REFUSED by HSBC/Firstdirect a deposit of cash

xylophone

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-2551823/Why-banks-wont-let-pay-cash-account.html

may be of interest.

ceredigion

What ever happened to, innocent to proven otherwise

System

This is all down to HSBC - ditch & switch.

Most other banks would have (discreetly) asked where the funds are from and deposited the cash.

GingerBob_3

ceredigion wrote: »

What ever happened to, innocent to proven otherwise

In the financial sector the reverse is the de-facto situation.

Flobberchops

Hedgehog99 wrote: »

1)IF the banks do require this sort of info, they should advertise it clearly

2)You can pay cash in via cash deposit machines, so if you did that in batches, the machine couldn't ask.

3)I once got asked why I was withdrawing money (less than £2k, and I wasn't closing the account), so the banks are nosey both ways. Maybe they wanted to check I wasn't being blackmailed.

4)All these annoying hoops they make normal people jump through don't stop the criminals, it just makes life awkward when you don't take the ID you didn't know you needed.

1 - That would verge on tipping-off money launderers how to cover their tracks.

2 - The majority of money laundering probably takes place via quick-drop or deposit machines rather than at the counter, because the launderers know full well it looks suspicious. However, a deposit box is emptied and processed by a cashier, and likewise a deposit machine produces an audit of the day's takings, so the paper trail is still there. Suspicious activity can and will be flagged up.

3 - Yes, that's probably exactly why - banks have a responsibility to ensure you're not acting under duress, or tricked into a "courier scam", or similar. Also, the cashier may be concerned about you walking around with several grand in your pocket if an alternative like a Faster Payment would be quicker and more secure. Just telling the cashier in broad terms what you need it for should be sufficient.

4 - To be fair the AML procedures I've seen myself have all been quite reasonable. I agree that something like announcing to a pensioner that their seven grand isn't wanted over the counter and that they should take it home would represent a security risk in itself, not to mention poor customer service. I can only assume that's something more typical of banks in smaller communities or serving vulnerable customers? In today's world a couple of grand isn't really a *lot* of money so that kind of policy is rather mystifying.

Ballard

ceredigion wrote: »

What ever happened to, innocent to proven otherwise

That's an interesting question because in circumstances such as this the law now compels banks to find evidence that a transaction is above board before they can proceed. The alternative would be to simply accept £8,000 without question but the flip side to this is that it would be simple for burglars, for example, to launder their money.

I'm not saying that it's impossible for crooks to clean cash. Money continues to be laundered but a new level of sophistication is required to get it into the system. Putting cash through an established business and issuing fake invoices is an obvious example and this is something else that the banks are on the lookout for.

Not accepting large-ish deposits of cash is the first stage on which the banks have to be vigilant. If no check was in place then that would be making it too easy for the drug dealers and thieves of this world.

It ain't perfect but I feel that it's better than simply doing nothing and letting the criminals help themselves. It should also be remembered that the banks aren't stopping anyone depositing cash. They just need to be shown where the funds came from. Is that such an onerous task?

dangermouse2

It's easy to do things electronically yes. However, most people know that when selling a car privately, the safest option is cash. And as we all know, accepting a payment for a car via PayPal/BACS/Cheque/Bankers Draft is asking for trouble.

I often see people being protective of laws/rules by governments and cooperations etc. Trust me, the more people allow themselves to be the subject of this, the less freedom and privacy you will have.

ChiefGrasscutter

ceredigion wrote: »

What ever happened to, innocent to proven otherwise

That never existed - other than in some people's imagination.

Say the police some an arrest/question you on some offense.
I'd bet you would be rather urgently "proving your innocence" by producing all sorts of evidence that you were elsewhere.
In short they had reasonable evidence that it was you and now it is up to you to prove they are mistaken.

The two examples I know of this involve a cloned numberplate subsequently used in a crime and secondly a trail of deliberate misrepresentation designed to set up an individual and get them arrested to divert attention away.

Or for a more common example: if your car is snapped by a speed camera, you either provide the name of the driver of accept that it was you and take the penalty - again up to you to prove your innocence or else you are guilty by default.

dangermouse2

Fair point.

In 45 years however, I've never been asked to prove deposits. My parents (over 60) have also never been asked this. Was kind of awkward for them and didn't have a way of proving it on the spot.

dangermouse2

Hasbeen wrote: »

Banks by law have to ask these questions on sums over £5000 they would probably ask for car sale receipt, registration, buyers details etc

If not they could get prosecuted.

Yes, you can put £4000 into separate accounts and buying and selling stuff is not money laundering LOL

Not sure if it is the law as the bank I eventually paid it into asked no questions. So does that mean they are breaking the law? I think you are talking about the HSBC law.

Can you show me some evidence that this is the law?