HSBC has frozen all my accounts - high earner left penniless

grumbler

Grumpy_chap said:

adamp87 said:

In the case for this thread, it seems very over the top to freeze the entire account (and one of these reasons advice is always to not have all money in one bank just in case) and they should surely allow withdrawals whilst they investigate for rent/food and such in the meantime at the very least. 

IftiBashir said:

Its good that the bank freezes an account when it senses fraud, but they should have some kind of system in place whereby someone's life isn't placed on hold while they investigate - even if it means physically going into a branch with your passport, or other such ID, so that certain direct debits, payments, or incoming's could be authorised......

You can absolutely imagine the tabloid headlines if a bank flagged and blocked an account, but allowed the account holder to withdraw just enough funds to flee to some random country where they are now beyond the reach of the law but it turned out the individual was the top crime-lord of the century.

*******  Nonsense. Only law enforcement authorities can impose restrictions for an individual on travelling abroad. Nobody authorised banks to do this job and nobody can blame them for not doing. To say nothing of the fact that the "top crime-lord of the century" will always find few hundred pounds for a ticket. It amazes me how eager are some people to justify everything, including all laws and regulations! Yes, laws exist to be followed, but this doesn't mean that they are perfect, cannot be criticised and don't need changes

Message from MSE Admin 
Hi there. We have removed the following post: ^^
Our rules say: "Please mind your language. We use profanity filters and will act against those trying to work around them or using language that we deem offensive, this includes sexual references or inference and vulgarity or links containing any of these."

OK, edited now.

Postik

Once I transfered my ISA to a new one with Virgin Money and they froze the entire account.  They would not say why nor how long it would be frozen for.  I kept going into a branch and protesting but there wasn't anything the branch staff could do and it was weeks before they unfroze it.  Fortunately it was money I didn't need, otherwise I would have been screwed.

It made me VERY nervous with my recent house purchase because I had to transfer a lot of funds (hundreds of thousands of pounds) from various different savings accounts all into one current account, to then transfer on to my solicitor. If it had been frozen then you can probably imagine the mess I would have been in.

It seems very badly wrong that in the OP's case it should be quite easy to get to the bottom of and yet his account was (or still is) frozen.  If it takes that long then they clearly don't have enough staff, and yet they make enough money.

Momanns

Has the OP stated whether is he a high earner? This might help what advice to provide. 

This type of block for fraud would be very unusual OP. Most likely it is an AML block but none of the activity you have described would appear to meet the criteria. Not suggesting it isn't highly frustrating but something doesn't quite add up.

Grumpy_chap

grumbler said:

*******  Nonsense. Only law enforcement authorities can impose restrictions for an individual on travelling abroad. Nobody authorised banks to do this job and nobody can blame them for not doing. To say nothing of the fact that the "top crime-lord of the century" will always find few hundred pounds for a ticket. It amazes me how eager are some people to justify everything, including all laws and regulations! Yes, laws exist to be followed, but this doesn't mean that they are perfect, cannot be criticised and don't need changes

You selected part of my post and possibly created a response that was out-of-context.

I never said that banks are authorised to impose restrictions on travel.  Banks have been authorised, indeed obligated, to look for suspicious transactions or suspicious patterns of transactions and to freeze those accounts while the status is verified.  Not doing so would place the banks at risk themselves.

I was commenting in response to previous comments about freezing accounts but allowing "enough" to be drawn for essential.  It is difficult to see how that could be administered.  How much of possible ill-gotten gains should an individual be allowed access to?

ent_moot

>>Has the OP stated whether is he a high earner? This might help what advice to provide. 

Yes, it's in the title. Upper end of top 1%.

phillw

Momanns said:

Has the OP stated whether is he a high earner? This might help what advice to provide. 

Yes, unfortunately the ven diagram of high earners and criminals is pretty much two overlapping circles.

grumbler

Momanns said:

Has the OP stated whether is he a high earner? 

In the very first post and very explicitly. 
Later even the exact figure was given.

Momanns

- having more than 30k in a current account
- having more than 50k across 2 accounts
- withdrawing a largish sum of cash (£400)
- transferring a largish sum of money (£1000) 
- not having mortgage or rent payments (because I've paid off my mortgage) - no doubt HSBC have not integrated their fraud system with their mortgage system, and don't factor in the fact that I had a mortgage with them that I fully paid off
- the fact that I don't ordinarily buy anything from anywhere other than Amazon or Ocado, and normally never more than £300
- not being premier 
- maybe the fact that I have 5 standing orders to my wife's monzo (one for each day of the week)

I probably hit some point threshold, and got added to the queue.

Absolutely none of these would trigger a fraud or AML alert. If alerts were generated due to £400 cash withdrawals and £1,000 transfers, the entire banking system would collapse in about 10 minutes. 

On a constructive note, even if it was a suspected fraud alert, this would "hold" the payment and not freeze the account. Either:

a) You are subject to a full AML investigation due to reasons you have declined to share or;
b) It is a glaring mistake by HSBC and in time your complaint will be handled and you can seek a full explanation and potential compensation. 

You mention your wife has a Monzo account, why not open an account with them also? Takes minutes and you would have access to an account much faster than with Lloyds. 

ent_moot

a) You are subject to a full AML investigation due to reasons you have declined to share or;

I'm pretty sure I've shared everything.  Other things that may be relevant (though I suspect not):

• I have a private pension ( standard arrangement through my Employer), where I always attempt to pay in the maximum (40k per year). 
  
• My wife and I both have ISAs, where we tend to pay in the full allowance each year.
• Buying and selling company shares very occasionally. I have always followed our company's "inside trader" policy (i.e. requested permission) before buying/selling, and have paid my capital gains tax as required, when the proceeds have exceeded the CGA. 

>>You mention your wife has a Monzo account, why not open an account with them also? Takes minutes and you would have access to an account much faster than with Lloyds. 

I do have a Monzo account, as mentioned. In fact, it's what we're living on at the moment. Thankfully, I've been underspending my lunch money for the past 5 years, so have accumulated a little bit. 

prowla

Alex9384 said:

km1500 said:

Never ever pay money into a stranger's account by bank transfer. If you must do it, don't do it from your 'main' account. The account you transfer to could be on a fraud or money laundering list (possible this is what happened to you).

Ditto don't let anyone transfer money to you.

So how do people buy and sell cars privately these days? Exchanging 10-15k of physical cash?

I think that calling your account and letting them know you are planning to do the deal may suffice.