General Discussion and Whimsical Banter

dealyboy

@ToastLady said:

@callum9999 said:

@Bridlington1 said:

It would be nice to know exactly why the banks have closed my accounts but I'm slightly torn on this one in that I can see both sides of the argument. On the one hand knowing the specific reasons behind the account closures would be useful in order to take steps to avoid being banned from other banks and the lack of a clear answer to the question "exactly why has this bank closed my account?" is pretty frustrating I've found. On the flip side though if the bank closes the account due to fraud/money laundering and the bank told the customer that this was the reason behind the closure it would give criminals the chance to destroy/cover up any evidence or warn others involved with the same crime. If a bank had to give a reason for account closures then if someone receives no explanation the implication would be that the account was closed due to suspected criminal activity and this may potentially end up tipping off criminals. 

This is regularly claimed but makes no sense at all. You can't seriously believe someone actively engaged in money laundering would see that their account has been closed and think "I'm currently laundering money, but the bank probably just randomly closed the account for no reason and doesn't suspect a thing"?

I would have thought if the bank suspected money laundering, they would be more liable to freeze an account, and make appropriate investigation, rather than closing.

Giving notice of closure of accounts for 'commercial reasons' is one thing and is limited in the scope of it's impact but I think the banks/BS should give a reason if they close accounts and give a lifetime ban. I think it can fairly be assumed that conclusions have been drawn that there has been (not just suspected) misuse, misconduct or illegal activity. There could be mistakes, or instances of slander or libel without an opportunity to refute the 'evidence'.

Do we trust the banks to get it right? How can we complain to the Financial Ombudsman?

As we have seen there have been knock on consequences of account closures where the worst has been presumed, perhaps understandably, by other banks etc.

Just imagine if one was sent down for a couple of years but as well as not being present at court you didn't even know what you had been convicted of or even charged with, leaving you with a criminal record.

I think there are questions of lawfulness regarding the conduct of these financial organisations.

As reported in The Daily Telegraph Saturday today Nigel Farage hopes to build a class action lawsuit to include others who "have been wronged", but this will probably have to wait until he comes out of the jungle  .

Thumbs_Up

Bridlington1 said:

Thumbs_Up said:

@Bridlington1

I take it you're not a mature student? So basically you are just starting out in life and now you have a life time ban with 3 banking groups.

Can't say I'm a member of your fan group. I have read some of you earlier comments about this predicament you have and it did come over as a bit of a jolly jape. Back then you did seem to have the attitude, and to quote a film   "frankly my dear I don't give a dam"    

You are correct, I'm not a mature student at all and at the age of 20 I now find myself banned from 3 banking groups, with a fourth not letting me open new accounts but allowing me to retain the accounts I currently have with them, so probably not my greatest achievement.

I admit I've probably come across as sounding a bit unsympathetic and overly harsh in some of my earlier posts in particular, this was not the intention and I can't say I've never intended to come across as a "jolly jape" in any of my posts and I do "give a damn" about this predicament and wouldn't wish it on anyone. At the same time though once you've received a lifetime ban there is precious little you can do to reverse it so I take the view that all you can do is to make the best of it and where possible take reasonable steps to prevent it happening again and attempt to minimise the potential impact that a repeat of the event can have on you.

Well, I must say for a 20-year-old you took what many may perceive as criticism squarely on the chin. There are some members here 3 times you age who would have reacted in a tit for tat spat, so well done you.  

Barkin

pecunianonolet said:

Barkin said:

pecunianonolet said:

I was advised that aggregating 20k in an usually empty current account within 20 minutes and moving it all straight back out would have for sure triggered a fraud and ML check or even temp freeze. 

Really?

I've done exactly that - though not with HSBC, admittedly - on numerous occasions, and never had any issues. 

Yes, that's what the advisor said. 

I guess I'm fortunate then, that my bank views things differently to the advisor that you spoke to... 

joep2

With Bitcoin spot ETF about to enter the US market, are there any similar options available to UK investors? It’ll be good to get some exposure to Crypto via ISA / Pension wrappers. 

Bridlington1

callum9999 said:

Bridlington1 said:

It would be nice to know exactly why the banks have closed my accounts but I'm slightly torn on this one in that I can see both sides of the argument. On the one hand knowing the specific reasons behind the account closures would be useful in order to take steps to avoid being banned from other banks and the lack of a clear answer to the question "exactly why has this bank closed my account?" is pretty frustrating I've found. On the flip side though if the bank closes the account due to fraud/money laundering and the bank told the customer that this was the reason behind the closure it would give criminals the chance to destroy/cover up any evidence or warn others involved with the same crime. If a bank had to give a reason for account closures then if someone receives no explanation the implication would be that the account was closed due to suspected criminal activity and this may potentially end up tipping off criminals. 

