Lloyds Fraud Team - I keep getting picked on!!

diamonds

Ballard wrote: »

Unless there is serious danger to life you alert the police through the correct channels. You do not dial 999. It's quite simple.

Spend possible valuable time searching for a number? 999 will take action of needs be to connect you to a human at local constabulary. Saying that, the local police quick answer line SHOULD be on display in branch for staff.

Dealing with a suspected fraudster/terrorist in any manner and certainly around money is a emergency when en situ.


Legislation like a EU Directive is a minimum legal requirement, nothing stops companies or member states enforcing higher risk procedures...certainly alerting a terrorist/fraudster (who has already has access to personal files and thus possible CRA files)
checks are being made goes against everything the legisaltions are there for, public protection/s.


Vigilant staff involving police to make further decision/s, advice or anything in dealing with the matter at hand is proactive and above the minimum legal requirements, it is good practice and never frowned upon by an enforcement offices/officers. Society and law enforcements are a collective dependant on each other (thats why a statement can end one up as a witness in court).

Ballard

I'm going to try only to interact with intelligent posters on here from now on.

diamonds

Ballard wrote: »

I'm going to try only to interact with intelligent posters on here from now on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JddNDtC-Yrs

mgdavid

Ballard wrote: »

I'm going to try only to interact with intelligent posters on here from now on.

Just use the Ignore List - it makes for a much easier browse and read....

masonic

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35162700

... Add to the list: "I think my bank did a credit search on me when I made a transfer"

spinbuster

sharifah wrote: »

Anyone know the reasons why this sort of thing happens?

Sorry to hear of your troubles. Like many others you are probably a casualty of Anti-Money Laundering Legislation (AML) which can override your consumer rights. At least one consumer has challenged this issue in court and AML prevailed.
There doesn’t appear to be a quick fix in these circumstances.
A common reaction is to get angry with bank staff especially when funds appear to be threatened. It’s better, although difficult, to make them feel sympathy for you.
For future use, to minimise the chances of this reoccurring, you could familiarise yourself with the laws being applied (See the Money Laundering Regulations thread).
Here is my latest post which at least will show you that you are by no means alone and highlight the double standards involved:-

Consumers’ rights continue to be overridden by Anti-Money Laundering Legislation (AML).
Individual customers and small businesses are being dumped by their banks in larger numbers with no explanation. This is supposed to be largely due to rigorous due diligence in monitoring suspicious financial activity.
The Telegraph recently outlined the case of one particular High Street bank.
See:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/barclays-shut-my-accounts-and-told-me-to-go---no-explanation/
See also:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/bank-accounts/11906413/Compare-bank-accounts-five-ways-youll-be-dumped-by-your-bank.html and
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/savings/10273512/Banks-dump-thousands-of-loyal-customers.html

The temptation to offload unprofitable or inconvenient customers using AML must be overwhelming for Banks and Financial Service companies given the large number of AML official red flag suspicious risk indicators at their disposal (They say a doctor can find something wrong with anybody) and then they can block any challenge by refusing to communicate with their customers, referring only in their Ts & Cs which include AML requirements. This makes it virtually impossible for anybody to prove dumping for this reason, or quantify how much of it is taking place.

Meanwhile the same bank above, which applies rigorous due diligence to its retail customers, did not find anything particularly suspicious about a £1.88 billion pound “Elephant Deal” and was fined by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) a headline £72 million which, after consideration for the Bank’s cooperation, cost the Bank a £19.8 million fine plus disgorgement i.e. the return of the £52.3 million revenue it made from the deal. The deal was reported as being top secret even within the bank. So it would be interesting to know how the FCA got to know about it.
See: http://www.fca.org.uk/news/fca-fines-barclays-72-million-for-poor-handling-of-financial-crime-risks

The FCA says it did not find any evidence of criminal activity. However, it uses the word “disgorgement” which is defined in the Cambridge Business English Dictionaryas ​“a situation in which a ​person or ​organization is ​forced to ​pay back ​money that they have made in an ​illegalway”. Also, the FCA is not a criminal investigation agency.
Those who believe that AML has not been reduced to window dressing will therefore, no doubt, want to know:-
Have the alleged “Failure to disclose” and the “Tipping Off” offences been referred to the National Crime Agency (NCA) for investigation of the individuals involved?
What was the status of the £1.88 billion pound transaction?
Was it laundered money? (£1.88 billion pounds could finance a huge amount of crime or terrorism.) If it was, “Failure to Disclose” and “Tipping Off” could indicate complicity.
Who were the politically exposed persons, British citizens or foreign nationals?

The bank itself, however, has committed no offence because AML does not apply to corporates.
The issue of Corporate Vicarious Gain i.e. proceeds of misconduct, has been discussed at length in parliament.
See: Hansard http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm151103/halltext/151103h0001.htm#15110343000526

Conservative MPs were noticeably absent from the debate apart from the minister.
As Corporate Vicarious Gain results in National Vicarious Gain, I do not expect to see any new corporate law coming soon, ‘Too Big to Fail’ so ‘Too big to Prosecute’.

GingerBob_3

Thanks. Interesting. Of course it can be summarised as "AML stinks", or "AML is not fit for purpose", or "AML was designed and instigated by a gobbet of pond life".

sharifah

Thank you spinbuster for your comprehensive response! - that's very interesting reading. I shall get myself acquainted with AML! We'll see if Santander is as strict as Lloyds!

Current account switch has gone great, am officially with Santander :T

sharifah

GingerBob wrote: »

Thanks. Interesting. Of course it can be summarised as "AML stinks", or "AML is not fit for purpose", or "AML was designed and instigated by a gobbet of pond life".

You're so straight to the point! :rotfl::beer:

GingerFurball_2

He's also a complete !!!!wit.