NatWest holding my cash to ransom

ChiefGrasscutter

colsten wrote: »

You are proving the point I made. It is not down to bank clerks to determine whether someone is a criminal. It's the Courts that do.

You have it back to front
The court ruled in favour of the Bank that their actions in unilaterally blocking an account and preventing a transaction on only threadbare information or suspicion were totally valid and that the court would not intervene or over rule that decision, and nor was the client due any compensation for lost opportunity as a result of this blocking.
The court said that yes, banks can indeed act as judge and jury if they see transactions that may just possibly lead to or be related to the chance of criminal activities being committed whether or not that suspicion is well founded.

...and that is why this case has been reported and commented on - though not in the mainstream media.

robatwork

KJSmith wrote: »

FYI, a decision would be made on that individual's professional judgement taking into account the full circumstances of the transaction in question.

I see a couple of possible bank employees have stuck their heads above the parapet.

I notice that nobody has addressed my query about what answers would flag up a referral to the "MLRO". Perhaps then you'd address the question of professional judgement. What training is given to bank clerks in this area? (I suspect it's an hour seminar where staff are told to watch out for "anything dodgy", but please allay my suspicions).

Examples please. Eg. in the following cases
£100 to gamble
£1000 to gamble
£100000 to gamble

£1000 to pay a builder
£100000 to pay a builder

£50000 to buy a maserati
£50000 because I no longer trust banks and want to keep it at home

Ballard

robatwork wrote: »

I see a couple of possible bank employees have stuck their heads above the parapet.

I notice that nobody has addressed my query about what answers would flag up a referral to the "MLRO". Perhaps then you'd address the question of professional judgement. What training is given to bank clerks in this area? (I suspect it's an hour seminar where staff are told to watch out for "anything dodgy", but please allay my suspicions).

Examples please. Eg. in the following cases
£100 to gamble
£1000 to gamble
£100000 to gamble

£1000 to pay a builder
£100000 to pay a builder

£50000 to buy a maserati
£50000 because I no longer trust banks and want to keep it at home

You are right in that it's a case of professional judgement and about knowing your customer. I shall ignore the first two 'gamble' questions but the £100,000 would be a case of the customer's history. If they regularly gamble large amounts then it wouldn't be out of the question whereas if, as far as the bank clerk knows, they've only ever played the lottery then this should ring alarm bells.

£100,000 to pay a builder would ring huge alarm bells. It makes no sense whatsoever to take the security risk to pay a builder this sum of money unless there was an inducement to do so. That inducement is likely to be a lower fee because of tax evasion. Similarly for the Maserati.

If you wanted to take £50,000 out to leave under your mattress then I think that this would go to the MLRO for their judgement.

I've never worked for a retail bank but I have had training on my responsibilities under the law. I'm astonished that the OP isn't fully aware of the law as everyone at my last bank had to take an annual test on the subject.

meer53

No member of bank staff on a counter or on the phone will make a decision as to whether a transaction is involved in ML. They have basic training on how to ask the questions and how to report it, not how to identify instances of ML. It's the MLRO's and above who do that.

It's part of my job to report possible ML activity. We have regular training, online and classroom, both with tests.

lulu999

Ballard wrote: »

I'm astonished that the OP isn't fully aware of the law as everyone at my last bank had to take an annual test on the subject.

I'm a freelance consultant and advise the banks (investment) themselves, not their customers. I've never been customer facing, don't have any contact with their clients, never come into public contact. I was made aware of money laundering regulations and know your client when they first came out and have never needed to refer to them since. This why I'm well aware of money coming into the banking system needing to be clean, but cash out was never a concern. Things may have changed, hence my original question on the legality of her behaviour.
She may like to know, but am I obliged to tell her.

My gut feeling was she didn't like being told to mind her own business (in the nicest possible way) and then took a stance thinking I would just accept what she said.
Don't forget it changed from money laundering, to my under duress, to plain not having my money without a reason.

I have drawn out cash on several occasions and never had this problem before.

