Santander blocked account- help!

bengal-stripe

xlnc99 wrote: »

That is totally incorrect, it was flagged for a security check for due to the large amount which is pretty standard. Nothing to do with money laundering.

The larger the (atypical) transaction, the more likely the possibility of money laundering or proceeds of crime.

To launder money in units of 10 quid would be rather tedious.

dreaming

xlnc99 wrote: »

Thanks for the explanation, you have just repeated exactly what i have just said earlier on. I agree with everything you have said in the post regarding deposits, bank checks etc. The only difference is everyone seems to think the transaction was flagged for money laundering. That is totally incorrect, it was flagged for a security check for due to the large amount which is pretty standard. Nothing to do with money laundering.

Actually I don't believe I have repeated exactly what you said previously. It is true that I, along with many others on here, regularly send minimum deposit amounts round our accounts but I think for any one of us an irregular large transaction is likely to be flagged up. I was trying to point out to you that, despite your understanding, online transfers are often involved in money laundering.
I don't think anyone on here has categorically stated that the transaction was stopped due to ML except for the OP. I certainly don't believe that bank staff would tell them this but the OP may have inferred it in the absence of any other information. It is likely that ML would be the first priority concern of the bank, but other concerns (such as fraud) will also be looked at. If the loan documentation can be produced and verified then the transaction is likely to be released although the time scales for the various investigations can vary. Actually none of us here can say for sure why the transaction was stopped although you obviously believe that it can't possibly be for ML but categorically state that it is for fraud checks. This may be just as incorrect, but the chances are that we will never know unless the OP comes back and tells us.

buglawton

The problem is that even if done for a reason, banks like Santander refuse to discuss anything, recognise how much disruption they've caused in your life, or give you timescales. They communicate terribly going by the money agony aunt and 'name and shame a bank' columns I read in the papers.

OP, were you at least able to go into branch with ID and complete any really essential transactions?

xlnc99

dreaming wrote: »

Actually I don't believe I have repeated exactly what you said previously. It is true that I, along with many others on here, regularly send minimum deposit amounts round our accounts but I think for any one of us an irregular large transaction is likely to be flagged up. I was trying to point out to you that, despite your understanding, online transfers are often involved in money laundering.
I don't think anyone on here has categorically stated that the transaction was stopped due to ML except for the OP. I certainly don't believe that bank staff would tell them this but the OP may have inferred it in the absence of any other information. It is likely that ML would be the first priority concern of the bank, but other concerns (such as fraud) will also be looked at. If the loan documentation can be produced and verified then the transaction is likely to be released although the time scales for the various investigations can vary. Actually none of us here can say for sure why the transaction was stopped although you obviously believe that it can't possibly be for ML but categorically state that it is for fraud checks. This may be just as incorrect, but the chances are that we will never know unless the OP comes back and tells us.

Reasonable answer.

The main issue here is when people band about 'money laundering'. Ive seen it on so many threads when most people dont know what money laundering is.

xlnc99

colsten wrote: »

It's not nonsense. What the OP describes is exactly how money can get laundered (although nobody is suggesting that the OP was actually part of a money-laundering scheme). The fact that your transfers, between accounts in your own name and for much smaller amounts, went through without a hitch is neither here nor there, and is no proof for anything. A little research will inform you that, under Money Laundering Regulations, banks are legally obliged to carry out due diligence on transactions of the kind the OP describes. 'Due diligence' involves a variety of checks, which will invariably take some time to complete. Being checked under Money Laundering Regulations doesn't mean you are involved in money laundering, just as being checked at airports for weapons and explosives doesn't mean you are a terrorist.

as above. You have already been given one perfect example.

Just because this case doesn't follow your definition of money laundering does not mean the transactions on the OP's account haven't automatically triggered AML checks.

How did the OP give an example of how money is laundered? He got a loan from marks and spencers and transferred it through two of his bank accounts. Unless im missing something that is a normal transaction.

dreaming

buglawton wrote: »

The problem is that even if done for a reason, banks like Santander refuse to discuss anything, recognise how much disruption they've caused in your life, or give you timescales. They communicate terribly going by the money agony aunt and 'name and shame a bank' columns I read in the papers.

OP, were you at least able to go into branch with ID and complete any really essential transactions?

As has been pointed out on these threads many times banks are not allowed (by law) to disclose if money laundering is even suspected. As money laundering is a high priority concern for all banks it will be the first thing that is looked at so all they are likely to do initially is to ask for further details (such as loan documentation etc.). So banks (all of them - not just Santander) tend to be very cagy about the reasons for delays/stoppages in order to cover themselves if money laundering is discovered.

I no longer work in the industry and hold no brief for banks or financial institutions but they have to uphold the law as much as the rest of us. Yes it is terrible when these delays/checks cause disruption to people's lives but the banks are often bound by legal and FCA rules just as much as by their own internal ones.

[Deleted User]

TLDR - this is money laundering not fraud.

dreaming

xlnc99 wrote: »

Reasonable answer.

The main issue here is when people band about 'money laundering'. Ive seen it on so many threads when most people dont know what money laundering is.

Yes many people on here "bang on" about money laundering because it is something that banks take extremely (to the extremest extreme) seriously, and it is often the first thing looked at when an "unusual" transaction takes place. Not to say that they don't also take fraud very seriously too.
I would say that many regular posters on here know exactly what money laundering/fraud etc. is. They tend to be a very knowledgeable lot and I have learned a fair bit despite my 20-odd years in the finance industry. There is sometimes impatience when the same questions are asked over and over again, but on the whole I have found them to be good at explaining things so most people would understand. To be honest I often get impatient when I read some posts (and I don't ppost all that often) as some people don't even try to learn what things like money laundering is and there is plenty of information out there (or on here). I would also say as many people aren't really sure what fraud is either but expect banks to compensate them when they have undertaken "unwise" transactions that have later turned out to be fraudulent (or just foolish) - sometimes even going through the banks's telephone or online checks and confirming that they want to continue the transaction,

Damned if they do and damned if they don't (stop or delay a transaction).

Missus_Hyde

18cc wrote: »

in my opinion there is far too much of this going on

at the very least you should (after it has all be resolved) complain to them and ask for substantial compensation

following that i would switch accounts although avoid lloyds they are even worse than santander when it comes to blocking payments

I agree with the above comments.

Between the gullible idiot brigade regularly allowing themselves to be scammed and the banks' paranoia about money laundering, moving largish sums of money around between accounts is becoming a real chore.

As Lloyds seem to want to prevent money transfers at the slightest provocation, I now ring them should I want to move any large amounts of money, inform them what I intend to do and tell them that I don't expect to have any problem with it.

This does seem to work and also saves time.

colsten

xlnc99 wrote: »

How did the OP give an example of how money is laundered? He got a loan from marks and spencers and transferred it through two of his bank accounts. Unless im missing something that is a normal transaction.

You appear to be unable to distinguish between

1. an investigation being automatically triggered under AML obligations
2. a conclusion that money laundering has actually taken place.

In the OP's case, 1) above has happened. 2) may, or may not, be concluded once the bank's, and possibly the NCA's, investigation has concluded.