Son's bank account frozen for 12 days, now back to normal. Is there any after effects?

p00hsticks

JonMitchell said:

Bridlington1 said:

JonMitchell said:

Will this episode cause any problem for my son and daughter-in law in future, like "bad-note, moneylaundering" etc? Was wondering if anyone who had their bank account frozen and unfroze, share their experience please?

I doubt this will cause their accounts to get frozen again. The bank and NCA will have done their investigations into the matter when they froze the account in the first place and are clearly satisfied that they received the money legally, otherwise the account would still be frozen. As already mentioned however it may cause future issues with solicitors etc, though I doubt it will be too detrimental.

In answer to your second question. I have had 2 current accounts frozen. HSBC in February for 23 days and Virgin Money in March for 5 days. Luckily these weren't my main accounts, otherwise it would have been a nightmare as well as a right pain. Unfortunately there's little you can do once the accounts are frozen. Once unfrozen I've received a letter to tell me that after a review of my accounts all restrictions have now been lifted. I've never had any issues since, though both of these accounts have since been switched to other banks for the switching incentives.

Accounts getting frozen is one of the main advantages of having multiple current accounts (14 in my case), the other being the various perks each one offers. It's always a wise option to have a back up account in case one account gets frozen. 

For the future if you do give your son and daughter in law any money don't use cash. Cash raises eyebrows as it is far harder to trace. Faster payments and cheques are better for large gifts like this as they are easy for banks to trace. Faster payments can be done in branch if you don't want to use online banking, or over the phone.

Thanks for sharing your experience Bridlington, thats good to know! 

Guess I will have to finally need to learn and to adapt to technology. An old dinosaur I am then.

Actually, withdrawing cash via an ATM is a more modern method than writing a cheque....

Section62

JonMitchell said:

Guess I will have to finally need to learn and to adapt to technology. An old dinosaur I am then.

A cheque would do just fine in future - and you don't have to use online banking if you don't feel comfortable with it.

One of the advantages of a cheque - especially if related to a property transaction or a large gift - is both parties can take a photocopy/scan and have that on file in case of any queries.  A photocopy of a cheque given to their solicitor which matches with an entry on their bank statement would (probably) have been the least troublesome way of achieving what you wanted.

But don't worry about it now.  If access has been restored to their account(s) then that suggests everything checked out Ok (no pun intended).

I hope their purchase goes through Ok and they enjoy their new home.

mdni

When my son bought his house the solicitor suggested I pay all the fees (solicitor, stamp duty, etc) instead of paying towards the house as this prevents things being looked into. Not sure of the difference.

JonMitchell

Section62 said:

JonMitchell said:

Guess I will have to finally need to learn and to adapt to technology. An old dinosaur I am then.

A cheque would do just fine in future - and you don't have to use online banking if you don't feel comfortable with it.

One of the advantages of a cheque - especially if related to a property transaction or a large gift - is both parties can take a photocopy/scan and have that on file in case of any queries.  A photocopy of a cheque given to their solicitor which matches with an entry on their bank statement would (probably) have been the least troublesome way of achieving what you wanted.

But don't worry about it now.  If access has been restored to their account(s) then that suggests everything checked out Ok (no pun intended).

I hope their purchase goes through Ok and they enjoy their new home.

I passes by the branch atm each day when taking my daily walk, didn't think much at that time. But didn't realised it had caused this unnecessary episode for both my son and daughter-in-law.....sigh

Daliah

JonMitchell said:

Sea_Shell said:

Is there any particular reason that you did this via cash withdrawals, rather than direct bank transfer?

£12,000 in £800 chunks is a bit unusual, especially if he was then banking the £800 cash each time.

Hopefully he won't suffer any further consequences, if his account has been unblocked now.

Section62 said:

A £12k cash deposit would be the kind of thing which could cause banking problems... but how were they able to pay the money into their account without the bank asking for more information about the source of funds at the time?

