REFUSED by HSBC/Firstdirect a deposit of cash

Caladan

GingerBob wrote: »

Exactly. Suspect everyone. Trust no-one.


If I'm ever asked the source of MY money the answer will be "mattress".

Would you prefer 'Trust everyone, suspect no-one'?

Or do you want it to be 'Trust everyone, except criminals'?

If it's the second then maybe we can get them all to wear special hats or something to pick them out in a crowd.

Don't get me wrong, the way the system works now is intrusive, overblown and in many ways a huge invasion of privacy, but right now I haven't seen any suggestions for a viable alternative other than letting criminals pass dirty money through in order to not inconvenience the innocent.

Westie983

From the other side of the table, its intrusive to the cashiers too, to ask the question, as I dont think its got anything to do with me what you are going to spend your money on, but unfortunately it has to be asked,

Genuine customers who are buying a house/helping out family/debt refinance are happy to answer the question, its the ones that are cagey you have to be more aware of.

for the record if a customer says none of your business, I write refused to answer and if its a high value withdrawal escalate to management for authorisation, as I have asked the question and have an answer to back it up.

I do take on board lots of banks in the high street and others may do things differently, can only pass on information I am party too,

GingerBob_3

Caladan wrote: »

Would you prefer 'Trust everyone, suspect no-one'?

Or do you want it to be 'Trust everyone, except criminals'?

If it's the second then maybe we can get them all to wear special hats or something to pick them out in a crowd.

Don't get me wrong, the way the system works now is intrusive, overblown and in many ways a huge invasion of privacy, but right now I haven't seen any suggestions for a viable alternative other than letting criminals pass dirty money through in order to not inconvenience the innocent.

The problem with this argument is that we're getting to the point where just about anything goes if we can get one over the criminals, which actually we can't. Take child abuse, for example. This could be massively reduced (not eliminated) if everyone's house was compulsorily fitted with spy cameras in every room, and with suitable technical devices to prevent interference. A massive invasion of privacy - yes. A colossal cost - yes. But hey! If it stops just one case of abuse isn't it worth it?


As far as the banks and their intrusive questions are concerned it's just gone too far. Same with foreign currency exchange and the need to present identification.