Monzo Bank getting a kicking on 'Watchdog'

Dr_Crypto

https://www.brettwilson.co.uk/blog/frozen-bank-account-no-explanation-suspicious-activity-reports-high-street-bank-customer-post-april-2017/

Gives a very good overview of the legal situation. The bank doesn’t really have much choice and the customer has pretty much no redress against the bank. That makes sense as the government is using banks as unpaid policemen in this situation.

adindas

Dr_Crypto wrote: »

https://www.brettwilson.co.uk/blog/frozen-bank-account-no-explanation-suspicious-activity-reports-high-street-bank-customer-post-april-2017/

Gives a very good overview of the legal situation. The bank doesn’t really have much choice and the customer has pretty much no redress against the bank. That makes sense as the government is using banks as unpaid policemen in this situation.

"John receives £100,000 in his account from, say, Nigeria. The Bank’s computer has an algorithm designed to spot any transaction that is unusual or suspicious. John typically deposits £2,000 per month. "

No wonder ....
Ordinary people could easily question this behaviour, let alone the bank official who are well trained. This is not to suggest crime have been conducted but it is reasonable to suspect led to triggering an investigation.Unfortunately many crime of this sort are taking the innocent people (or pretend to be innocent) on board.

ciscosurplus

adindas wrote: »

"John receives £100,000 in his account from, say, Nigeria. The Bank’s computer has an algorithm designed to spot any transaction that is unusual or suspicious. John typically deposits £2,000 per month. "

No wonder ....
Ordinary people could easily question this behaviour, let alone the bank official who are well trained. This is not to suggest crime have been conducted but it is reasonable to suspect led to triggering an investigation.Unfortunately many crime of this sort are taking the innocent people (or pretend to be innocent) on board.

Maybe in that extreme example it makes sense.
My open person experience is a little different, I have lots of accounts (interest maximising, switching offers etc) I've never had an account "frozen" until recently by Monzo.

I sold about £6000 worth of shares which was then a transfer in from a US Broker in my name (which I have done lots of times via a share saving scheme), this Time the transfer was in to Monzo, again no issue. It wasn't until 2 weeks later I went to move it to another UK bank in my name it was then suddenly "frozen" It was frozen for nearly 9 days with no response.

I have done above 3-4 times a year for 10 years to Lloyds, Natwest, Nationwide and never once had an issue!

My own personal opinion is the withdrawal caused the freeze as I suspect they don't like big withdrawals, as they sat on the cleared funds for two weeks without freezing. Intrestly they asked for northing from me, no evidence just held it for 9 days. My brokerage account is in my name linked to my address, linked to my employer with a valid WBEN-8 declaration.

Account now closed

brianposter

Dr_Crypto wrote: »

https://www.brettwilson.co.uk/blog/frozen-bank-account-no-explanation-suspicious-activity-reports-high-street-bank-customer-post-april-2017/

Gives a very good overview of the legal situation. The bank doesn’t really have much choice and the customer has pretty much no redress against the bank. That makes sense as the government is using banks as unpaid policemen in this situation.

What is fundamentally daft is that the victim has no input into any investigation, which is supposedly going on while half the evidence is ignored.
What would seem to be sensible is to terminate the "tipping off" period after 14 days. That would permit customer input, might well reveal evidence of value to the investigators, and avoid wasting the time and resources of the innocent.

born_again

Dr_Crypto wrote: »

https://www.brettwilson.co.uk/blog/frozen-bank-account-no-explanation-suspicious-activity-reports-high-street-bank-customer-post-april-2017/

Gives a very good overview of the legal situation. The bank doesn’t really have much choice and the customer has pretty much no redress against the bank. That makes sense as the government is using banks as unpaid policemen in this situation.

Never mind being a unpaid taxman for various countries.

born_again

brianposter wrote: »

What is fundamentally daft is that the victim has no input into any investigation, which is supposedly going on while half the evidence is ignored.
What would seem to be sensible is to terminate the "tipping off" period after 14 days. That would permit customer input, might well reveal evidence of value to the investigators, and avoid wasting the time and resources of the innocent.

A customer can and should be questioned about their account and where funds came from or what is going on.
What you can not do is say "We believe you may be ML" , avoiding international sanctions or any other the other reasons.

MisterMotivated

born_again wrote: »

What you can not do is say "We believe you may be ML" , avoiding international sanctions or any other the other reasons.

I think it's about time the "tipping off" rule was reviewed, as I'd expect anyone who's knowingly involved in shady financial transactions will be well aware that "we can't tell you why your account has been blocked" directly translates to "we've blocked your account because we think you're up to no good". It's about as subtle as a man in grey overalls sweeping up leaves outside your house for 9 hours straight, and occasionally speaking into his collar.

born_again

MisterMotivated wrote: »

I think it's about time the "tipping off" rule was reviewed,.

So bank staff can simply say..
We blocked your account because your up to no good....

That is really going to get things resolved quickly. All it will do is mean the customer will just clam up and make their situation worse.

Banks have teams that deal with these cases. Who are well trained to discuss with customers without letting the customer know exactly why they have been blocked. And get the answers to the question needed to prove one way or the other.

MisterMotivated

born_again wrote: »

That is really going to get things resolved quickly. All it will do is mean the customer will just clam up and make their situation worse.

I'm sure they can be rather more diplomatic than that. And I didn't say it would necessarily speed up resolution of the issue, but it might be a little more helpful to those innocents whose are mistakenly flagged for review, rather than the bank clamming up on them and making them wonder if they'll ever get access to their money again

jonnygee2

If there was a problem with the way Monzo dealt with financial crime the regulators would be dealing with it.

The fact there is an indipendent regulator that has full access to all of the information and is apperantly satisfied with the way they act is all we need to know.

The watchdog program and posters here don't have any access to any of the relevant information on why these decisions were made and are therefore pretty meaningless.