What is almost certain is the bank won't be specific about any concerns they had and/or the processes they followed.  If you feel fobbed-off by their answers then there's a reason for that - i.e. them not wanting to put themselves in a position where they are 'tipping off'.

When your son comes to purchasing their property the solicitor is going to want evidence of the source of funds.  A parent withdrawing £800 cash daily and handing it over is towards the more unusual end of the spectrum of 'normal' activity, so your son should expect some further raised eyebrows when that is explained.

To answer, unfortunately I don't use online banking. I tend to go to my branch for assistance when needed.

It's a bit academic now as the issue appears to be resolved, but why didn't you go into Branch and ask them to transfer £12k to your son? What you did has the hallmarks of money laundering, so that's why it was investigated.

phillw

mdni said:

When my son bought his house the solicitor suggested I pay all the fees (solicitor, stamp duty, etc) instead of paying towards the house as this prevents things being looked into. Not sure of the difference.

To get a mortgage you would normally make a declaration that you haven't received any money towards the purchase.

This is partly because they want to know that the deposit came from the named buyer & partly because they don't want others to have an undeclared interest in the property that could prevent them repossessing the house.

[Deleted User]

It was a unusual way to withdraw the funds (counter cheque would have been easier) but your choice to do so.I would actually avoid offering receipts upfront as a launderer would likely try to bypass checks. If the bank wishes that info, they'll come back and ask for it.

I wouldn't waste time worrying; life is too short - just move on & I'm sure your son is grateful for your help.

JonMitchell

Deleted_User said:

It was a unusual way to withdraw the funds (counter cheque would have been easier) but your choice to do so.I would actually avoid offering receipts upfront as a launderer would likely try to bypass checks. If the bank wishes that info, they'll come back and ask for it.

I wouldn't waste time worrying; life is too short - just move on & I'm sure your son is grateful for your help.

Sorry but I dont get your point of "avoiding offering receipts". Won't exhibiting receipts of some comfort for the bank, if any?

Section62

JonMitchell said:

Deleted_User said:

It was a unusual way to withdraw the funds (counter cheque would have been easier) but your choice to do so.I would actually avoid offering receipts upfront as a launderer would likely try to bypass checks. If the bank wishes that info, they'll come back and ask for it.

I wouldn't waste time worrying; life is too short - just move on & I'm sure your son is grateful for your help.

Sorry but I dont get your point of "avoiding offering receipts". Won't exhibiting receipts of some comfort for the bank, if any?

I think the point was that it might arouse suspicions when there were none to start with.  Instead, wait to see if there is a problem, then provide the requested evidence.

It's the equivalent of a small child with a faint trace of chocolate around their mouth suddenly blurting out "It wasn't me!".  Nobody would have known about the missing chocolate biscuit if nothing was said to start with.  "What wasn't you?" is the almost inevitable response. (obviously I'm not condoning the theft of chocolate biscuits here)

JonMitchell

Section62 said:

JonMitchell said:

Deleted_User said:

It was a unusual way to withdraw the funds (counter cheque would have been easier) but your choice to do so.I would actually avoid offering receipts upfront as a launderer would likely try to bypass checks. If the bank wishes that info, they'll come back and ask for it.

I wouldn't waste time worrying; life is too short - just move on & I'm sure your son is grateful for your help.

Sorry but I dont get your point of "avoiding offering receipts". Won't exhibiting receipts of some comfort for the bank, if any?

I think the point was that it might arouse suspicions when there were none to start with.  Instead, wait to see if there is a problem, then provide the requested evidence.

It's the equivalent of a small child with a faint trace of chocolate around their mouth suddenly blurting out "It wasn't me!".  Nobody would have known about the missing chocolate biscuit if nothing was said to start with.  "What wasn't you?" is the almost inevitable response. (obviously I'm not condoning the theft of chocolate biscuits here)

I see your points, thanks!