Should my bank be asking me how I am spending my money when I make large cash withdrawals?

molerat

Nosy bank want to know why I want the money out

or

Useless bank won't refund me the money I paid to a scammer

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6494805/revolut-refund-after-scam#latest

The banks can't win

boingy

I do think that banks have got the balance wrong at present and I think the the current regime will not catch many scams/frauds but it definitely does inconvenience many of their legitimate customers. Imagine if supermarkets decided to search every bag at the exit, just to catch the shoplifters. The end result is that people will become scared or uncomfortable with banking. Maybe we'll all go back to cash under the mattress. 

I've had transfers held up quite a few times now and while sitting through the very long scripted unblocking process I always think that if I was a scammer I'd give exactly the same answers as I'm giving. Likewise if I had been coerced into a transfer I'd give the same answers because I'm still being coerced. If I'd been tricked into a transfer I'd probably continue with being tricked and give the same answers. If I was taking out a large sum of cash for an illegal purposes I'm unlikely to tell the bank the truth. 

It's particularly frustrating that they seem unable to join up the dots and are unwilling to look back at previous transactions. I had one transfer blocked because a large sum (20K ish) came into the current account from Tandem savings and went straight back out again to Metro savings to get a better rate They were demanding to know where that 20K originated but were unwilling to to scroll back a few months to see that the same sum (ish) had been in the current account before and had gone out to the same Tandem account that they were now querying. A year earlier that amount had actually been in their own savings account! It's the same money plus interest. I think they have to get better at this stuff and they have to make the unblocking script shorter and quicker. It should not take 15 or 20 minutes to get through that stuff.

phillw

boingy said:

Imagine if supermarkets decided to search every bag at the exit, just to catch the shoplifters.

The only bags I take into supermarkets are empty, they can search whatever they want.

I use self scanning, when I get selected for an audit then they in effect do search my bags.

If they think that hiring enough staff to check everyone's bags is cost effective, so that it will reduce prices, then I am all for it.

Grumpy_chap

Yes the bank are right

Just to understand, this is a series of "five figure sum" cash payments to buy "over-ordered materials" for a construction project.

"Five figure sum" means £10,000 to £99,999 in each payment.

I work in construction and cannot think of a scenario where a project would "over-order" by that amount without having the ability to return the excess to the original stockist and / or use the excess on the next project.
Do the people selling these "over-ordered" materials have good title to the materials they are selling on?

It is obviously quite a big building project that the OP is doing, so these are large quantities of materials - presumably for each £10k paid in cash by the OP, the true value of the materials received would be £20k?

Is there an avoidance of taxation anywhere in this arrangement?
Why can't the OP buy the "over-ordered materials" by bank transfer and avoid the risk of carrying large amounts of cash?

grumbler

Grumpy_chap said:

Why can't the OP buy the "over-ordered materials" by bank transfer and avoid the risk of carrying large amounts of cash?

If it's a private sale, a bank transfer is far more risky than 'carrying large amounts of cash'.

With other points I agree, but if it's 'tax avoidance', then it's not on the buyer's side and not the buyer's concern.

pridehappy

Yes the bank are right

The bank could be doing you a favour. If you were a victim of cash fraud, which has been known to happen, they don't want to be held responsible and don't want you to lose money. That's why they are asking - so they still provide the ability for you to withdraw cash while keeping you safe. You could say it's a happy medium.

The easiest method is to just tell them the truth - you're buying building materials from normal people who have them left over. It's not illegal, so they can't refuse.

GeoffTF

Yes the bank are right

pridehappy said:

The easiest method is to just tell them the truth - you're buying building materials from normal people who have them left over. It's not illegal, so they can't refuse.

"If you buy stolen goods, the general rule is that you are not the legal owner even if you paid a fair price and didn’t know that the goods were stolen. The person who originally owned them is still the legal owner."
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/consumer/somethings-gone-wrong-with-a-purchase/stolen-goods-s1/
For your own protection, you should demand proof of ownership if you are buying building materials that are "left over". Demanding cash payment is clearly a warning sign.