KJSmith

lulu999 wrote: »

legality of her behaviour.

Not illegal for her to ask you questions.
You're not obliged to answer them.
She isn't obliged to carry out your transaction.

lulu999 wrote: »

My gut feeling was she didn't like being told to mind her own business (in the nicest possible way) and then took a stance thinking I would just accept what she said.
Don't forget it changed from money laundering, to my under duress, to plain not having my money without a reason.

I have drawn out cash on several occasions and never had this problem before.

I doubt she personally cared what you wanted the money for.
Sounds like she was just giving some general explanations on why she was asking you the question in the hope that this would convince you to answer. This didn't work so she had to give you an ultimatum.

Goldiegirl

Under the money laundering regulations, it is an offence to tip off a person that they may be reported and it is also an offence not to report a person if you have suspicions about them.


If I'd been the cashier involved in this transaction, if the OP had continued to refuse to answer my enquiry (which I'd only be asking as part of my job, not to judge her), I'd have noted the withdrawal slip accordingly, and would have carried out the transaction.


However, an unreasonable response to a reasonable question is suspicious, so after the customer had gone, I'd have put in a report my organisation's Money Laundering Reporting Officer.


I would have fulfilled my role - the person would not have been tipped off that I was making a report, as I carried out the transaction, but I considered her reaction to my question to be suspicious, to I would be under an obligation to report her.


After that, it's up to the MLRO to make a decision on how to proceed.

robatwork

Goldiegirl wrote: »

However, an unreasonable response to a reasonable question is suspicious, so after the customer had gone, I'd have put in a report my organisation's Money Laundering Reporting Officer.

Your position seems entirely reasonable.

What nobody seems able or prepared to say is what constitutes a "reasonable response" from the customer, or at least what you are told in your training courses about this. Cynics may think that it's entirely up to your judgement and there are no defined reasonable responses.

So OP may go to clerk1 on Tuesday and get denied, or the transaction exectued but referred to MLRO, and on Thursday withdraw the same amount with the same reason (or lack thereof) from clerk2 without issue. Is that correct?

Goldiegirl

robatwork wrote: »

Your position seems entirely reasonable.

What nobody seems able or prepared to say is what constitutes a "reasonable response" from the customer, or at least what you are told in your training courses about this. Cynics may think that it's entirely up to your judgement and there are no defined reasonable responses.

So OP may go to clerk1 on Tuesday and get denied, or the transaction exectued but referred to MLRO, and on Thursday withdraw the same amount with the same reason (or lack thereof) from clerk2 without issue. Is that correct?

A reasonable response is to tell the truth as to what you're going to do with the money, without any huffing and puffing, shouting, complaining and whining.


As to what might happen in Nat West - I've never worked there, so I couldn't tell you what would happen. But if the cashier is doing their job properly, they should report any suspicion they might have, and that's where the human element comes in.


On cashier might think the customer throwing a massive strop in order to avoid answering a reasonable question is suspicious, the other cashier might just think the customer is an idiot. At the end of the day it's down to the cashiers interpretation of the customer's behaviour, together with how they interpret the pattern of the transactions and their knowledge of the customer.

Linton

robatwork wrote: »

Your position seems entirely reasonable.

What nobody seems able or prepared to say is what constitutes a "reasonable response" from the customer, or at least what you are told in your training courses about this. Cynics may think that it's entirely up to your judgement and there are no defined reasonable responses.

So OP may go to clerk1 on Tuesday and get denied, or the transaction exectued but referred to MLRO, and on Thursday withdraw the same amount with the same reason (or lack thereof) from clerk2 without issue. Is that correct?

I dont know how it works but surely the banks have strict criteria specified by experts in the field probably implemented by software. They wont want to risk massive fines. Also, they cant put their junior staff in the position of being at risk of imprisonment should they make an incorrect assessment of the likelihood of money laundering. Of course the banks cant make the criteria public as then the bad guys would know how to minimise the risk of being caught.