Monzo Bank getting a kicking on 'Watchdog'

IvanDP

I have accounts with quite a few of the "app only" banks, some of them with quite a substantial amount of money in them and with reasonably large sums going in and out
(Primarily to meet pay in criteria for other accounts)
I have had absolutely no problems at all.
I don't know if I have just been lucky, or if some of the people complaining about having accounts frozen are using them for less than legitimate purposes.

[Deleted User]

They have every right to withhold any monies until it has been identified where it came from and any other “paper trails” are cleared.

[Deleted User]

scgf wrote: »

Hahaha! I saw this post and before I looked at it I just knew there would be responses from certain members supporting Monzo. I just knew it! Looking down their long noses at customers with problems. Can't wait to read more!

Oh look - and here you are throwing idle comments into the mix and bringing nothing to the thread to contribute.

System

It appears they are a little lax with applications, freeze accounts too easily and don't have enough staff to review the frozen accounts in a timely manner. I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole.

Neil_Jones

colsten wrote: »

Banks are legally prohibited from giving any information on ongoing investigations.

brianposter wrote: »

Maybe they should be visibly trying to get the law changed, as it seems to be clear that their interpretation of this particular part of the law does not function sensibly.

Because if the acccount is frozen because of say suspected, lets say money laundering or proceeds from crime, if Mr Biggs phones up Marcus or whoever and says "My account has been frozen, why?" and the response is "We think you're profiteering from selling drugs", what do you think Mr Biggs is going to do if he is selling drugs? He's going to go on the run and hide and maybe empty another bank account he owns before that gets frozen too. Tipping Mr Biggs off could be construed as perverting the course of justice on the part of the bank.

boo_star

Neil_Jones wrote: »

Because if the acccount is frozen because of say suspected, lets say money laundering or proceeds from crime, if Mr Biggs phones up Marcus or whoever and says "My account has been frozen, why?" and the response is "We think you're profiteering from selling drugs", what do you think Mr Biggs is going to do if he is selling drugs? He's going to go on the run and hide and maybe empty another bank account he owns before that gets frozen too. Tipping Mr Biggs off could be construed as perverting the course of justice on the part of the bank.

Although I would say that if Mr Biggs is up to no good then he'll basically know, when his account his frozen, that they know what he's up to.

In that sense the "tipping off" rule is nonsense. I don't know why they don't monitor these accounts like they used to instead of freezing them.

System

Willing2Learn wrote: »

I have a long nose. And crooked too. A bit like a concorde.

Really? Do you not understand metaphors? Personal appearance has no bearing on this discussion. Nor do horses, especially high ones like the one I'm on right now. Many on here are hiding behind their narcissistic online personas anyway so we can only guess what they're like in the real world - me included, before you point that out.

Zero_Sum

Key reason why you should have at least one back up account.

The_Urbanite

Banks can be fined severely if they are found to be too lax and facilitating money laundering. When they freeze accounts and submit a Suspicious Activity Report to the National Crime Agency (NCA), they have to wait up to 7 days for further instruction. If instructed to keep the account frozen, they then have to wait up to another 31 days for further instruction. Then it is either reopened, closed with funds returned or the police will seize the funds.

From the first report to the NCA, it is illegal for them to tell the customer why their account has been frozen. It's also illegal to unfreeze the account until the NCA say so or don't bother responding within those deadlines.

No, it isn't very nice if you've done nothing wrong and sometimes there are false positives. But caution is what the law requires. So Monzo, or any bank for that matter don't deserve to be chastised for that. I don't get why the BBC has picked on Monzo when every single bank does this.

The second anti money laundering departments relax their flags, that floodgate for money launderers opens just that bit wider. I attended a talk on financial crime the other week and the stuff money laundering is linked to is horrendous - AML staff were getting emotional even talking about it as they aren't necessarily hardened to the concept of these things.

Now there are other financial institutions out there where the staff working in anti money laundering are irresponsible. I've known them to make up lies in reports to the NCA to frame unusual, but legal activity as money laundering. Where if they just report the facts without embellishment, the NCA wouldn't be interested. They're the ones who deserve to be exposed on Watchdog!

boo_star

Now there are other financial institutions out there where the staff working in anti money laundering are irresponsible. I've known them to make up lies in reports to the NCA to frame unusual, but legal activity as money laundering.

Bullspit, do you understand the gravity of your accusation?