BBC Watchdod: Banks freezing out innocent customers and blacklisting them

innovate

pmduk wrote: »

We've heard recently on this board from customers who have had their accounts frozen for no justified reason, and then closed. Whilst I accept that all banks have the right to close an account in their terms and conditions, I'm beginning to wonder if they're suspending accounts as a punitive measure in the secure knowledge that they don't have to justify this action.

I would agree with you - the fact banks can hide behind ML legislation when they [their software? an employee of theirs?] decide to lock/close people's accounts is pretty outrageous. We are living in one of the most developed nations in the world, a nation who has a clear, and accepted, definition of what happens when someone is being accused of wrongdoing.

A random piece of bank software, or a random bank employee, cannot possibly be allowed to override the civil liberties and rights we all have. Moreover, it is simply unacceptable that we should not have the right to defend ourselves if someone accuses us of wrongdoing. Every burglar, drug dealer and murderer has a legal right to defend themselves, so surely the holder of a bank account has too.

There is just no way that anyone in any bank should have the right to just lock/close accounts when they have been operated in accordance with the T&Cs. Firstly, the bank must not have any right to withhold agreement to a basic amount of daily/weekly/ monthly withdrawals, and secondly, the banks must not be allowed to lock/close accounts without providing the account holder with the full reasons for this action. Furthermore, the account holder must be able to present their defence.

As it stands, every common burglar, every murderer, and every terrorist seems to have more rights than an everyday current account holder. That just cannot be right.

I do, of course, expect that each and every bank/BS authorised by the FCA has procedures in place to detect potential money laundering, terrorist and drug dealing activities. Detecting the possible presence of these illegal activities doesn't, however, give them the right to determine the validity of the suspected illegal activities, and most certainly not the right to take corrective / punitive measures.

JuicyJesus

pmduk wrote: »

We've heard recently on this board from customers who have had their accounts frozen for no justified reason, and then closed. Whilst I accept that all banks have the right to close an account in their terms and conditions, I'm beginning to wonder if they're suspending accounts as a punitive measure in the secure knowledge that they don't have to justify this action.

As a punitive measure for what, exactly?

AML measures are necessarily strict at banks because banks are, put simply, what criminals use to launder money, and if they get it wrong they will be fined and prosecuted. If they do not report suspicions and act on them, they will be fined and prosecuted. Staff have to keep an eye out for unusual activity and report it to authorities, and if they don't, there is a chance that they could be fined and prosecuted. And if an account is blocked because of an order under the Proceeds of Crime Act, the bank has no choice either way. In a sense, the law makes them the key watchdogs for criminal economic activity, which makes sense since they are best placed to judge the activities of their own customers.

People who get their accounts blocked are few and far between, and the ones that come on here tend to only give their side of the story. Note that in the OP's link NatWest agreed to reopen one account but stood by the closure of another, even despite the fact they run a clear reputational risk by doing so on Watchdog of all places. They can't reveal their reasoning for that - which for all you know may be perfectly sound - because of all sorts of legal obligations, but the person whose account was closed can say whatever they like, whether it's the whole truth or not.

Additionally, it's not so much as they "don't have to" justify their activities in this area, they CAN NOT justify their activities in this area - literally, they are not allowed to, since as soon as they say "a disclosure has been made into suspicions of money laundering which we are investigating" the POCA offence of tipping off comes into play, an offence which carries a potential prison term for the staff involved and a hefty fine for the firm.

Incidentally, this legislation and these controls exist for EXCEPTIONALLY good reasons. Money laundering controls and banks' adherence to them assist in the prosecution of drug dealers, human traffickers, tax evaders, benefit cheats and all sorts of lowlives. I really cannot go into the reasons why some of the posts on this thread are so dramatically misguided, but I'll leave it at that.

innovate

Nobody objects to strict measures against criminals. However, just about everybody objects to banks/BSs having the right to judge, without the accused having any means to defend themselves.

If you were accused of shoplifting by John Lewis, would you accept / expect that John Lewis has the right to ban you from shopping at any other department store, without having given you a chance to defend yourself, and without presenting any evidence whatsoever?

If you were accused of burglary by the owner of the burgled property, would you expect that you are branded a burglar without having had a chance to defend yourself, and without an independent judge and jury to sit over your case?

What gives the banks the right to judge in secret? May be the answer is "the law", in which case the law needs to be changed, urgently. More likely though it is the banks intimidating people. Or a bit of both.

Thrugelmir

innovate wrote: »

This is complete and utter tosh. You don't get accounts closed/locked because of the number of accounts you have. You get accounts closed/locked because of suspicious transactions that happen on your account(s).

Then you failed to read my comment properly.

which aren't operated in a "normal" manner

Thrugelmir

innovate wrote: »

It is preposterous, and potentially libellous, to suggest that people with many active current accounts are "out to deceive".

You seem to live in a perfect world then. Unfortunately the real world is full of all sorts of shenanigans.

Thrugelmir

matttye wrote: »

How can banks be suspicious of something they actively encourage?

Misses my actual point entirely.

JuicyJesus

innovate wrote: »

Nobody objects to strict measures against criminals. However, just about everybody objects to banks/BSs having the right to judge, without the accused having any means to defend themselves.

The banks have to judge simply because they are the ones who suffer the negative consequences if they are too lenient and get it wrong. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Only the damnation for being too lenient is a hell of a lot more significant for being too strong.

If you were accused of shoplifting by John Lewis, would you accept / expect that John Lewis has the right to ban you from shopping at any other department store, without having given you a chance to defend yourself, and without presenting any evidence whatsoever?

Not really the same. It'd be more like John Lewis having evidence and being able to share this with the other department stores and the police, but being legally prohibited from showing it to you.

What gives the banks the right to judge in secret? May be the answer is "the law", in which case the law needs to be changed, urgently.

No, it doesn't. The law works, and helps bring those who commit crime to justice.

More likely though it is the banks intimidating people. Or a bit of both.

You are joking, right? Banks and the people who work for them have better things to do with their time than just pick on people for fun.

Again, with all these stories about people "unfairly" having their accounts blocked or whatever, you're only hearing one side of the story. The other side can't say anything much at all. All this stuff about "people need to defend themselves" is a bit moot if they aren't allowed to actually be accused of anything.

innovate

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Unfortunately the real world is full of all sorts of shenanigans.

Such as you avoiding to answer questions, after you have made potentially libellous accusations.

meer53

I work for a bank. I close accounts daily. Sometimes i contact the customer, sometimes i don't. It depends on the reason for the closure, BUT, there is ALWAYS a valid reason for the closure or blocking of an account.

There are always 2 sides to a story, before demanding changes in the law, it is wise to remember this. As for Watchdog, the sooner Ann Robinson retires the better.

innovate

JuicyJesus wrote: »

The law works, and helps bring those who commit crime to justice.

Justice, as I understand it, allows the accused to defend themselves, after the accused has been charged. That is the case throughout the western world, except perhaps in Guantanamo Bay and when someone in a bank thinks someone is a money launderer or terrorist.

It may well be the case that banks are damned if they do and damned if they don't - - I am not saying the fault lies with the banks. They may well be cornered by the law. However, that does not make it just - - - the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" must apply in any educated western society (and hopefully anywhere else in the world).

With the locking/closing of bank accounts, we are seeing unilateral action by someone/something (i.e. computer decision) in a bank, with absolutely zero option for the individual to 1) know what they are accused of, and 2) being able to defend themselves.

This is fundamentally wrong.

Can't see why anyone would not want to object to banks having in effect their own jurisdiction. The current arrangements just fundamentally fly in the face of justice.