This is regularly claimed but makes no sense at all. You can't seriously believe someone actively engaged in money laundering would see that their account has been closed and think "I'm currently laundering money, but the bank probably just randomly closed the account for no reason and doesn't suspect a thing"?

You make a good point and it is one I do agree with in most instances. I suppose the logic I was using was that although most would soon deduce that their accounts were closed for fraud/money laundering, there may well be a delay when coming to that conclusion for some for whatever reason and this delay could possibly aid any investigations. The reason behind the delay could be any number of things, it could be arrogance, particularly if they've been money laundering for years and got away with it so had convinced themselves that the banks would never suspect a thing, it could also be plain stupidity, I seem to recall there was one criminal a few years ago who handed himself in to the police in an attempt to claim the reward for his own arrest so there may well be some fool who may think "I'm currently laundering money, but the bank probably just randomly closed the account for no reason and doesn't suspect a thing", although I suspect these people are very few and far between.

I'm certainly no expert when it comes to fraud/money laundering or criminal investigations though and do not know how many people if indeed there are any people who have been convicted of money laundering because of the lack of explanation behind the account closures so do question whether the possibility that a delay in realising why an account has been closed in some instances warrants allowing other account closures to be made without explanation.

ToastLady said:

callum9999 said:

Bridlington1 said:

It would be nice to know exactly why the banks have closed my accounts but I'm slightly torn on this one in that I can see both sides of the argument. On the one hand knowing the specific reasons behind the account closures would be useful in order to take steps to avoid being banned from other banks and the lack of a clear answer to the question "exactly why has this bank closed my account?" is pretty frustrating I've found. On the flip side though if the bank closes the account due to fraud/money laundering and the bank told the customer that this was the reason behind the closure it would give criminals the chance to destroy/cover up any evidence or warn others involved with the same crime. If a bank had to give a reason for account closures then if someone receives no explanation the implication would be that the account was closed due to suspected criminal activity and this may potentially end up tipping off criminals. 

This is regularly claimed but makes no sense at all. You can't seriously believe someone actively engaged in money laundering would see that their account has been closed and think "I'm currently laundering money, but the bank probably just randomly closed the account for no reason and doesn't suspect a thing"?

I would have thought if the bank suspected money laundering, they would be more liable to freeze an account, and make appropriate investigation, rather than closing.

I would've thought so too, although I do wonder if in some cases the banks consider it more cost effective to just close the account rather than freezing the account and bother with making investigations. I certainly don't approve of this practice if it is the case and believe if fraud/money laundering is suspected then appropriate investigations should be carried out rather than immediately jumping to close the accounts of potentially innocent customers.

dealyboy said:

@ToastLady said:

@callum9999 said:

@Bridlington1 said:

It would be nice to know exactly why the banks have closed my accounts but I'm slightly torn on this one in that I can see both sides of the argument. On the one hand knowing the specific reasons behind the account closures would be useful in order to take steps to avoid being banned from other banks and the lack of a clear answer to the question "exactly why has this bank closed my account?" is pretty frustrating I've found. On the flip side though if the bank closes the account due to fraud/money laundering and the bank told the customer that this was the reason behind the closure it would give criminals the chance to destroy/cover up any evidence or warn others involved with the same crime. If a bank had to give a reason for account closures then if someone receives no explanation the implication would be that the account was closed due to suspected criminal activity and this may potentially end up tipping off criminals. 

This is regularly claimed but makes no sense at all. You can't seriously believe someone actively engaged in money laundering would see that their account has been closed and think "I'm currently laundering money, but the bank probably just randomly closed the account for no reason and doesn't suspect a thing"?

I would have thought if the bank suspected money laundering, they would be more liable to freeze an account, and make appropriate investigation, rather than closing.

Giving notice of closure of accounts for 'commercial reasons' is one thing and is limited in the scope of it's impact but I think the banks/BS should give a reason if they close accounts and give a lifetime ban. I think it can fairly be assumed that conclusions have been drawn that there has been (not just suspected) misuse, misconduct or illegal activity. There could be mistakes, or instances of slander or libel without an opportunity to refute the 'evidence'.

Do we trust the banks to get it right? How can we complain to the Financial Ombudsman?

As we have seen there have been knock on consequences of account closures where the worst has been presumed, perhaps understandably, by other banks etc.

Just imagine if one was sent down for a couple of years but as well as not being present at court you didn't even know what you had been convicted of or even charged with, leaving you with a criminal record.

I think there are questions of lawfulness regarding the conduct of these financial organisations.

As reported in The Daily Telegraph Saturday today Nigel Farage hopes to build a class action lawsuit to include others who "have been wronged", but this will probably have to wait until he comes out of the jungle  .

