Need advice , llyods have closed my account

grumbler

Anthorn wrote: »

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

We don't know.

Abslolutely. That's why people reporting such cases are always confused, and other people can only guess.

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.

Well, if it is blocked and then closed soon after this, the investigation can be the only reason.
And all T&C clearly state exceptional reasons for closing an account without a notice (typically 60 days').

You are confused with an investigation and an internal inquiry.

It's just my choice of words, not a confusion. I don't see why an internal inquiry can't be called 'investigation' (slightly tongue-in-cheeck - like 'Pinkertons', but not necessarily).

If the bank has not informed law enforcement agencies then there is no case to answer.

Or there are suspicions only, without hard proofs.

The bank is not a law enforcement agency. So the account is closed without further action.

Yes

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.

Possibly. I don't think that 'agencies' immediately inform suspects about the investigations. In some cases a suspect will, possibly, never know.

EDIT: I misread what you said. What do you mean by 'further'? Most such investigations/inquiries obviously involve more than one bank and, possibly, some other party, e.g. if some cheques cause suspicions.

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

I prefer saying 'I think', 'usually', 'possibly', 'likely'.
It's you who likes making categorical statements, often groundless.

Anthorn

Let me rephrase: If it's fraud or money laundering you will get to know about it because there will be an investigation and the police will be knocking on your door.

Lastly, if an account is closed or even blocked before closure and we are not given a reason then we cannot possibly know the reason That makes assigning fraud as a reason ridiculous.

As I said previously, if we don't know how do we know and how do we make forum posts about it.

Post your proof if you want to continue.

grumbler

Ridiculous?
Let's check your Lloyds.
The account can be closed without a notice only

If we reasonably consider that:

1. • there is illegal or fraudulent activity on or connected to the account;
2. • you are or may be behaving improperly (for example, in a threatening or abusive way);
3. • by continuing the agreement we (or another company in the Lloyds Banking Group) may be exposed to action from any government, regulator or other authority or may break a regulatory requirement; or
4. • you have seriously or repeatedly broken this agreement in any other way.

(2) can be usually excluded. So can be (4) as in this case bank has no reasons for keeping the reason secret. That's what the agreement exists for.

So, we are left with (1) and (3) that essentially are fraud or ML with very few other possible cases falling in these categories.

Anthorn

grumbler wrote: »

Ridiculous?
Let's check your Lloyds.
The account can be closed without a notice only
(2) can be usually excluded. So can be (4) as in this case bank has no reasons for keeping the reason secret. That's what the agreement exists for.

So, we are left with (1) and (3) that essentially are fraud or ML with very few other possible cases falling in these categories.

Hold on. You've said exhaustively that the bank doesn't tell us about fraud but now you're saying they do and are therefore agreeing with me.

My last in this. Pointless debating further. I won.

grumbler

I said this about ML, not fraud, but this can possibly be the same for fraud, at least some special cases of fraud.

Yes, they don't tell us when blocking/closing accounts, but this doesn't stop us from reading T&C and making conclusions. At least those of us who are familiar with logic and common sense. Hence the "secret of Polichinelle" above.

I read T&C, and for me the alleged reason(s) would be obvious if my bank blocked my account and refused to explain why.
People that don't read T&C get confused and come here with their stories, especially as pretty often their bank's suspicions are nothing but paranoia.

Anthorn wrote: »

I won.

Congratulations.

MARTYM8`

This seems to be a regular occurrence with LBG - I realise other banks are doing it but it seems to be on a much bigger scale.

What is going on?

I don't have any accounts with them - and this puts me right off.

Thrugelmir

MARTYM8` wrote: »

This seems to be a regular occurrence with LBG - I realise other banks are doing it but it seems to be on a much bigger scale.

What is going on?

I don't have any accounts with them - and this puts me right off.

HSBC now employs over 20,000 people to deal with risk and regulatory compliance. Therefore commercially makes sense to be proactive in account management.

Doctor_Duke

MARTYM8` wrote: »

This seems to be a regular occurrence with LBG - I realise other banks are doing it but it seems to be on a much bigger scale.

What is going on?

I don't have any accounts with them - and this puts me right off.

Marty I agree it seems to be LBG and risk management. I have a few accounts with group but to be honest if they told me they didn't want my custom anymore I'd just go elsewhere. Far better banks (and building societies) out there that don't treat you like a criminal! I will be watching carefully.

grumbler

Anthorn wrote: »

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

Yet another example for you: Banned from banking in the UK? Help!

Anthorn wrote: »

... Just because someone else says the same thing similarly without proof doesn't make it true.

Yeah, I know, I know...

xylophone

Stop putting words in my moth.

Mine prefers a drop of nectar....:)