Bank account closed- and they are NOT RETURNING MY MONEY

jonnygee2

OP appears to have been running an illegal financial services business. He talks about carrying out AML procedures on his customers

This would depend on what's being done. If the OP is only using his own money, that wouldn't be a financial service. However, if they were at any point trading with someone else's money, then that would be regulated.

So if you have £1000, you buy bitcoins with it, you sell them for £1100 - that's not regulated activity (even if you do it 800 times).

But if your mate gives you £1000 and says 'can you invest this in your bitcoin fund for me', then that's a regulated activity. Basically any form of trading someone else's money is regulated by the FCA, but they don't regulate private trading.

John_G_Jones

mcplums wrote: »

I already tried to get an FCA licence and they said bitcoins are outside of their jurisdiction. Similar story with HMRC. Please specify what I'm doing that is illegal and/or stupid?

Again, please specify how I am on the wrong side of the law. Re. the requirements- yes, there are none, since I'm outside of the FCA and HMRC's remit, and despite that I take all reasonable precautions. If you believe I'm mistaken on this please specify how.

I see no reason to change my story.

You are not outside their remit, you are outside what they allow. Your response is like a burglar saying that they are outside the police’s remit as the police declined to regulate them when they requested it.

You are soliciting and carrying out investment business, you are trying to hide it, and your laughable descriptions of money laundering checks don’t even come close to what the law requires.

As I intimated above, because you are dicking around in tiny size you may get away with it but at least the FCA are now aware from this thread of what’s going on, as being regulated myself (in a proper financial business) it’s my responsibility to mention this to them.

John_G_Jones

mcplums wrote: »

So I had an account with Fidor UK. This was closed, which is ok I guess it's up to them whether to close it or not. However they stated in no uncertain terms that the money in the account (fortunately only £395) would not be returned to me.

For reference, I was using the account to buy bitcoins. I was sending GBP to the account and then using Fidor to convert the GBP to EUR and sending them to a bitcoin exchange. The bitcoin exchange's bank is also Fidor. So it's not like what I was doing something shady- I was literally sending money from one Fidor account to another, that's it. Now I was putting through a LOT of volume- maybe too much for a personal account, fine. I am not complaining that they closed my account. I am complaining that they are not returning the money in the account.

Is this remotely legal? At times I had over £15k in the account, to think they could have tried to keep that makes me extremely mad.

Unfortunately since Fidor are not UK based I am unable to turn to the FOS. However I have submitted a complaint via the European Commission (Fidor are based in Germany) so I hope that this gets sorted.

But has anyone heard of something like this before? A bank closing your account, and not returning funds?

Quoted so the FCA when coming looking at this tomorrow have enough to identify the OP immediately via his bank.

Before anyone asks, this is not malicious, his customers deserve the protection of the law.

John_G_Jones

jonnygee2 wrote: »

This would depend on what's being done. If the OP is only using his own money, that wouldn't be a financial service. However, if they were at any point trading with someone else's money, then that would be regulated.

He’s made it very clear that he has customers.

As I said above, this is enough for proper jail time, not a fine, so having done my good citizen piece I’ll leave him to it.

Those of us who operate fully within every law and regulation tend to have a pretty low tolerance for others who think the laws don’t apply to them.

Do it right, or don’t do it at all.

jonnygee2

He’s made it very clear that he has customers.

He calls them customers, that doesn't mean they actually are customers, especially given he clearly doesn't know anything.

If he's just buying their bitcoins with his own money from his 'customers' and then selling these on to other people that's not regulated activity.

colsten

John_G_Jones wrote: »

He’s made it very clear that he has customers.

He has indeed (my highlighting), and he believes he has taken appropriate steps to prevent ML.

mcplums wrote: »

They can't possibly have evidence since they cannot see any details of any bitcoins I've bought or sold. All they can see are GBP going in (from me) and going out (to a bitcoin exchange).

