Santander have stolen my money

vic8925

Hello I was wondering if you could help me, I recently have borrowed some money from a family member to the sum of £7000. The money did not clear straight away and I was informed the ‘back office’ would need to clear it. Fast forward a day and it then stated my account was blocked and to call the help desk. Called the help desk who stated we need proof of where the funds have come from such as a text message, bank statement etc. I have sent these off and had someone call me back requesting further information about where the family member got it from. The family member withdrew it from an ISA which he also stated a statement for that would be fine, once we receive that we can release the funds. Before I had even sent the information requested off and 2 minutes after ending the call I wasn’t even able to log on at all it kept saying error. So it’s not like they even had the information to review before doing this, despite them giving me 30 days notice. I’m not to fussed on the account being closed because I don’t use it all of the time (which may be the reason it’s being closed) so I contacted Santander by telephone to be told your not entitled to the funds you will receive a letter, so I asked will the funds be sent back to the recipient, she advised no. So she wouldn’t tell me anymore information and basically stated wait for a letter. So I have sent the requested information off as they asked anyway and now I’m just in the dark? Where does this money go? It’s all legit it’s not like it’s anything illegal? 

MorningcoffeeIV

They haven't stolen anything.

Once they're satisfied with the source of funds, it will go back to the sender.  

Exodi

While your circumstances are genuine and so the procedure feels over the top, if you think about an extreme case where my good ol' friend.... Pablo Escobar sent me some money that... 'definitely wasn't from drugs or crime'.

The bank would confiscate the funds because they have suspicions about it, but likewise it's not realistic to expect them to just immediately give it back to my friend Pablo with a note saying "maybe next time!".

AML requires the bank to understand the source of funds hence the request (within reason).

Momanns

If your account was dormant and then received a £7,000 payment, this will be a trigger on the AML & Fraud side. It is likely they will either a) Return the funds or b) Close your account at which point you nominate where you want the funds sent. 

BethRobinson

Exodi said:

While your circumstances are genuine and so the procedure feels over the top, if you think about an extreme case where my good ol' friend.... Pablo Escobar sent me some money that... 'definitely wasn't from drugs or crime'.

The bank would confiscate the funds because they have suspicions about it, but likewise it's not realistic to expect them to just immediately give it back to my friend Pablo with a note saying "maybe next time!".

AML requires the bank to understand the source of funds hence the request (within reason).

What a ridiculous comparison.

CliveOfIndia

BethRobinson said:

Exodi said:

While your circumstances are genuine and so the procedure feels over the top, if you think about an extreme case where my good ol' friend.... Pablo Escobar sent me some money that... 'definitely wasn't from drugs or crime'.

The bank would confiscate the funds because they have suspicions about it, but likewise it's not realistic to expect them to just immediately give it back to my friend Pablo with a note saying "maybe next time!".

AML requires the bank to understand the source of funds hence the request (within reason).

What a ridiculous comparison.

It's an extreme example, perhaps, but not at all ridiculous.  All banks these days have very strict AML procedures - and the penalties if they fail to investigate suspicious activity can be severe.

As to what particular events will trigger an investigation, they can vary.  But in general, any activity that deviates significantly from the usual pattern of transactions on a particular account will raise a red flag.  So a sudden receipt of £7000 into a largely dormant account will very likely have triggered their AML procedures.

In the case of the OP it will be very simple to resolve - once the bank are satisfied as to the source of the funds, the funds will be released.

Bear in mind, it's an automated process that initially triggers the AML alert.  Thereafter it's down to real human beings (usually a dedicated department) doing the investigation.  So it doesn't matter whether the funds have come from drugs, human trafficking, the sale of a foreign property, or simply a large donation from a friend or family member - the computer just says "Woah, something suspicious here, please take a look guys".

nyermen

CliveOfIndia said:

It's an extreme example, perhaps, but not at all ridiculous. 

I work in finance, and agreed, an extreme example but not ridiculous (it's easier to use such an example than the far more frequent anonymous examples that are hard to explain).

If you're listening on the radio at all, you'll hear the solicitor advert for "Been done by a scammer?  We could get your money back even if the bank says no".
So often now, even when customer ignores every warning, the banks are still made to pay back.  So, more and more, banks are turning the compliance settings down and getting false positives that need to be manually checked.  This will only increase sadly, as the alternative is to keep refunding people who get scammed.

MattMattMattUK

nyermen said:

CliveOfIndia said:

It's an extreme example, perhaps, but not at all ridiculous. 

I work in finance, and agreed, an extreme example but not ridiculous (it's easier to use such an example than the far more frequent anonymous examples that are hard to explain).

If you're listening on the radio at all, you'll hear the solicitor advert for "Been done by a scammer?  We could get your money back even if the bank says no".
So often now, even when customer ignores every warning, the banks are still made to pay back.  So, more and more, banks are turning the compliance settings down and getting false positives that need to be manually checked.  This will only increase sadly, as the alternative is to keep refunding people who get scammed.

I think it is probably time to reform the rules and tighten where customers get a refund, too often it seems that people ignore all the rules, bypass the security designed to stop them getting scammed and then hand over money to scammers and then other customers and shareholders are left picking up the cost.