NatWest holding my cash to ransom

Westie983

I would hope that any large withdrawal from a current account is withdrawn via CNP and a signature and ID of which this is annotated in paper form or on the computer system, also I would hope a large value check list is completed,

This may be completed via the computer so the customer will not see any form (not sure how Natwest works) but where I work you have to sign and use CNP so I write any questions and answers on the signature capture slip.

ChiefGrasscutter

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Witness what happened in cyprus when they simply stole peoples money from their bank accounts and there was hardly a whimper about it.

Jeez not this one again.
Do you pump this stuff out it in the hope no one who understands is reading this?

So:
The Cyprus banks lent large sums of their deposits to various ill advised things including the Greek banks and these sums were then substantially lost when the Greek economy imploded.

This is exactly the same as if you lent your mate £1000 and he lost it playing the lottery, or playing the stockmarket: the £1000 simply does not exist anymore. Now either your mate in this example borrows from somewhere else to pay you back (ie a taxpayer bail-out) or you the lender has to accept that most of your £1000 is lost (called a depositor bail-in) and you will not see the money again.

So there was no money to pay back the Cyprus depositors - it was not there - it did not exist anymore - it was certainly not "stolen" by "them".

Those depositors in the Cyprus banks who had up to the Euro100K sum in them were protected by the EU deposit protection law and and got it all back, while those above the Euro100K lost most of their money bar the first Euro100K.
I believe they also instigated capital controls to prevent a massive bank run developing when they banks re-opened - much like Greece did more recently.
This is exactly how the deposit protection scheme is meant to work and there was not much of a whimper about it because it worked exactly as it was advertised to, and exactly as it was intended to. The small depositors were protected, the large one were not.

Bogof_Babe

Eco_Miser wrote: »

Please don't say that, as it's not true.
Illegal drugs are illegal, but many others, such as those keeping me alive, are not.

The assumption by so many people that any reference to drugs means illegal drugs gets really annoying to those of us who need to take drugs on a regular basis to stay alive.

The word "drug" still has iffy connotations, even though a very well known store calls itself Superdrug, and nobody bats an eyelid.

I think coffee shops in the USA are known as drugstores aren't they?

Eco_Miser

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

The word "drug" still has iffy connotations, even though a very well known store calls itself Superdrug, and nobody bats an eyelid.

It does, but it shouldn't have. Superdrug are using the word correctly.

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

I think coffee shops in the USA are known as drugstores aren't they?

Not coffee shops, pharmacies with additional (possibly primary) income from a soda fountain, candy, books & magazines, etc.

agrinnall

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

I think coffee shops in the USA are known as drugstores aren't they?

You may be thinking of coffee shops in Amsterdam, some of which are places where you can buy drugs that would be illegal in the UK.

jimjames

Just draw it out of the ATM? You won't then need to speak to anyone.

zolablue25

jimjames wrote: »

Just draw it out of the ATM? You won't then need to speak to anyone.

Isn't there a £500 limit per day on cash machine withdrawals (might actually be lower)

Goldiegirl

Eco_Miser wrote: »

Please don't say that, as it's not true.
Illegal drugs are illegal, but many others, such as those keeping me alive, are not.

The assumption by so many people that any reference to drugs means illegal drugs gets really annoying to those of us who need to take drugs on a regular basis to stay alive.

In this case, the word 'drug' was originally used in the phrase 'drugs and prostitutes'.

I think it's not unreasonable to think that this meant illegal drugs and prostitutes, rather than medication that is keeping me alive and prostitutes.

jonesMUFCforever

This story in today's Daily Mail 's money section might make some of you think twice about why staff ask about large withdrawals - they seem to have made off with about £20k .....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-3385825/Sarah-Ritchie-saved-45-000-dream-home-lost-devastating-new-scam.html

Somebody received a large sum into their account and withdrew a lot of it.........

How the scam was done is not the point here but what happened after it was credited to the fraudelent account.

robatwork

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-3385825/Sarah-Ritchie-saved-45-000-dream-home-lost-devastating-new-scam.html

Somebody received a large sum into their account and withdrew a lot of it.........

How the scam was done is not the point here but what happened after it was credited to the fraudelent account.

I think this highlights what all of us who are cynical about the banks asking why we want to withdraw large quantities are saying - that is that the difficult questions and thorough investigations should happen at the point it's paid IN.

Asking this particular conman in branch why he wants to withdraw money isn't in any way going to help. He's not going to say "to get the funds out of the account sharpish before my scam is detected". No... he'll probably have a bill of sale for a car, or other plausible story.

What's of more interest is how much Barclays are helping the Toughs and the police in tracking down the account owner, as I'm sure their account opening procedures would have been stringent, and they will have all the paperwork necessary to lead to a prosecution. Won't they?