HSBC has frozen all my accounts - high earner left penniless

ent_moot

As has been said banks are just following the regulators imposed standards, who are just imposing the rules the Government have set in place. So no way will these be changed.

Isn't this literally the purpose of government? - setting the rules, and improving them when they are not fit for purpose?

MattMattMattUK

ent_moot said:

How are you going to achieve that?

My local MP was formerly Home Secretary, and Secretary of State for Business. I've already had a helpful response from his team, unlike the generic responses from HSBC. Maybe this avenue will be fruitful. 

Aside from the distress this has caused my family, the inefficiency is immense. The system (whether it's HSBC's implementation, or the legislation itself) needs to change. I expect better in the UK.

It will not change anything. The bank will follow the process they are required to, at the end of the process they will either close your account immediately, close your account with notice or unlock it and allow it to return to normal usage, you will get no further information and the legislation prohibits the bank from giving you further information. 

born_again

But what is not fit for purpose?
They are doing what they are intended to do & stop criminals etc from removing funds when caught. I know that innocent people get caught in this, but unless you know a way to stop that, as criminals operate their accounts in just the same way as we do.

I get this must be very frustrating for you, even more so not having any timescale to go on. But some of these case take a long time.

@phillw is correct. The drugs barons etc sit in exactly the same area's as our well paid & rich, & that is no disrespect to the rich or well paid.


@ent_moot
I hope you get sorted soon & yes, take it forward with the MP. Just temper your expectations. Bank staff also take things like this forward when they see issues. As it just as frustrating to them as you, when you can not give any idea to a customer of how long. When you can see no issue, but it has been flagged. 👍
Nothing worse than all you can tell a customer. Is the team are aware & will contact you when they can. While knowing that the customer is suffering.

miller

That process should have a deadline though, the account could be frozen indefinitely as the law/implementation stands.

Grumpy_chap

born_again said:

Bank staff also take things like this forward when they see issues. As it just as frustrating to them as you, when you can not give any idea to a customer of how long. When you can see no issue, but it has been flagged. 👍
Nothing worse than all you can tell a customer. Is the team are aware & will contact you when they can. While knowing that the customer is suffering.

The bank staff cannot tell the customer anything even when they do see a clear issue.

ent_moot

Grumpy_chap said:

No.

In fact, the exact opposite is true.  The bank are prohibited from providing an explanation.
That may seem harsh for innocent parties that are impacted by the action, but it is also logical. 
The bank freezes X number of accounts per week that flag some marker for possible suspicious activity. 
These cases are then investigated and either released, or closed, or reported to law enforcement. 
If the bank gave an explanation in the case of those accounts that are simply released, the actions that triggered investigation would become known and those with something to hide would alter their behaviour to avoid detection.

Security through obscurity is weak and ineffective. We should be able to create robust and transparent laws and systems. This is the UK in the year 2023, not Soviet Russia. 

But what is not fit for purpose?
They are doing what they are intended to do & stop criminals etc from removing funds when caught. I know that innocent people get caught in this, but unless you know a way to stop that, as criminals operate their accounts in just the same way as we do.

Evidently, they are not doing a very good job.

I can think of plenty of ways in which this could have been handled more effectively. 

1) Require banks to implement a "soft freeze" capability, whereby, if fraudulent activity is suspected and flagged, outgoing transactions may not exceed 1k per day (or 5% of the total in the account). This way, fraudsters are not alerted, cannot make off with their ill gotten gains, and innocent people can go on with their lives.

2) Implement a "false positive" helpline, whereby customers may call in and complain / explain the situation. This first line of triage would determine if the case is likely to be a "false positive" (this could be achieved with relative little training). If a case gets the green light as a likely false positive, it gets fast tracked to being investigated and cleared, as appropriate.

3) Use machine learning to greatly increase the accuracy of fraud detection.

Shakin_Steve

When this sorry tale resolves itself, no matter what the outcome, please let us know. So many posters just let the thread trail off, and we end up learning nothing from it.
Unless, of course, the fraud squad turn up in the middle of the night and cart you off. 🫢

gt94sss2

ent_moot said:

As has been said banks are just following the regulators imposed standards, who are just imposing the rules the Government have set in place. So no way will these be changed.

Isn't this literally the purpose of government? - setting the rules, and improving them when they are not fit for purpose?

The current money laundering rules are EU legislation which were adopted in the UK before Brexit.

The UK has chosen not to adopt the latest Anti-Money Laundering Directive (currently in draft) which among other things will limit banking cash transactions to 10,000 EUR.

One thing: are you British, a EU citizen or from elsewhere? That also makes a difference..

Grumpy_chap

ent_moot said:

2) Implement a "false positive" helpline, whereby customers may call in and complain / explain the situation. This first line of triage would determine if the case is likely to be a "false positive" (this could be achieved with relative little training). If a case gets the green light as a likely false positive, it gets fast tracked to being investigated and cleared, as appropriate.

What sort of questions / comments would work here to justify an individual as being obviously innocent?

• I'm a Police Officer, you can trust me...
• I'm a GP...
• I'm an international superstar celebrity, can you fix it for me...

Wayne Couzens, Harold Shipman, Jimmy Saville.

In fact, you might just as well try:

• I know they call me "The Godfather" but it's all an act really....

grumbler

born_again said:

But what is not fit for purpose?

The process. The same result can be achieved differently. There is absolutely no reason for bank pinkertons to work efficiently. I wish (not really) all workers were given carte blanche on spending as much  time as it takes to do their job.

And it's just inhuman to leave people, presumably innocent, penniless while the pinkertons are dragging their heels.

They are doing what they are intended to do & stop criminals etc from removing funds when caught. I know that innocent people get caught in this, but unless you know a way to stop that, as criminals operate their accounts in just the same way as we do. I get this must be very frustrating for you, even more so not having any timescale to go on. But some of these case take a long time.

Police are doing about the same - stopping criminals. However, unlike banks they have their limits, including timescales.