As for whether I'm complicit in money laundering or not (regardless of whether they can tell)- what matters, legally, is less whether or not bitcoin I sold was used in a crime, what matters is that I took the appropriate KYC/AML steps at all times. Otherwise every bank in the world would be !!!!ed. It is not possible to 100% prevent money being used for money laundering, all you can do is take the appropriate steps to prevent it. Which I do, by obtaining ID for all customers, source of funds for large purchases, etc etc. Furthermore, the KYC/AML laws do not even apply to bitcoin anyway- so what I've been doing is well above and beyond my legal duty. I have spoken to the FCA who are very clear on this point.

EachPenny

colsten wrote: »

He has indeed (my highlighting), and he believes he has taken appropriate steps to prevent ML.

...and was very clear on the point in the previous thread on the subject:-

mcplums wrote: »

I'm fairly sure I know why it's blocked. I use my account for bitcoin arbitrage. I had about £800k of volume go through it in a 6 month period (never cash though)....

and

mcplums wrote: »

Incidentally, I did look at opening a business account with Santander, and being up front from the start about the purpose, but they explicitly disallow any businesses that are related to crypto in any way.

jonnygee2

He has indeed (my highlighting), and he believes he has taken appropriate steps to prevent ML.

...and was very clear on the point in the previous thread on the subject:-

All irrelevant though. Bitcoin arbitage itself is not a regulated activity unless you are doing it with someone else's money, and the OP's application of AML checks means nothing too, because he has no understanding of AML regulation to begin with.

He may be involved in regulated activity but nothing he has said actually evidences that, unless you take his own use of the word customers and AML checks as evidence (which would be ill advised).

masonic

jonnygee2 wrote: »

If he's just buying their bitcoins with his own money from his 'customers' and then selling these on to other people that's not regulated activity.

It's not clear from anything the OP has said whether he was buying other people's bitcoin with his own money, or accepting cash from his 'customers' and sending them bitcoin in exchange, or indeed day trading bitcoin as a service on behalf of his 'customers' using their money.

mcplums

John G Jones, if you sincerely think what I am doing is unethical and/or illegal, than you are quite right to point it out to the authorities. If I was following the rules, and thought someone else was benefiting by not doing so, then I would do exactly the same thing.

John_G_Jones wrote: »

You are soliciting and carrying out investment business, you are trying to hide it, and your laughable descriptions of money laundering checks don’t even come close to what the law requires..

I'm not doing any of those things. I'm not soliciting, I'm not carrying out an investment business, and I'm not hiding anything (indeed I think I'm being quite clear in all my responses). Perhaps of course I misunderstand the legal definitions of these terms. So here is what I'm doing: I'm selling bitcoins to one person and then rebuying them at a slightly lower price from someone else. I'm using 100% my own money at all times. My 'customers' are the people I sell bitcoins to. Do you still think I'm soliciting and carrying out an investment business?

jonnygee2 wrote: »

He calls them customers, that doesn't mean they actually are customers, especially given he clearly doesn't know anything.

If he's just buying their bitcoins with his own money from his 'customers' and then selling these on to other people that's not regulated activity.

This is 100% what I'm doing.

jonnygee2 wrote: »

Your basic level of confusion is that you've confused AML regulation with the actual crime of laundering money. You are probably right that AML regulations don't apply to you, you are completely wrong that this means you can't be found guilty of money laundering.

I actually think you are 100% right here. I AM confused about this. Like you say, money laundering is a crime, and therefore it's up to the police/courts etc- just because I'm not in breach of any FSA rules does not mean I'm immune from prosecution. Thank you for the education. And, perhaps you are right and Fidor do actually have evidence to support the notion that I've received money that were the proceeds of money laundering. I can't 100% rule this out.

BUT, since to my knowledge I have done no such thing, it stands to reason that I will of course do everything I can to get my money back. Plus if I HAVE received the proceeds of crime then I definitely want to know about it!!! How else can I get to the bottom of this, without trying to get my money back!? Since Fidor won't tell me anything.

So it does seem like the only thing for me to do is to just see where the EC complaint takes me. Does anyone else have an opinion on whether its worth pursing via small claims court? I know one guy said it's not worth it, but perhaps worth a shot?