NatWest holding my cash to ransom

colsten

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

If they suspect it they have to report it - the bank will not do the investigating - other agencies do that.

How on earth can a bank employee suspect that a builder won't pay their taxes, just based on the fact that the customer of a builder says they are paying a builder?

For starters, the bank employee wouldn't even know whether the customer tells the truth. Secondly, they wouldn't necessarily know the builder's name. Thirdly, and most importantly, it is not the job of a bank employee to make a judgement on whether a builder pays their taxes.

As I think you know from my posts, I am not part of the bank bashing brigade. But I draw a very definite line when it comes to bank employees who think they should have the right to willy-nilly deny me access to my own funds, just based on their personal views of what I might be doing with my money, and based on their personal opinions about the correctness or otherwise of the intended use of the money. If they have proof that they think stands up in a Court of Law, that is a different matter. They should report me to the Police in this case, and tell me that they have done so.

colsten

pmduk wrote: »

Why blame bank staff for for following the law? If you don't like it blame your MP

What law empowers a bank employee to deny me access to my funds?

pmduk

colsten wrote: »

What law empowers a bank employee to deny me access to my funds?

Give them time - they're working on the spin for the anti- terrorist line.

ETA
NB
That was aimed at politicians not Bank staff.

Thrugelmir

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

I can find no mention of Bob the Builder being paid in cash as something they have to look out for.

Pretty black and white.

Anyone in your business must report any suspicious transaction or activity they become aware of

colsten

I am all for cutting off any and all money supply to terrorists and other criminals. But it can't be down to a cashier, or the chief cashier (aka Branch Manager) in a bank branch to condemn me as a terrorist/criminal when I want to withdraw some cash in person.

POPPYOSCAR

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Pretty black and white.

Not black and white at all.


You cannot take one sentence on its own like that it has to be taken in the context of the whole thing.

colsten

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Pretty black and white.

You must be seriously joking. One, nothing is black and white, and two, a bank clerk has no right whatsoever to make a decision based on their personal opinion.

Thrugelmir

lulu999 wrote: »

I am nothing short of livid that I was forced to answer an intrusive question such as that to access my cleared funds.

The person asking the question was simply doing their job. Nothing more nothing less. So what's the big deal? Many people are privy to "private" information in their day to day working lives. But they don't go round telling their friends after work!

POPPYOSCAR

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The person asking the question was simply doing their job. Nothing more nothing less. So what's the big deal? Many people are privy to "private" information in their day to day working lives. But they don't go round telling their friends after work!

The whole thing is a nonsense.


Some banks ask, others do not.


And as already discussed it is a pretty pointless exercise anyway.


What next.
refusing a gambler his money in case he gambles it away!!


All this will do is encourage people to keep cash at home if it becomes the norm.

Somerset

pmduk wrote: »

Why blame bank staff for for following the law? If you don't like it blame your MP

Or maybe the banks are selective who they ask. Ordinary folk, fine to follow the guidelines ... but serious money, ask no questions tell no lies ..........

In December 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) fined major British bank HSBC almost $2 billion Justice Department officials had accused HSBC – Europe’s largest bank by market capitalization – of failing to monitor $670 billion in wire transfers and $9.4 billion in cash that was transferred from its operations in Mexico to its U.S. affiliates between 2006 and 2009. The DOJ said those funds included at least $881 million in drug trafficking money from the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico and the Norte del Valle Cartel in Columbia, which HSBC laundered through the transfers


Didn't ask them too many questions did they ? And it wasn't like the numbers were insignificant and 'slipped through the net'. Almost like AML measures don't apply to drug traffickers if the 'client' is big enough.


https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2015/aug/31/british-banking-giant-fined-laundering-mexican-drug-money-through-us-banks/