Bank Imposed Cash Withdrawal Limits

expat_mike

alanq wrote: »

Or use CHAPS instead of Faster Payments
"CHAPS Limit There is no minimum or maximum payment amount when transferring using CHAPS payments."
http://www.nationwide.co.uk/search/DisplayArticle.aspx?article=1403



No doubt the same applies with CHAPS.

CHAPs costs money for the transaction and the banks make enough from us as it is.

grey_gym_sock

http://www.paymentscouncil.org.uk/resources_and_publications/faster_payments_value_limits/

dunstonh

expat_mike wrote: »

Banks haven't been fined due to Uncle Bob drawing out 10k to buy a second hand car from Arthur Daley, banks like Standard Chartered and HSBC have been fined billions for laundering tens of billions in drugs, arms and money from prostitution.

These fines that keep going through say different. One of the earliest big fines was Halifax in 2003. HSBC had to pay $1.9 billion just over a year ago for money laundering failings.

expat_mike

dunstonh wrote: »

Since about the mid 1980s with increasing requirements placed on them are periodic points thereafter. And increasing fines for failures to comply. The days of the hundreds of thousands of pounds upto a million fine have gone. Now its multi million or hundreds of millions.

These new regulations brought in during the 80's seemed to have had very little effect on banks laundering drug & arms money as evidenced by them getting caught out during the past few years.

Herbalus

expat_mike wrote: »

CHAPs costs money for the transaction and the banks make enough from us as it is.

CHAPS costs £25: not a large amount if you want to transfer over £100,000.

And the banks never make a penny from some people if you act accordingly.

Linton

expat_mike wrote: »

The problem is this - The banks do not have a coherent policy over cash withdrawal conditions as each bank has interpreted the money laundering laws differently. In HSBC, they were even party to laundering drug money and were fined heavily for it. Secondly, if terms and conditions change, banks should advertise it in bold print rather than hiding it obscure caveat laden legalese.

Its not a question of interpreting the law differently. As I understand it the law doesnt give any guidance as to how to prevent fraud and money laundering, it just makes the banks responsible if it happens. So they each have to devise ways they consider appropriate. These can never be completely watertight. If they were, normal business would come to a halt. It's a delicate balance, dont check enough and get subject to heavy fines, check too much and your customers leave. So the fines become a business expense.

The banks pretty obviously cant publicise many of the checks and limitations they adopt. It would make it too easy for the bad guys to devise strategies to get round them.

dunstonh

These new regulations brought in during the 80's seemed to have had very little effect on banks laundering drug & arms money as evidenced by them getting caught out during the past few years.

Which is why the fines have got so much bigger.

noh

expat_mike wrote: »

You're right as I found out by accident that Nationwide did allow me to transfer 20k within 24 hours but their rules say only 10k per day. I tried it on as I was fed up having to transfer just 10k a day between bank accounts and found that 20k actually worked. Why cant they advertise that and why does Santander allow 100k per day. There is no consistency and customers only find out the hard way !

No.
Nationwide allow £10k per transaction as stated on their website.
From their FAQs:-
What are the current Nationwide Faster Payments limits?
Nationwide’s Faster Payments limit is £10,000 per transaction. There is no limit to the number of individual transactions you can complete in one day.

jimjames

expat_mike wrote: »

CHAPs costs money for the transaction and the banks make enough from us as it is.

Out of interest how much do you think they make out of you?

I'm sure my bank makes nothing from me and it actually costs them more to provide the service than they earn from me in interest differential.

It might also be worth checking other threads - there were at least 2 on exactly this subject earlier which may already answer your questions.

expat_mike

Linton wrote: »

Its not a question of interpreting the law differently. As I understand it the law doesnt give any guidance as to how to prevent fraud and money laundering, it just makes the banks responsible if it happens. So they each have to devise ways they consider appropriate. These can never be completely watertight. If they were, normal business would come to a halt. It's a delicate balance, dont check enough and get subject to heavy fines, check too much and your customers leave. So the fines become a business expense.

The banks pretty obviously cant publicise many of the checks and limitations they adopt. It would make it too easy for the bad guys to devise strategies to get round them.

Lets be honest about this, banks look at the cost of doing business in every aspect of their operations. With credit card fraud, providing the charges they put on us are higher than the losses they take, they're happy bunnies. Similarly when it comes to nefarious activities like money laundering providing the income from criminal activities are more than the fines imposed, they're in clover. Not only that, to date virtually no banker has had his collar felt for his banks actions which he condoned so its a very safe way to carry out illegal activities.