Santander have froze my account

Ed-1

colsten wrote: »

I am sure they do. Just because it's not published every time they catch someone doesn't mean there are no real money launderers. We don't hear of every crime committed and still our prisons are full.

How do they actually know someone is laundering money just from monitoring activity on their accounts? How can they know for certain the original source of the funds - they could be entirely legitimate.

grumbler

colsten wrote: »

I am sure they do. Just because it's not published every time they catch someone doesn't mean there are no real money launderers. We don't hear of every crime committed and still our prisons are full.

It's absolutely unnecessary and unprofessional to freeze accounts every time a suspicion crossed your paranoid mind.

Cheque clearing time is more than sufficient for a professional to make extra checks for a suspicious cheque.

MarcoM

The shocking truth is that most of the fraud is carried out by their own staff as shown by the many newspaper reports covering this sort of thing ie. call centre clerk syphons off 250k to Bahamas or bank financial adviser scams client of money.

I have had large cheques blocked, gone to branch, sat down with a cup of tea and asked if I wanted a chat with a financial advisor on how to invest the money (this is the money they had frozen).

The whole system is an utter joke, considering the lack of security that covers everything that goes on in this country, from terrorist coming and going to antisocial behaviour...

macman

If this had happened to me, I think before this stage I'd have asked them to return my cheque (which they had no authority to hold onto unless they believe you have been involved in criminal activity-in which case invite them to call the police in).
And then proceed to the Bank of AN Other down the street and open an account with them. You've been extremely patient, but it's time to vote with your feet.

colsten

Ed-1 wrote: »

How do they actually know someone is laundering money just from monitoring activity on their accounts? How can they know for certain the original source of the funds - they could be entirely legitimate.

I doubt we will be let into how any bank make their investigations. But it's good to know that last year, known cheque fraud in the UK declined 34% and it's now down to £10.5m. Still £10.5m too much, as in the end it's the bank customers who pay for it, and who suffer from investigations like the OP did (and still does?).
http://www.financialfraudaction.org.uk/cms/assets/1/2014%20h1%20fraud%20figures%20-%20final.pdf

grumbler wrote: »

It's absolutely unnecessary and unprofessional to freeze accounts every time a suspicion crossed your paranoid mind.

Calm down dear, you are stuck with a different question. I responded to Pincher's post, asking whether any money launderers get caught.

grumbler wrote: »

Cheque clearing time is more than sufficient for a professional to make extra checks for a suspicious cheque.

Why don't you go and tell banks that you have got better processes than those they have in place?

colsten

MarcoM wrote: »

The shocking truth is that most of the fraud is carried out by their own staff as shown by the many newspaper reports covering this sort of thing ie. call centre clerk syphons off 250k to Bahamas or bank financial adviser scams client of money.

I don't know which papers you read but I think you'd find it hard to prove that most of the fraud is carried out by bank staff or financial advisors.

grumbler

colsten wrote: »

...Why don't you go and tell banks that you have got better processes than those they have in place?

Why would they want to know if some stupid law gave them carte blanche and they have no reasons for moving their fat a55es faster?

Don't suggest I go to the MP to discuss the stupid laws they pass.

pvt

grumbler wrote: »

Cheque clearing time is more than sufficient for a professional to make extra checks for a suspicious cheque.

Absolutely!

We're in the 2nd decade of the 21st century and a clearing bank still requires 2 days before they will credit your account with the value, 4 days before they will let you withdraw against it, and 6 days before they guarantee it won't be whipped back off you. That's days. DAYS! And if it isn't a proper clearing bank, like a used-to-be-building-society-that-now-thinks-it's-a-bank, it will take even longer.

What progress we've made.

colsten

grumbler wrote: »

Why would they want to know if some stupid law gave them carte blanche and they have no reasons for moving their fat a55es faster?

Don't suggest I go to the MP to discuss the stupid laws they pass.

Not sure how the laws got into the issue over whether banks have efficient processes for clearing cheques. But picking up the ball you threw: In a democracy, stupid laws get changed by people formulating better alternatives, and by mastering overwhelming support for those better alternatives. So may be you should start by formulating a law that prescribes to banks how to process cheques better than they do today, and then seek support for your revised process.

colsten

pvt wrote: »

Absolutely!

We're in the 2nd decade of the 21st century and a clearing bank still requires 2 days before they will credit your account with the value, 4 days before they will let you withdraw against it, and 6 days before they guarantee it won't be whipped back off you. That's days. DAYS! And if it isn't a proper clearing bank, like a used-to-be-building-society-that-now-thinks-it's-a-bank, it will take even longer.

What progress we've made.

Seriously? You are asking what progress we have made in the 21st century? When you are still using that 20th century tool called 'cheque'?

If you want to be "21st century" and have more or less instant payments, just use Faster Payments or CHAPS. Use PAYM if you want to pay instant small amounts to your mates, use card payments and BACS if you are a business. Cheques might still be with us for a while but they are on their way out.