NatWest holding my cash to ransom

ChiefGrasscutter

OK: try this example
When I posted a parcel I was asked by the Post Office clerk what was in it.
I'm sure some of you think this is also outrageous infringement of your privacy.
However I'll bet that if someone ask you to transport a parcel you would want some pretty good idea of exactly what was inside it and that you were not quite innocently and unknowingly transporting say firearms.

Goldiegirl

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

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

As you asked politely, I'd acknowledge that the question might seem intrusive, but due to my obligations under the anti-money laundering legislation, I need to ask the question for larger withdrawals from your account. I'd also explain that I would do this for any customer who was withdrawing a similar amount of money, and you weren't being singled out.


I haven't been a cashier since the 1980's, and the regulations weren't around then, but I received AML refresher training every year while I while I was working - as it's not just cashiers who need to be aware.


But if I had been a cashier, I would have explained as above.

Goldiegirl

GingerBob wrote: »

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.

OK believe what you want, it's up to you.

Westie983

Im sure those who are doing something untoward are cagy about telling a cashier what the money is for, like mentioned before cashier's don't care what the money is for they need to annotate the voucher, but if they have any suspicions then they must escalate accordingly.

Seem to think that the cashiers are being nosy when I would far prefer people be nice when asked as its part of our job and your withdrawal is dependant on you answering.

Each to their own, if you dont want to answer the question as you feel its intruding and non of the cashiers business.

You can use an alternative route to withdraw your money where you don't need to speak to a cashier, there are options if you dont want to answer.

Its only part of a job just like asking whats in a parcel when you post using a courier (either verbal or typed **note you can write what you like) or when you check in at the airport you are asked if you packed your own bag.

We don't blink a eye at these questions but they could also been construed as intrusive.

duchy

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

I have banked with NatWest for 37 years. I'd have thought they might accept by now that I am unlikely to be into money laundering.

I'll be withdrawing around £1K in cash before the end of the month. I'll see how it goes. Or maybe I'll start withdrawing £100 every couple of days from an ATM, which I prefer not to do as I don't like carrying much cash around, especially if someone has seen me get it out.

Ironic if circumventing their ridiculous procedures resulted in my being mugged .

That's not considered a big sum.
I went through the money laundering training a while ago as part of my role in a job included selling foreign currency and anyone who does that even infrequently had to do it.
Bank and various other organizations (in my case it was a travel agency) have to by law train the staff to do this and audit for compliance. The staff don't want to do it , the customers don't want to do it but the penalties for the companies for non compliance are very large- so the staff are compelled to do it or risk disciplinary action against them.

There are trigger sums which are not made public or anyone who was laundering would just keep their transactions just below the trigger level.

It isn't new however - nearly 25 years ago my husband was paying a draft from a well known building society into his own branch where they knew him. They insisted on knowing where he'd got the money from before they would let him pay it IN . He was flabbergasted.

The OP was the victim of a box ticking exercise- not much point in changing banks tho as they are all compelled to do it-.

patanne

Surely it is time the regulatory bodies realised that anyone who is ACTUALLY money laundering is going to turn up with all the right paperwork. It is only the rest of us who are trying to get on with theit ordinary lives that are getting caught up with this.

Anyway I thought much smaller money laundering was done via your local indian or pizza takeaway!

GingerBob_3

patanne wrote: »

Surely it is time the regulatory bodies realised that anyone who is ACTUALLY money laundering is going to turn up with all the right paperwork. It is only the rest of us who are trying to get on with theit ordinary lives that are getting caught up with this.

Anyway I thought much smaller money laundering was done via your local indian or pizza takeaway!

Correct. Unfortunately the Establishment is institutionally stupid, so we all have to put up with this sh1 t. All you can do is bitterly and aggressively complain when it adversely affects you. Eventually the message might get through, but I doubt it.

Ballard

GingerBob wrote: »

Correct. Unfortunately the Establishment is institutionally stupid, so we all have to put up with this sh1 t. All you can do is bitterly and aggressively complain when it adversely affects you. Eventually the message might get through, but I doubt it.

That's one way. Another would be to accept that the cashier is doing their job and answer their questions.

GingerBob_3

Ballard wrote: »

That's one way. Another would be to accept that the cashier is doing their job and answer their questions.

That way the message is certain never to get through.

Ballard

GingerBob wrote: »

That way the message is certain never to get through.

It's interesting that you think that a cashier has the authority to change the law.