I think you make a compelling case. I do think the banks are getting a bit "trigger happy" when it comes to handing out lifetime bans in general these days and I share your concerns that the banks can and inevitably do make mistakes and am all too aware of some of the impacts that account closures can have. I have also found some of the closures we have seen in recent months to be very concerning and am also of the view that everyone should have the right to have a bank account somewhere, although not every bank should have to offer an account to everyone.

At the same time though I can also see some logic behind the argument that if a customer can decide to terminate a banking relationship without explanation then a bank aught to be able to do the same. Indeed from the bank's perspective I can see why few of them would want me as a customer, I tend to use banks solely for their loss leaders and maximise every penny I can get out of them so there is probably little money to be made from my custom, if anything I probably cost many of the banks money so it is understandable that they would want to get rid of me. Whether it is right that a bank should be able to terminate their relationship with a customer if they haven't broken any of their Ts&Cs is something I remain somewhat undecided on though. Banks are becoming increasingly vital to day to day life so I suspect as time goes on the merit of that argument will likely diminish.

So as you can probably gather this has become one of the few topics of debate where I have become genuinely undecided on. I am very sympathetic to your position on this issue but at the same time can see some logic to allowing banks to close accounts without explanation in some instances.

masonic

Bridlington1 said:

callum9999 said:

Bridlington1 said:

It would be nice to know exactly why the banks have closed my accounts but I'm slightly torn on this one in that I can see both sides of the argument. On the one hand knowing the specific reasons behind the account closures would be useful in order to take steps to avoid being banned from other banks and the lack of a clear answer to the question "exactly why has this bank closed my account?" is pretty frustrating I've found. On the flip side though if the bank closes the account due to fraud/money laundering and the bank told the customer that this was the reason behind the closure it would give criminals the chance to destroy/cover up any evidence or warn others involved with the same crime. If a bank had to give a reason for account closures then if someone receives no explanation the implication would be that the account was closed due to suspected criminal activity and this may potentially end up tipping off criminals. 

This is regularly claimed but makes no sense at all. You can't seriously believe someone actively engaged in money laundering would see that their account has been closed and think "I'm currently laundering money, but the bank probably just randomly closed the account for no reason and doesn't suspect a thing"?

You make a good point and it is one I do agree with in most instances. I suppose the logic I was using was that although most would soon deduce that their accounts were closed for fraud/money laundering, there may well be a delay when coming to that conclusion for some for whatever reason and this delay could possibly aid any investigations. The reason behind the delay could be any number of things, it could be arrogance, particularly if they've been money laundering for years and got away with it so had convinced themselves that the banks would never suspect a thing, it could also be plain stupidity, I seem to recall there was one criminal a few years ago who handed himself in to the police in an attempt to claim the reward for his own arrest so there may well be some fool who may think "I'm currently laundering money, but the bank probably just randomly closed the account for no reason and doesn't suspect a thing", although I suspect these people are very few and far between.

I'm certainly no expert when it comes to fraud/money laundering or criminal investigations though and do not know how many people if indeed there are any people who have been convicted of money laundering because of the lack of explanation behind the account closures so do question whether the possibility that a delay in realising why an account has been closed in some instances warrants allowing other account closures to be made without explanation.

It was politicians rather than bank staff that decided to include anti-tip-off measures in the AML legislation, not necessarily on the basis of expert opinion on whether it would help catch more criminals. Also, the legal text may not have been what was originally intended (for example, a bank sending a notification to an unwitting customer that they are under investigation is quite different than providing an explanation weeks or months after the customer learned their account was being frozen or set to be closed). It does seem like there should be a limitation in the period that staff are not able to disclose information about such action.

pecunianonolet

Bridlington1 said:

I tend to take the information that I get from bank staff with a pinch of salt these days. On a few occasions I've been given incorrect information, notably by Barclays who told me I would be able to switch a TSB student account to a Barclays student account using the CASS, only to be told several weeks later when I opened the account in branch that I wouldn't be able to switch in using the CASS and that I would need to close the TSB account manually and return with proof of account closure. That one ended well. On other occasions I've contacted a bank twice to ask the same question and received two completely different responses.

I often call a few times as well nowadays and I always ask them to summarize at the end of the call what their advice/solution is and I always ask them at the beginning of the call if it is recorded. That way they are more cautious from the start of not telling me too much BS

dealyboy

@Bridlington1 ... https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80397178/#Comment_80397178

... there's a clue there.

ircE

Fixed bonds paying 6% or more disappear from the savings market - Moneyfactscompare

So the top end of the EA market continues to rise, albeit gradually, converging on 5.25%...

At the same time, the top end of the short term fixed rate market is starting to drop...

And also at the same time, the top end of the short term fixes for mortgage rates are starting to decline.

Anyone kind enough to explain how this all fits together?

dealyboy

No idea ... but excellent thread ircE ... sorry it's caused by a bumpy top ... expectation by the markets of drops in interest rates in the next few months.