Outrageous Santander closing account without notice or explanation

robatwork

eskbanker said:

Miles86 said:

That's exactly the point. It would become known that a letter that gives a reason is not for AML reasons, and one that doesn't is. At that stage the bank is committing a criminal offence that has a prison sentence associated.

But if you take that line of argument to its logical extent, you could contend that a letter giving 60 days notice of closure is clearly different from one closing immediately, therefore the former wouldn't be allowed under tipping-off rules and so all closures should be immediate!

Precisely. If we are to believe the AML legislation is SO draconian that even to send a letter is to fear prison, the accounts should just be closed. With no communication at all. 

TheBanker

robatwork said:

Miles86 said:

robatwork said:

Miles86 said:

robatwork said:

p00hsticks said:

km1500 said:

can you imagine if you woke up in the morning and found that your mobile phone wasn't working and you called EE or whoever and they said yes we've terminated your account and we're not telling you why 

But this is not comparable with the situation the OP finds themself in, as despite their misleading thread title, they explain in their first post that they've actually been given several months notice.,

Banks do have the authority to freeze and/or close accounts immediately when they suspect fraud or money laundering - indeed they have a legal obligation to do so - but this is not what is happening here. The bank have made a commercial decision that - for whatever reason- they no longer wish to have the OP as a customer and have given them notice to move to another provider.

Agreed - and if a bank has made that decision NOT based on AML legislation but, like here, on a commercial basis I would argue there is an ethical/moral duty to inform the customer. This isn't Dave's Model Railways refusing to serve you because you once stared at a Hornby Flying Scotsman sideways. Banks are so central to our lives they should do everything they can within the law to inform customers regarding their decisions. A customer for many decades so it seems.

The trouble with that approach is that if a bank  provides reasons for all other closures it is potentially implicitly tipping off a customer whose closure letter does not say why that it is Money Laundering. Tipping off carries potential prison sentences, what would you do!!

Dear Mr Brassbound,

We have noticed that on 15th December 2022, and then again on 18th December 2022 and 24th January 2023 that your personal current account 1919191919 19-19-19 was used for multiple business transactions:
TRANS1
TRANS2
...

You were previously notified  in a letter on 20th June 2022 that this was in violation of our terms and conditions.

As such we have decided to close all your accounts in 60 days from the date of this letter. You will no longer be able to open accounts with any financial organisation under the Santander group of companies. 

your sincerely

Santa Nder

That's exactly the point. It would become known that a letter that gives a reason is not for AML reasons, and one that doesn't is. At that stage the bank is committing a criminal offence that has a prison sentence associated.

To get this straight in my mind. You believe that sending the letter above the bank staff would be committing a criminal offence and could go to prison?

I hope not, because I have personally signed and sent letters like that in the past. Who would I be 'tipping off' given that the recipient of the letter has not been subject to a Suspicious Activity Report or any other form of money laundering investigation?

Miles86

robatwork said:

Miles86 said:

robatwork said:

Miles86 said:

robatwork said:

p00hsticks said:

km1500 said:

can you imagine if you woke up in the morning and found that your mobile phone wasn't working and you called EE or whoever and they said yes we've terminated your account and we're not telling you why 

But this is not comparable with the situation the OP finds themself in, as despite their misleading thread title, they explain in their first post that they've actually been given several months notice.,

Banks do have the authority to freeze and/or close accounts immediately when they suspect fraud or money laundering - indeed they have a legal obligation to do so - but this is not what is happening here. The bank have made a commercial decision that - for whatever reason- they no longer wish to have the OP as a customer and have given them notice to move to another provider.

Agreed - and if a bank has made that decision NOT based on AML legislation but, like here, on a commercial basis I would argue there is an ethical/moral duty to inform the customer. This isn't Dave's Model Railways refusing to serve you because you once stared at a Hornby Flying Scotsman sideways. Banks are so central to our lives they should do everything they can within the law to inform customers regarding their decisions. A customer for many decades so it seems.

The trouble with that approach is that if a bank  provides reasons for all other closures it is potentially implicitly tipping off a customer whose closure letter does not say why that it is Money Laundering. Tipping off carries potential prison sentences, what would you do!!

Dear Mr Brassbound,

We have noticed that on 15th December 2022, and then again on 18th December 2022 and 24th January 2023 that your personal current account 1919191919 19-19-19 was used for multiple business transactions:
TRANS1
TRANS2
...

You were previously notified  in a letter on 20th June 2022 that this was in violation of our terms and conditions.

As such we have decided to close all your accounts in 60 days from the date of this letter. You will no longer be able to open accounts with any financial organisation under the Santander group of companies. 

your sincerely

Santa Nder

That's exactly the point. It would become known that a letter that gives a reason is not for AML reasons, and one that doesn't is. At that stage the bank is committing a criminal offence that has a prison sentence associated.

To get this straight in my mind. You believe that sending the letter above the bank staff would be committing a criminal offence and could go to prison?

Not in isolation no. But in the context of the overall policy then yes, that could be a tipping off issue.

As far as immediate versus notice closures go, there's other reasons for an immediate closure, such as a customer assaulting a staff member for instance.

phillw

robatwork said:
Agreed - and if a bank has made that decision NOT based on AML legislation but, like here, on a commercial basis I would argue there is an ethical/moral duty to inform the customer.

But then you would know if you were suspected of ML, because it would be the only time you weren't given a reason.

penners324

There was someone on a Chase Facebook account (not the official 1) complaining the bank had closed her account, leaving money in there and payments bouncing.

A 2 second look showed she'd posted 2 months previously about a letter saying they were closing her account..... she'd done nothing about it.

Wasn't impressed when I pointed this our and said it was her fault.....

Fighter1986

Middle_of_the_Road said:

Seems everyone thinks this kind of treatment is ok. A sad reflection of the times we now live in.
We're just expected to not take it personally, and accept this is the way banks can behave, dismissing years of patronage, with a pathetic standard letter, and that's the end of it.

Unfortunately, this is how things are, and this can happen to anyone, anytime. If it were to happen to you, I wonder if you'll be so understanding and not feel the slightest aggravation. 

Unfortunately, whether we think this treatment is OK, it doesn't negate the fact that banks have the choice to do this to any of their customers whenever they like and we agreed to that in their terms and conditions.

We can get upset if we like, but that will achieve the grand total of absolutely nothing. 

So it's much more effective to simply accept that this can happen any time and when it does it's no great shakes to simply open an account elsewhere. 

TheBanker

Fighter1986 said:

Middle_of_the_Road said:

Seems everyone thinks this kind of treatment is ok. A sad reflection of the times we now live in.
We're just expected to not take it personally, and accept this is the way banks can behave, dismissing years of patronage, with a pathetic standard letter, and that's the end of it.

Unfortunately, this is how things are, and this can happen to anyone, anytime. If it were to happen to you, I wonder if you'll be so understanding and not feel the slightest aggravation. 

Unfortunately, whether we think this treatment is OK, it doesn't negate the fact that banks have the choice to do this to any of their customers whenever they like and we agreed to that in their terms and conditions.

We can get upset if we like, but that will achieve the grand total of absolutely nothing. 

So it's much more effective to simply accept that this can happen any time and when it does it's no great shakes to simply open an account elsewhere. 

Sometimes it is not a choice. The bank has an obligation to manage the risks of its accounts being used to facilitate criminal activity. In order to do this they set a risk appetite and if a customer exceeds this their account has to be closed. The alternative is an eyewatering fine or even criminal prosecution... so not really an alternative at all.