Dubious practice by Fidelty..?

dunstonh

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

wouldn't (for instance) a failure to follow instructions to pay out your money within a reasonable time be something FOS would consider?

or do you mean that they'd stop considering it when they established that it was due to AML procedures, without considering whether the procedures were OTT?

Timescale would have to be reasonable but any delay due to compliance of anti-money laundering guidelines would be destined to fail unless it was a failure of inaction. i.e. if they just sat on it and forgot to let you know what they needed. However, if they ask you for something and you dont provide it and that is the reason for the delay then they are not going to tell them to pay the money out as the FOS cannot circumvent anti money laundering requirements.

BillJones

C_Mababejive wrote: »

I can only think that they are deliberately blocking my withdrawl to retain the money i.e MY money and putting me through unwarranted inconvenience.

Seriously, you can "only" think that they are cheating you to hold onto your single solitary £1k for a few weeks extra? That they are risking serious sanctions from the regulator over perhaps £2 they'll make from it?

Don't you think the admin cost would dwarf this £2?

Please, be serious.

vectistim

OK, you invested into a unit trust, a couple of months ago, and now want to take the money back out again from what is normally considered a 5yr+ investment. You then get a nice clean payment into your bank account that shows this money came from Fidelity.
Given you could be repeating this exercise all over the place, or this could be a tester transaction to see if larger amounts can be used later, it seems reasonable for them to confirm identity (although quite why the initial checks were not sufficient, is anyone's guess)

C_Mababejive

The due diligence was already practiced by my bank from whom the original deposit was paid to fidelity. I didnt send them a brown envelope of cash. As i say, i have no issues with initiating identity checks on sign up. Banks do that. Its what i expect and what im used to and its reasonable.

But this is different. This is deliberate with holding of money that is mine,that was earned,that has never been in cash format and has an electronic track all the way from my employer straight to fidelity.

Beleive me..this kind of thing is the thin end of the wedge. It started with the law which prevented people from being paid in cash, it progressed,now we have buidling society counter clerks refusing to allow people to withdraw their own money when they ask for it and investment companies with holding peoples' money when they have no right to do so and are merely using other legislation to frustrate those who wish to withdraw cash from their coffers.

They are happen to receive "dirty" money but are careful about paying it out again.

Rollinghome

C_Mababejive wrote: »

The due diligence was already practiced by my bank from whom the original deposit was paid to fidelity. I didnt send them a brown envelope of cash. As i say, i have no issues with initiating identity checks on sign up. Banks do that. Its what i expect and what im used to and its reasonable.

I doubt there's any considered commercial tactic behind such nonsense: it's just a lazy and unintelligent exercise ostensibly to control money-laundering but with the primary purpose of keeping the authorities off their back .

Yes, they might have suspected you were starting with a small sum with the intention of laundering a much larger amount but quite clearly, and as they now know, you didn't.

Yes, they might have thought you were going to repeat the exercise "all over the place" but there is clearly no evidence to suggest that and common-sense would suggest otherwise. With a balances of £1000, you would need to repeat the exercise a 1000 times or more to launder a decent sum and there are far easier, quicker, and less attention-grabbing ways to achieve that. Getting your money into your UK bank account without leaving a trail would have been the more difficult part.

The problem seems to be that going through the motions rather than making serious efforts to stop money-laundering is enough to satisfy the authorities and the institutions involved will be less concerned about upsetting and losing the business from a £1000 account than that of a more likely money-launderer with Bernie Ecclestone-style billions. Causing irritation to you is likely to be less problematic than actually tackling the real high-rollers with accounts in Lichtenstein or the Virgin Islands.

I fully understand your irritation and hope you get it sorted without too much hassle.

dunstonh

The due diligence was already practiced by my bank from whom the original deposit was paid to fidelity.

How does Fidelity know your bank did it? Your account could have been opened before anti money laundering rules came in. It could be an account where the staff member at the bank failed to do their job correctly.

But this is different. This is deliberate with holding of money that is mine,that was earned,that has never been in cash format and has an electronic track all the way from my employer straight to fidelity.

Fidelity have no knowledge of any past history. The first they know is an amount arrives on their doorstep.

You fall into a high risk chance of money laundering because you entered into a long term arrangement but have cancelled it in just a few months. Whilst your transaction is unlikely to be placement, you could be layering and what you have done is typical of a money launderer in the layering stage.

The fact you are creating an issue out of it increases the suspicion.

Rollinghome

dunstonh wrote: »

The fact you are creating an issue out of it increases the suspicion.

I tend to doubt that any competent money-launderer would want to draw attention to himself by making an issue over just £1000. Clearly there needs to be more common-sense and judgement with resources being being better targeted, not just going through the motions.
.

BillJones

C_Mababejive wrote: »

The due diligence was already practiced by my bank from whom the original deposit was paid to fidelity..

That's not how it works. Fidelity don't know this. For all they know you paid it in over a few weeks a few hundred pounds at a time. What you are doing looks exactly like the "layering" part of money laundering, which is why they have to take a closer look.

dunstonh

Rollinghome wrote: »

I tend to doubt that any competent money-launderer would want to draw attention to himself by making an issue over just £1000. Clearly there needs to be more common-sense and judgement with resources being being better targeted, not just going through the motions.
.

Small time crooks, tax evaders or benefit cheats are usually unsophisticated fraudsters who will get rattled. The current methods seem to be more about those types than the large scale operations.

Common sense is not allowed. We don't operate in a world of common sense. We operate in a world of tick boxes and being able to prove you are doing what you say you are doing. If you cant prove it the FCA chucks out fines in the millions.

C_Mababejive

Anyway,,lesson learned,,their loss not mine. I will get my money back and they wont see any more of it.