Cycling the same £1,000 through 9 accounts each month

mcfisco

Goldiegirl wrote: »

The innocent have nothing to fear.

.......... apart from having your accounts frozen until someone can be bothered to investigate.

Goldiegirl

mcfisco wrote: »

.......... apart from having your accounts frozen until someone can be bothered to investigate.

If they are worried about that, they could always stop moving their money through 22 accounts each month!

mcfisco

Mine was frozen for nearly a month simply because I deposited two large amounts of cash.

So saying the innocent have nothing to fear is only valid if you don't fear being locked out of your account and not being allowed to even explain the transaction until they are good and ready [3 weeks in my case]

Goldiegirl

Often, in cases where there is a genuine belief that money laundering is going on, the account wouldn't be frozen.

Because

A) it would tip off the money launderer

if the activity continues, it give more chance of investigating the whole circle of accounts.

I would suggest in mcfisco's case, there was no suggestion of money laundering, just that it was a transaction out of character with normal account activity.

Clearly being locked out for three weeks is unacceptable, though.

mcfisco

Trust me, I was innocent and as it turned out, I did have something to fear

It was 3 weeks before they told me why the accounts had been frozen, although it was obvious why.

Anyway, it's water under the bridge now
I just didn't want the 'nothing to fear' claim to go unchallenged.

John1993_2

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

If there is an audit trail, which shows where the original money came from, ie via a BACS payroll, then it matters not whether someone in a secret office is wasting time watching your movements.

The fact that they should be watching the tanning salons of merseyside should not be disputed however.

So it doesn't matter if your accouts are frozen then, and you think that people should not investigate suspicious transactions that later turn out to be innocent?

And you then think that when they see a suspicious transaction they should ignore it and instead investigate a tanning salon in Merseyside?

Sorry, but that's the stupidest post I've ever seen on here, and displays horrible ignorance of a bank's money laundering obligations. Did you not see the fine given to HSBC recently for not being diligent enough in this resppect?

datostar

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

The fact that they should be watching the tanning salons of merseyside should not be disputed however.

Why should they be watching the tanning salons of Merseyside? Are they voyeurs?

typistretired

Wheres_My_Cashback wrote: »

No, mine passes through 22pm !!

How did you manage to get that many accounts?

3 x Lloyds tsb

3 x BOS

4 x Nationwide

Halifax

What others are there that require £1000 funding each month?

SuperHan

typistretired wrote: »

How did you manage to get that many accounts?

3 x Lloyds tsb

3 x BOS

4 x Nationwide

Halifax

What others are there that require £1000 funding each month?

Maybe a first direct to nullify the monthly fee? And possible 3 x Halifax? (I'm grasping at straws too haha)

rb10

I'm guessing a husband and wife transfer the same £1k around both partners' accounts - i.e. they have 11 each.