jkg kjh khkh lhl lh lkh

grumbler

JuicyJesus wrote: »

...The FOS will for instance withhold certain information or entire decisions (which they now publish publicly) where it could be useful to fraudsters.

I have never said that any sensible information had to be disclosed.
However, if an account is closed for suspected fraud I don't see how saying this can do any harm and I don't believe that FOS agrees that this has to be kept secret.

JuicyJesus

grumbler wrote: »

However, if an account is closed for suspected fraud I don't see how saying this can make any harm.

The same reason cheques say "Refer to drawer" rather than "Drawer hasn't got a pot to p*ss in". Because "suspected fraud", as with "insufficient funds", is a specific accusation and thus could be subject to defamation proceedings. Go and read (well, when the site's working) some Ombudsman decisions some time. Blatantly fraudulent behaviour is described in terms which very specifically describe fraudulent activity, but don't actually accuse the account holder of acting fraudulently themselves.

(This is an educated guess, but I'd imagine this is the likely explanation.)

Archi_Bald

JuicyJesus wrote: »

You are not allowed to tip off that someone is, was or ever has been suspected of money laundering or subject to a disclosure to SOCA. Ever. Not while the account is open, not after it's closed.

This sounds like some medieval thiefdom rather than a regulated industry. Of course it would be ok if investigations about suspected fraud would be carried out behind the scene but it seems quite outrageous that the suspect would not be allowed to defend themselves and that some bankers can decide behind closed doors that someone isn't worthy of a bank account. Even !!!!!philes(*) have a right to defend themselves, why not current account holders?

(*)MSE doesn't allow the word p-a-e-d-ophile without dashes, it seems.

JuicyJesus

Archi_Bald wrote: »

This sounds like some medieval thiefdom rather than a regulated industry.

There are exceptionally good reasons behind the tipping off legislation, chiefly that alerting someone that they have been reported to SOCA allows them to take action to hide assets which would otherwise be evidence of crime or further conceal the proceeds of crime.

Financial crime is serious. Any and all organised crime relies upon it to exist profitably. Reporting and investigation of it has to be done in secrecy because of its very nature. There's no ulterior motive here, just a reflection of the reality of what money laundering is.

grumbler

JuicyJesus wrote: »

There are exceptionally good reasons behind the tipping off legislation, chiefly that alerting someone that they have been reported to SOCA allows them to take action to hide assets which would otherwise be evidence of crime or further conceal the proceeds of crime.

Financial crime is serious. Any and all organised crime relies upon it to exist profitably. Reporting and investigation of it has to be done in secrecy because of its very nature. There's no ulterior motive here, just a reflection of the reality of what money laundering is.

All these excuses don't withstand any criticism.
Feel free to 'investigate' secretly for as long as you want. Just stop freezing accounts indefinitely (that is already tipping-off actually) and shutting them down (that is tipping-off too for a real criminal) without any genuine reasons whatsoever.

To me bank departments doing all this look like asylums for severe paranoiacs.

lics

Try to get a basic account with another bank right now, perhaps credit agencies are not yet informed about that marker? So that you can function while you sort out the problem?

John1993_2

tomintrouble wrote: »

i am not the only one who receive this latter,
my cousin who registered his account at my address, also got same latter from natwest

Does your cousin actually live there? The bank may not be happy if it seems that your address is being used as a front for people who aren't resident there.

John1993_2

grumbler wrote: »

To me bank departments doing all this look like asylums for severe paranoiacs.

The banks have no choice, they must follow the law of the land.

grumbler

Come one... There always is a lot of flexibility.
I am under impression that these departments just hide behind the law to act with impunity - pretty often just to justify their existence and the salaries they get.

pqrdef

So the question is, what is somebody supposed to do in this situation? Do the banks have any suggestions?