Need advice , llyods have closed my account

grumbler

Anthorn wrote: »

You still do not provide any proof at all that what you say is true.

It doesn't surprise me that we have to disagree about 'proofs' once again.

My position was and still is that an investigation relating to fraud and money laundering is a privacy issue

Good for you.

and my link to Lloyds own privacy policy proves that.

No, it doesn't. Yes, KYC is a part of AML regulations. However, nowhere does it say that they ask for proofs when blocking account because of AML suspicions.

Or do you not see that in their privacy policy?

I think it's time to go to Specsavers.

Anthorn

grumbler wrote: »

I don't see anything confusing.

• You did quote another post and said: "need clarification here".
• My understanding was that "here" referred to what you quoted.
• Then you asked: "why would a marker indicating identity fraud be placed on the credit history?".
• However, in what you quoted there was no anything about "identity fraud".

But again, I still possibly am missing something...

I asked for clarification. Why is that a problem? All you needed to do was reply and clarify. I don't know very much about CIFAS. Well you know, I don't know everything.

The part you're missing is the part you don't understand. If an investigation is a privacy issue then it follows that the customer must at least be informed about it. For example, in one breath you say that the customer is not informed and then in another quote instances where the bank has frozen assets. Are we now to understand that the customer doesn't know about that or the bank has not informed them of it? Then there is your point that often the customer does not know about it because all that's happened is an account has been closed without further action which you also highlight. Why do banks do that? Because it's a privacy issue. But simply closing an account does not harm the customer and the bank is not involved in privacy issues.

grumbler

Anthorn wrote: »

I asked for clarification. Why is that a problem? All you needed to do was reply and clarify.

OK, how is it possible to answer a question (clarify) "why would a marker indicating identity fraud be placed on the credit history?" if nobody suggested that it would be placed?

You were the first one who mentioned "identity fraud" in this thread, but then you asked Doctor Duke why this marker would be placed ...

I don't know very much about CIFAS. Well you know, I don't know everything.

Well, I can only guess that you think that CIFAS is about ID fraud only. In fact it isn't. ID fraud is only a small part of it: CIFAS Categories Explained

Anthorn

grumbler wrote: »

OK, how is it possible to answer a question (clarify) "why would a marker indicating identity fraud be placed on the credit history?" if nobody suggested that it would be placed?

You were the first one who mentioned "identity fraud" in this thread, but then you asked Doctor Duke why this marker would be placed ...
Well, I can only guess that you think that CIFAS is about ID fraud only. In fact it isn't. ID fraud is only a small part of it: CIFAS Categories Explained

Oh forget about it. It's obviously a big deal for you. It wasn't even one of your posts that I asked to be clarified for crying out loud. Are you suffering from stress by any chance.

My son just took your standpoint on informing about fraud and money laundering to its logical conclusion. "That means that someone could be arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned without being informed about it and not even knowing about it."

grumbler

Anthorn wrote: »

My son just took your standpoint on informing about fraud and money laundering to its logical conclusion. "That means that someone could be arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned without being informed about it and not even knowing about it."

Well, "Like tree, like fruit" / "Like father, like son" springs to mind.

Stop putting words in my moth. What I said was that an account can be blocked and closed without telling the customer the genuine reason.

Oh forget about it. It's obviously a big deal for you. It wasn't even one of your posts that I asked to be clarified for crying out loud. Are you suffering from stress by any chance.

I can only address you to some other posts (not mine) in some other recent thread.

You fail if by getting personal you hope to offend me. Personally, I like such moments clearly indicating that an opponent ran out of any real arguments.

Thrugelmir

Johnsear wrote: »

Thanks for that, really useful reading

Your absolutely right and the high overturn is solely due to WH.

As a customer you've no value to the bank. Very simply put, on commercial grounds the bank has no interest in your business. As you are costing them money. With compliance costs alone hitting the banks very hard.

Anthorn

grumbler wrote: »

What I said was that an account can be blocked and closed without telling the customer the genuine reason.

No.

I said

If it's suspected fraud including money laundering you will get to know about it because there will be an investigation into it.

You replied

"Will get to know" - how?

In practice as soon as "money laundering" is suspected, customers are kept in the dark and will get to know nothing - unless law enforcement agencies get involved (typically they don't).

I think by now you will realise how ridiculous that statement of yours was. In order for there to be an investigation law enforcement agencies must be informed. Also say for example the bank thinks that a cash deposit of £5,000 is suspicious: How can they themselves possibly investigate it without involving the customer who deposited it?

What you are in fact referring to is the instances when an account is closed or a notice issued without reason. But if the customer is not informed of a fraud investigation (or more accurately no reason is given) how do you know the reason is fraud or anti-money-laundering which the customer is not being notified about?

But if you still say that what you say is true I want the evidence.

grumbler

Anthorn wrote: »

No.

Yes

I said

If it's suspected fraud including money laundering you will get to know about it because there will be an investigation into it.

You replied

"Will get to know" - how?

In practice as soon as "money laundering" is suspected, customers are kept in the dark and will get to know nothing - unless law enforcement agencies get involved (typically they don't).

I think by now you will realise how ridiculous that statement of yours was.

I have absolutely no idea.

In order for there to be an investigation law enforcement agencies must be informed.

A delusion - yet another one.
Most 'investigations' get carried out and finished by banks' internal Pinkertons. Very few may result in getting low enforcement agencies involved. Most result in the account closure on the sly - just in case. Some result in the account getting unblocked.

Also say for example the bank thinks that a cash deposit of £5,000 is suspicious: How can they themselves possibly investigate it without involving the customer who deposited it?

Well, this is just an example. Usually it's either cheque deposit(s) or online transaction(s) that result in blocking. But again, any personal experiences posted here mean nothing to you.

...if the customer is not informed of a fraud investigation (or more accurately no reason is given) how do you know the reason is fraud or anti-money-laundering which the customer is not being notified about?

This is the most reasonable explanation - because, reportedly, AML regulations prohibit 'tipping' suspects. Pretty stupid, I know, - a secret of Polichinelle. And even if 'agencies' get involved, this doesn't necessarily mean that the customer "will get to know about it".

Carnival789

Someone lock this thread. Pleeeeeeeeeeeease!!!

Anthorn

grumbler wrote: »

Yes

I have absolutely no idea.
A delusion - yet another one.
Most 'investigations' get carried out and finished by banks' internal Pinkertons. Very few may result in getting low enforcement agencies involved. Most result in the account closure on the sly - just in case. Some result in the account getting unblocked.
Well, this just and example. Usually it's either cheque deposit(s) or online transaction(s) that result in blocking. But again, any personal experiences posted here mean nothing to you.

This is them most reasonable explanation - because, reportedly, AML regulations prohibit 'tipping' suspects. Pretty stupid, I know, - a secret of Polichinelle.

I'll try a slightly different tack (sailing term).

If the bank is not telling people about suspected fraud how do we know about it?

We don't know.

So if we don't know how do we know that the reason for account closure is due to an investigation by the bank's pinkertons as you call them.

We don't know.

You are confused with an investigation and an internal inquiry.

If the bank has not informed law enforcement agencies then there is no case to answer. The bank is not a law enforcement agency. So the account is closed without further action. If the bank takes it further and it becomes external without informing law enforcement agencies then it becomes a privacy issue as I have already explained.

Perhaps I can summarise: If you don't know about it how do you know about it?