NatWest holding my cash to ransom

Goldiegirl

Linton wrote: »

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.

Exactly, that's why front line staff should report any suspicion at all. Then the MLRO makes the decision as to whether to investigate further


You might get a perfectly innocuous, polite answer in response to the 'what's the money for' question. But there might be other factors that raise suspicions, such as an unusual transaction pattern, a level of money passing through the account which doesn't seem to fit what is known about the customer, a dormant account suddenly becoming active etc. Most of the time, there's a perfectly reasonable explanation, but the cashier is doing the right thing to report it, if they feel something isn't quite right.

Bogof_Babe

So by "suspicion", does this include that they may suspect (or even be told by the customer) that the cash is to pay a builder/plumber/other tradesman "cash in hand"? Would they deem such a situation worthy of reporting, or is it just serious criminality that they are obliged to flag up?

meer53

There are limits which staff are aware of that will trigger checks. Same with unusual transactions or unusual patterns of transactions. The amounts can be quite small, not all ML involves large amounts, training covers how to spot anything that could be suspicious.

Staff will have no idea whether "serious criminality" is involved, thats why they have to take details of seemingly mundane transactions. They don't make the decisions, they're passed higher up the chain where they may be looked at in more detail, they may not.

ceredigion

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.

The irony in this is. Most ordinary people would have very little if any knowledge of the money laundering regulations, so would consider any questioning from the teller completely unreasonable . So a response from the customer of, "what has it got to do with you" should be considered a perfectly reasonable response. To compound the irony if it was to do with illegal activity you would almost certainly get a perfectly plausible answer with paper work to back it up.

Goldiegirl

ceredigion wrote: »

The irony in this is. Most ordinary people would have very little if any knowledge of the money laundering regulations, so would consider any questioning from the teller completely unreasonable . So a response from the customer of, "what has it got to do with you" should be considered a perfectly reasonable response. To compound the irony if it was to do with illegal activity you would almost certainly get a perfectly plausible answer with paper work to back it up.

I think these days, most people are aware that they might expect to be asked a couple of simple questions if they want to draw out a large sum of money, particularly if it's in cash. This is they same sort of thing you might expect at an airport, when you're asked if you packed your own cases, or if you are carrying a package for strangers. It's just the way things are these days, and the majority of people are aware of the need to ask these sort of questions.

I obviously move in different circles to you, because the answer 'what's it got to do with you?' (Usually accompanied with a snarl) is rather rude, not reasonable. A polite 'why do you need to know' would normally suffice, to give the opportunity for the cashier to explain why they have to ask these questions.

YorkshireBoy

Goldiegirl wrote: »

A polite 'why do you need to know' would normally suffice, to give the opportunity for the cashier to explain why they have to ask these questions.

And if I asked you, politely, "why do you need to know?", what would your answer have been? (as an ex front end cashier?)

adindas

OP you have not mentioned the amount of cash you intended to withdraw.

Is it more than £5000,- ?

Many Bank does not allow you to withdraw £5000+ without informing them in advance.

lulu999 wrote: »

Dear All,

Does anyone know the legality on this. I tried to withdraw some cash the other day and the branch manager in NatWest refused to allow me to withdraw MY money without giving her a reason for the withdrawal.
There were sufficient funds available both within the bank and my account. They were satisfied I was the account holder, yet she made it perfectly clear I wasn't going to get my money without telling her what I was going to spend it on.
She tried to cite money laundering reasons for her questioning, which of course have no relevance to me withdrawing cleared funds.
She then cited that I may have been under duress to withdraw the money. I assured that I wasn't (and if you knew or saw me would realise how bloody ridiculous that approach was).
I am nothing short of livid that I was forced to answer an intrusive question such as that to access my cleared funds.

lulu999

adindas wrote: »

OP you have not mentioned the amount of cash you intended to withdraw.

Is it more than £5000,- ?

Many Bank does not allow you to withdraw £5000+ without informing them in advance.

The informing them in advance is usually to ensure they have adequate funds available that wouldn't leave them short for other customers. There were sufficient funds for my request. Had there not been I would have understood.

I asked her if she would have asked me what is was for if I requested £100 to which she replied, 'of course not'. I asked again about £1,000 and she replied, 'possibly'. (Just wait for the ATM where you have to type in your reason!)

GingerBob_3

verybigchris wrote: »

It could be a fool-proof approach to fight money laundering, based on the proven medical fact that it's physically impossible for a money launderer to lie about why they are withdrawing money.

Or perhaps it's just a pointless a box-ticking exercise that will never catch a single criminal, but will upset and inconvenience thousands of innocent people.

This post is an excellent summation of the issue; I couldn't have put it better myself. I think it is 100% accurate.

GingerBob_3

Goldiegirl wrote: »

I think these days, most people are aware that they might expect to be asked a couple of simple questions if they want to draw out a large sum of money, particularly if it's in cash. This is they same sort of thing you might expect at an airport, when you're asked if you packed your own cases, or if you are carrying a package for strangers. It's just the way things are these days, and the majority of people are aware of the need to ask these sort of questions.

I obviously move in different circles to you, because the answer 'what's it got to do with you?' (Usually accompanied with a snarl) is rather rude, not reasonable. A polite 'why do you need to know' would normally suffice, to give the opportunity for the cashier to explain why they have to ask these questions.

The airport and the bank are totally different issues and can't be compared. One is safety related, the other is just sheer nosiness on the part of the banks and the State. Interestingly, airports have now cut back on some of the stupid questions they used to ask.