Nasqueron

grumbler said:

And it's a pity that in our society cash became pretty much the only safe way of selling expensive items privately.

Unfortunately even that's not really true, you could be robbed on the way, or by the seller if it's a scam, I wouldn't consider paying cash for anything valuable, especially as the car could be stolen and on cloned plates and the scammer could be well on their way before you found out.

Nasqueron

boingy said:

I do think that banks have got the balance wrong at present and I think the the current regime will not catch many scams/frauds but it definitely does inconvenience many of their legitimate customers. Imagine if supermarkets decided to search every bag at the exit, just to catch the shoplifters. The end result is that people will become scared or uncomfortable with banking. Maybe we'll all go back to cash under the mattress. 

I've had transfers held up quite a few times now and while sitting through the very long scripted unblocking process I always think that if I was a scammer I'd give exactly the same answers as I'm giving. Likewise if I had been coerced into a transfer I'd give the same answers because I'm still being coerced. If I'd been tricked into a transfer I'd probably continue with being tricked and give the same answers. If I was taking out a large sum of cash for an illegal purposes I'm unlikely to tell the bank the truth. 

It's particularly frustrating that they seem unable to join up the dots and are unwilling to look back at previous transactions. I had one transfer blocked because a large sum (20K ish) came into the current account from Tandem savings and went straight back out again to Metro savings to get a better rate They were demanding to know where that 20K originated but were unwilling to to scroll back a few months to see that the same sum (ish) had been in the current account before and had gone out to the same Tandem account that they were now querying. A year earlier that amount had actually been in their own savings account! It's the same money plus interest. I think they have to get better at this stuff and they have to make the unblocking script shorter and quicker. It should not take 15 or 20 minutes to get through that stuff.

Some US supermarkets do just that - ask for your receipt and check either some random items or the whole lot. That said, they have security who are actually allowed to do their job, rather than the guys we have who just stand around and can't touch shoplifters let alone threaten to detain with any real weight to the threat if the criminal wants to fight/run

GeoffTF

Yes the bank are right

Nasqueron said:

boingy said:

I do think that banks have got the balance wrong at present and I think the the current regime will not catch many scams/frauds but it definitely does inconvenience many of their legitimate customers. Imagine if supermarkets decided to search every bag at the exit, just to catch the shoplifters. The end result is that people will become scared or uncomfortable with banking. Maybe we'll all go back to cash under the mattress. 

I've had transfers held up quite a few times now and while sitting through the very long scripted unblocking process I always think that if I was a scammer I'd give exactly the same answers as I'm giving. Likewise if I had been coerced into a transfer I'd give the same answers because I'm still being coerced. If I'd been tricked into a transfer I'd probably continue with being tricked and give the same answers. If I was taking out a large sum of cash for an illegal purposes I'm unlikely to tell the bank the truth. 

It's particularly frustrating that they seem unable to join up the dots and are unwilling to look back at previous transactions. I had one transfer blocked because a large sum (20K ish) came into the current account from Tandem savings and went straight back out again to Metro savings to get a better rate They were demanding to know where that 20K originated but were unwilling to to scroll back a few months to see that the same sum (ish) had been in the current account before and had gone out to the same Tandem account that they were now querying. A year earlier that amount had actually been in their own savings account! It's the same money plus interest. I think they have to get better at this stuff and they have to make the unblocking script shorter and quicker. It should not take 15 or 20 minutes to get through that stuff.

Some US supermarkets do just that - ask for your receipt and check either some random items or the whole lot. That said, they have security who are actually allowed to do their job, rather than the guys we have who just stand around and can't touch shoplifters let alone threaten to detain with any real weight to the threat if the criminal wants to fight/run

That has happened to me at my local Asda. Someone else walked through the door and an alarm sounded. The security guard stopped me and checked the goods in my bags against my receipt. Always ask for a receipt!