Yorkshire Bank disaster.

SuperAllyB

I'm by no means an expert on this but have you tried offering them an invoice or other paperwork proving the source of the £20k? Even if they took it, it probably wouldn't mean instant success but costs nothing to try.

henm2

Showing paperwork at the bank branch such as invoices/signed contracts relating to the source of funds would help speed matters up. Banks have a legal and regulatory obligation to comply with anti money laundering and most banks would probably have frozen the account in the same circumstances.

eskbanker

Jurgen_Cheese wrote: »

To be honest I find your remarks quite absurd. No it did not occur to me that I might be accused of wrong doing. I am a law abiding citizen, why would paying hard earned money into a bank account see me accused of money laundering ?

I am sorry but some evidence of criminality is usually associated with such accusations.

Although I'm sure this is all very inconvenient, you're not really helping your case by continually overreacting and exaggerating - the post that you were responding to made no mention of any 'accusations', only that the activity might trigger a review under the KYC and money laundering regs that you claim familiarity with. Likewise, references to 'disaster', 'theft', etc, aren't justified or helpful.

I think most would agree with your statement that "I believe that the account has been blocked because of a suspician of fraud", so the bank will presumably be conducting some form of investigation and, although they're bound not to share details with you (as you'll know from your familiarity with the relevant rules & regs), I'd echo the previous posters that supplying evidence of the source of the funds is likely to be in your best interests.

xylophone

Do you have anything else to add ?

Once again, I suggest you read and digest the definition.



A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

You genuinely think that this is the case with Yorkshire Bank?

However the thrust of your advise appears to be that you believe it is my fault for having money, and that I should take greater care on how I explain the situation when posting on forums.

I've no objection to your having money - I have a little myself!

As for posting on forums, care is needed in not venting your spleen when you have taken an action that anybody with the knowledge you claim to have had would have realised could flag up concerns.

Jurgen_Cheese

SuperAllyB wrote: »

I'm by no means an expert on this but have you tried offering them an invoice or other paperwork proving the source of the £20k? Even if they took it, it probably wouldn't mean instant success but costs nothing to try.

I am more than happy to provide documentary evidence as to the source of the funds.

If they ever see fit to ask me.

They have yet to inform me that the account is actually blocked. They have not uttered a single word on the matter.

SuperAllyB

Jurgen_Cheese wrote: »

I am more than happy to provide documentary evidence as to the source of the funds.

If they ever see fit to ask me.

They have yet to inform me that the account is actually blocked. They have not uttered a single word on the matter.

If you offered the evidence and actually tried to work with the bank, it may speed things up.

Jurgen_Cheese

henm2 wrote: »

Banks have a legal and regulatory obligation to comply with anti money laundering and most banks would probably have frozen the account in the same circumstances.

Indeed they do have considerable obligations. However evidence of wrong doing is generally required in order to flag up an account.

I would also point out that it is utter hogwash to suggest that a £20k transfer from Holland to the UK would resulted in having "most banks frozen the accounts".

If you believe this then you really have no concept of the sheer volume of international money transfers that happen every single day.

Thrugelmir

Jurgen_Cheese wrote: »

With regards to you definition of unusal activity, again I do not agree. The money was transfered from Holland - not Panama - not BVA - not Nigeria. An EU country where thousands of UK citizens work and do business everyday.

So what. Money laundering is a highly sophisticated operation. Do you think that money would be transferred as described. Once the funds are deemed to legitimate they'll be released. Enquiries are no doubt being made with the remitting bank.

DCFC79

Jurgen_Cheese wrote: »

I have visited the branch 8 times to try and resolve the matter.

I shall be returning today.

What would that do ?

The investigations are being done elsewhere, not in branch. You need to be patient.

I echo the previous posters in suggestions you offer this proof you have about the funds.

cloud_dog

I think the OP is getting a rough deal here, both by the bank and posters.

Whilst his language is quite 'expressive' the underlying issue is:

1. No challenge was placed on the deposit
2. Money has already been withdrawn
3. The money has been in the account for 3 months
4. The bank (according to the OP) have not provided any simple communication of what the issue is, time scales involved, etc, etc

If I was in the OP's shoes I would feel exactly the same way.

The issue is not about money laundering rules etc, the issue is about how the bank are managing the situation. The lack of communication is appalling.

If this were a fraudulent or money laundering episode then the fact that the bank have advised the OP the account is blocked (or whatever the terminology is) means the cat would already be out the bag to a fraudster/criminal.

I cannot believe (although I have no experience of it) that a bank will simply state a single communication (account blocked) and nothing else.

The situation / how it is being managed is unacceptable; I'm with the OP.