We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
BBC Watchdod: Banks freezing out innocent customers and blacklisting them
Options
Comments
-
Which bank do you work for? You won't need to close my account, I'll close it myself.When accounts are frozen due to AML regulations, they are usually suspended due to a "suspicion" of money laundering.
No-one is "accused" of money laundering and most accounts are unblocked once the banks have carried out the correct investigations.
The system works, it protects the public and their customers, it is a very small number of people who are affected by this situation, the current arrangements work perfectly well in identifying money laundering.
Your attitude to customers stinks."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
So for all you know, the customer is in a coma and somebody else has been using his account.I work for a bank. I close accounts daily. Sometimes i contact the customer, sometimes i don't."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
How many international master criminals and warlords launder their ill-gotten gains through the same account they use to pay the supermarket and the gas bill?Money laundering is one of the major growth industries around the world and obviously funds heinous crimes such as terrorism, illegal drugs trading, military coups, civil wars etc."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
How many international master criminals and warlords launder their ill-gotten gains through the same account they use to pay the supermarket and the gas bill?
Given that the whole point of laundering is to sneak illicit funds into the financial system undetected, probably quite a few.urs sinserly,
~~joosy jeezus~~0 -
When accounts are frozen due to AML regulations, they are usually suspended due to a "suspicion" of money laundering.
No-one is "accused" of money laundering and most accounts are unblocked once the banks have carried out the correct investigations.
The system works, it protects the public and their customers, it is a very small number of people who are affected by this situation, the current arrangements work perfectly well in identifying money laundering.
Innocent victims are left to suffer, because access to their own money is being blocked, and they're unable to open any new accounts. Is that perfectly fine? Is that protection for them? What about such actions causing financial hardship and consequential loss? Are victims satisfactorily compensated?The decision to close or block an account is mine, based on my risk assessment. Who would you expect to make the decision to block or close an account ? Surely the people who deal with this issue daily are best placed to make the right decisions ? My job is to minimise the financial risk to the company i work for, i would be negligent if i didn't do this.
It is against the law to alert someone to the fact that there is a suspicion of money laundering, if this is proven, then a court will decide the punishment, not the bank. Banks dont have rights that exceed those of the Police, why do you think they do ?
Because an account block means people can't access their own money. It's not a legal punishment, but at the very least it's an inconvenience (which banks 'apologise' for), and at worst it can cause complete financial ruin and psychological trauma.0 -
JuicyJesus wrote: »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.
However in AML cases, I feel that a reasonable amount to live on should be given whilst police are informed and decide whether to pursue their own investigation.
If those investigations come back negative, and the bank has closed the account and alerted external agencies, I'd like to think that they could be charged under s.13 and/or 55 DPA, and possible libel.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.
Do you feel that it's fair for a 20yr old, formerly homeless man to have their accounts closed as they didn't realise that they could have had a free account, and subsequently attempting to reclaim the charges?
This isn't to do with AML, but with an OD which was going down month on month, and help by several advisers to get back into self employment (accounts with different bank), to possibly financially ruin a young, bright individual that's had severe personal problems in the past? No allegation of abuse has come from either side, and I can't see the bank's issue here.
This is a case that I'm dealing with at the moment. I've alerted Lloyds that their actions are possibly unlawful, and the case is now with the FOS. Lloyds have refused to discuss the reasons for their decision, and when we chuck Aspergers into the mix, this has left a very confused vulnerable person. Please give your opinion on this.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.
Please see above and I'd welcome your opinion.
I do agree about two sides to the story, but everything I've written above stands with regards to banks acting fairly.The decision to close or block an account is mine, based on my risk assessment. Who would you expect to make the decision to block or close an account ? Surely the people who deal with this issue daily are best placed to make the right decisions? My job is to minimise the financial risk to the company i work for, i would be negligent if i didn't do this.
Whilst I understand that your job is to minimise the risk, there still needs to be a provision into living expenses. If it was to happen to me, we have everything split between 7 banks in 4 countries, but for many, it's not the case.
Is it fair for someone not to be able to eat for weeks, maybe months on end, and do you feel this should be incorporated into legislation?It is against the law to alert someone to the fact that there is a suspicion of money laundering, if this is proven, then a court will decide the punishment, not the bank. Banks dont have rights that exceed those of the Police, why do you think they do?
Although the bank do seem to think they have rights exceeding the police in come cases. If an allegation is made, and police don't follow up, do you feel it's fair to post hugely private information to various agencies (through one agency), on something that's not been proven in a court?
As I've already stated, I have to have AML meetings with my bankers every 6 months for the company to justify where cash is coming from/going to. I feel that this is a good deterrent for high risk customers, rather than branding them criminals with no right of appeal.
CK💙💛 💔0 -
Which bank do you work for? You won't need to close my account, I'll close it myself.
Your attitude to customers stinks.
I don't have an attitude towards my customers, i just do my job. I don't make the rules, or the laws.
If i make a decision to close or block an account, it will be after a lot of investigation, not just on a whim. I have to justify why i have made my decision, we are subject to compliance checks and i would soon find myself out of a job if i closed or blocked accounts willy nilly without justfication.
With regard to CIFAS markers, they don't ruin lives. There is always information available to lenders as to why it has been applied, if the person applying for any financial products has not been involved in any wrongdoing then there is no reason why it should affect them.0 -
I have to justify why i have made my decision, we are subject to compliance checks and i would soon find myself out of a job if i closed or blocked accounts willy nilly without justfication.
The issue is that you do not have to justify your decision to the customer, and that the customer has at no point got any chance to defend themselves.
This sort of action is what you would expect in a third world Dictatorship but not in a country that prides itself of its democratic heritage.
I appreciate that you are not doing anything unlawful, and that is why the law must be changed. The very last thing we need is bankers to turn into little Hitlers who deprive people from even being able to buy food and pay for their accommodation. Suspects, and even convicted criminals, have to live and eat - but it seems bankers don't get that.0 -
The banks are between a rock and a hard place on this.
They have to take action and they are unable to tell the customer why.
The lawmakers of the country are the only people who can change this.0 -
You also come on here and defend it.i just do my job.
Or more likely before, not after. And you aren't in a position to do any meaningful investigation.If i make a decision to close or block an account, it will be after a lot of investigation
Are you trying to pretend you're an idiot as well?if the person applying for any financial products has not been involved in any wrongdoing then there is no reason why it should affect them."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards