicious transactions or this transaction is particularly egregious. Stall the transaction.
<Bank computer> OK.
<NCIS computer> Hm, I don't like it, let me notify a human to review matters. Continue stalling.
<Bank computer> OK.
(when a human gets round to it)
<NCIS human> Let me look through other records about this guy from banks or elsewhere... I wonder if any other government department has details...
<Other government department computer> Nothing to see.
(when another human gets round to it)
<Other government department human> I don't have anything interesting on this guy.
<Yet another " " "> Ditto.
(when overworked initial human gets back round to it)
<NCIS human> Seems legit.
<NCIS computer> Bank, let him have his cake.
<Bank computer> OK.

The difference between this and normal police work is that the police don't get to restrict someone's freedom without telling them why they are doing so. The right to be informed when the system is taking action against you - even temporarily - is an essential component of civilised justice. To do otherwise harms only the innocent (and gives the guilty a hearty laugh, I expect).

Isnt there a bit where HMRC are notifed of possible undeclared income?

shashaply

Is it a debt repayment from another department of Barclays, or is it fraudulent?