NatWest: Denial of service

stclair

In a nutshell yes you could have reactived your online banking yourself online.

https://www.nwolb.com/help.aspx?id=CN1

https://www.nwolb.com/default.aspx?refererident=FAA70AD3FE1B9FB794B9BE1C2E2003DDBE0EEA60&cookieid=28628&noscr=false&InnerPage=OLE&CookieCheck=2012-03-24T10:04:35&IsReenrolment=1

Important - if you hold a NatWest debit card, we may be able to provide you with immediate access to your online banking service.

meer53

coldhandoff wrote: »

Are your contact numbers up to date? When the fraud team put direct payments on hold they try to contact the customer to authorise it before the payment ends up being rejected.

The OP says their transaction should not be seen as suspicious as the funds were going to their own account. Natwest probably see this in a different light, possibly an attempt at money laundering ?

Your statement is completely wrong if the OP's payment is suspected as an attempt at money laundering. No bank would attempt to contact their customer if money laundering is suspected. It's an offence to do so.

samizdat

meer53 wrote: »

The OP says their transaction should not be seen as suspicious as the funds were going to their own account. Natwest probably see this in a different light, possibly an attempt at money laundering ?

Your statement is completely wrong if the OP's payment is suspected as an attempt at money laundering. No bank would attempt to contact their customer if money laundering is suspected. It's an offence to do so.

How can anyone suspect money laundering just because somebody tries to move money from a savings account to an external account?

Earlier in the thread, people were saying that the name of the payee account would not be considered anyway.

meer53

Moving money from one account to another is exactly how money laundering takes place. Small amounts can also trigger an investigation. No bank will tell you what their criteria is for starting an investigation but if you aren't getting any answers from Natwest i suspect this may be what has happened in the OP's case.

I suggest the OP reads up on the stages of money laundering and how it happens. There are also other threads on the forum where other people have experienced this too.

jalexa

meer53 wrote: »

Moving money from one account to another is exactly how money laundering takes place.

Well indeed. But *if* the funds were "laundered funds", the laundering took place when they were originally placed in the first account (based on the traceable origin of the funds).

opinions4u

jalexa wrote: »

Well indeed. But *if* the funds were "laundered funds", the laundering took place when they were originally placed in the first account (based on the traceable origin of the funds).

The money laundering process involves various stages, sometimes fairly straight forwards, other times more complex.

Moving money from account to account and owner to owner after an initial deposit can be part of those stages.

meer53

Placement - layering - integration. Money laundering can be identified at any of these stages. Layering is where funds are moved between accounts to disguise the audit trail.

jalexa

meer53 wrote: »

Money laundering can be identified at any of these stages.

To return to the OP this was said "NatWest decided to flag the transaction as potentially fraudulent".

I think the OP's slightly scatter-gun approach about "Natwest process" has allowed a "security" concern to become a "laundering" issue. Which is something else.

samizdat

jalexa wrote: »

To return to the OP this was said "NatWest decided to flag the transaction as potentially fraudulent".

I think the OP's slightly scatter-gun approach about "Natwest process" has allowed a "security" concern to become a "laundering" issue. Which is something else.

Do you mean my approach to describing my problems here has led people to discuss money laundering, whereas the problem was an alert over possible fraud?

Or do you mean my approach to NatWest led them to consider my attempts to access money as a laundering issue, whereas originally I just had a security problem relating to lost passwords?

brightonman123

maybe the amount that flagged up, or that OP is a dodgy character? lol

i'd rather have too much security, than lose my cash to a thief.