HSBC has frozen all my accounts - high earner left penniless

ent_moot

Grumpy_chap said:

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....

How about:  13 years of payslips, and every penny accounted for? 

This is another reason for the algorithm to be transparent. As part of flagging an account for fraud, it should output the prominent factors in reaching the decision. These factors should then be challenged individually. 

Also, I pose you another question: if you trust that the fraud investigation team can do an accurate job of investigating whether something flagged is actually fraud, then why would you not trust another team (with less expertise) to determine if something is unlikely to be fraud? 

And a final flaw in your argument: given that the fraud team would still investigate these issues, there would be an almost immediate feedback loop on how effective the first line is at identifying false positives. Fast feedback loops = fast incremental improvement = good results. If the first line is putting through Wayne Couzens, Harold Shipman and Jimmy Saville, who are then caught by the actual fraud team, the first line knows it's doing something wrong and improves.

masonic

miller said:

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

The process does have a deadline. The account can be frozen for up to 42 days (7 working days for an initial review, then 31 for an investigation). Thanks to the Criminal Finances Act, this can be extended at the Crown Court for up to 6 months, but there must be a hearing for this, evidence of an ongoing investigation must be presented, as well as that the time being taken is reasonable. The OP would have an opportunity to learn of the basis for suspicion at that stage and provide evidence of the source of funds then, if not before. The vast majority of cases get dropped by the NCA within those first 42 days.

MrFrugalFever

I would read through the fine print of both the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy for HSBC to see if anything stands out as something that may have happened or triggered this.

Have you looked at your Credit Reports from Experian, Equifax & Transunion, is there any data on there that shouldn’t be I.e has something been reported erroneously. It is my understanding that banks have access to the CRA’s regularly (in the Privacy Policy) and would know almost straight away if a change was made on your report that is negative.

Have you made multiple applications for things using different data each time (National Hunter looks for inconsistencies here).

I nearly had my CC account frozen when they blocked a transaction that they considered fraudulent (£10!) because the MCC deemed it as a business transaction on a personal CC which was a breach of their T’s & C’s.

I bank with NatWest and have read their TC’s/PP and it appears that an immediate closure is due to a severe breach of contract or fraud (reported). Notice of closure is given when it is less severe and they no longer wish to have a banking relationship with you.

The fact that there has been no immediate closure could well be a positive sign and I am suspect (from all you’ve said) that you could well be the innocent party caught up in a wider investigation with your Kitten purchase.

In light of this, I believe this thread should now be officially called KittenGate.

ent_moot

masonic said:

miller said:

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

The process does have a deadline. The account can be frozen for up to 42 days (7 working days for an initial review, then 31 for an investigation). Thanks to the Criminal Finances Act, this can be extended at the Crown Court for up to 6 months, but there must be a hearing for this, evidence of an ongoing investigation must be presented, as well as that the time being taken is reasonable. The OP would have an opportunity to learn of the basis for suspicion at that stage and provide evidence of the source of funds then, if not before. The vast majority of cases get dropped by the NCA within those first 42 days.

Thank you, this is the most useful information I've had so far. Much appreciated. So, they are required to perform at least an initial review within the first 7 working days? This is really good news for me, thank you!

grumbler

I don't think that they have to inform you. At least that's not other victims' experience.

One of the most recent threads - Revolut account frozen

Revolut isn't a bank, but I think the procedure is the same.

Momanns

ent_moot said:

masonic said:

miller said:

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

The process does have a deadline. The account can be frozen for up to 42 days (7 working days for an initial review, then 31 for an investigation). Thanks to the Criminal Finances Act, this can be extended at the Crown Court for up to 6 months, but there must be a hearing for this, evidence of an ongoing investigation must be presented, as well as that the time being taken is reasonable. The OP would have an opportunity to learn of the basis for suspicion at that stage and provide evidence of the source of funds then, if not before. The vast majority of cases get dropped by the NCA within those first 42 days.

Thank you, this is the most useful information I've had so far. Much appreciated. So, they are required to perform at least an initial review within the first 7 working days? This is really good news for me, thank you!

This is a massive assumption and that deadline only relates to a DAML SAR submitted by a bank to the NCA.

This has absolutely no relevance to an internal HSBC fraud or AML Investigation (the most likely cause of your circumstances). 

A bank would only submit a DAML in the relevant circumstances. Eg, they suspect funds on the account represent criminal property and wish to close the account or make a specified transaction. Nothing you have posted would remotely suggest these grounds exist.

Likewise, I don't believe you have confirmation the block relates to fraud. 

As I and a few others have said, this does not stack up at all.  

If this is genuine, definitely check your credit report in case of erroneous markers or any clue you may have been the victim of an unidentified identity fraud or similar. 

If you still have a meeting in branch today, don't expect them to be able to tell you anything above what you already know. IF your account is blocked for fraud or money laundering, they cannot give you any useful information. They are bound by a) their own process and b) the tipping off offence under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. 

born_again

grumbler said:

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.

Staff do get as long as required to do the work (or at least we do) But you are talking a specialist team here. Not the front line call centre staff.

If you think you could go through these cases any faster. Try applying for the role. There is far more to it than you think. Often waiting for other banks to respond.

grumbler

born_again said:

grumbler said:

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.

Often waiting for other banks to respond.

Exactly. And why is this in the 21st century? They are either snowed under with the job or work inefficiently because there is no any timescales. The process/system isn't fit for purpose.

MattMattMattUK

ent_moot said:

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. 

It is not security through obscurity though, because it is not security. Effectively the first part of this is intelligence gathering, something that the security forces never disclose their methods because once the methods were known people could devise countermeasures. 

ent_moot said:

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.

They catch people, that is their aim, therefore they are doing a good job.

ent_moot said:

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.

Well the current "hard freeze" allows then to not get away with anything either. £1k per day still means £30k a month, 5% a day would just mean that they would hold a larger balance and launder daily, or it would mean people not holding large balances would not be able to spend much anyway, it could easily mean that they would be unable to fill up with petrol etc. so that is not a solution. 

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.

The thing is criminals and fraudsters will be able to generate a list of explanations and excuses, so that will not work either. The banks investigate the claims as quickly as they can, but those investigations often require sharing information between multiple banking groups and law enforcement, with a requirement for human intervention to review the information, that unfortunately takes time.

ent_moot said:

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

They already to use machine learning/AI/algorithms that are constantly being adapted based on new data.

ent_moot

Momanns said:

If this is genuine, definitely check your credit report in case of erroneous markers or any clue you may have been the victim of an unidentified identity fraud or similar. 

I just checked by credit score with MoneySuperMarket:


624/710

Credit score • Very good

It's every bit as bland as I would expect: I have no loans, no credit cards, and no mortgage. 

Likewise, I don't believe you have confirmation the block relates to fraud. 

The only information I have had from HSBC is that my account has been frozen and a note of  "Statutory UK Legislation" added. This and being told repeatedly that no timeline can be given for resolving the issue.

I'm visiting the bank today, with printed payslips totally 80k of my salary. I will let you know how it goes.


Meanwhile, here is a picture of the "fraudulent" kittens: