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

GeoffTF

Yes the bank are right

grumbler said:

GeoffTF said:

grumbler said:

If you lose money through terrible personal security (leaving pin numbers on post it notes, believing anyone who calls is from your bank, having someone else's face or fingerprints registered in your phone etc) then that's your own problem.  I have little sympathy for such cases, although banks do seem too keen to refund right now. In the end that's going to cost us all

And what about the seller who was paid, but later this money is taken back by the bank?

That is theft. You go to the Police with your evidence that your goods have been taken without payment. If they are insured, you get a crime number and make a claim.

Insured against what? If you mean car or home insurance, good luck!

Car insurers do pay up for theft, and so do home insurers for "all risks" items. In reality, I doubt that the bank would be able to claim that they were simply acting on their client's instruction in reversing the payment. I expect that the money would soon be reinstated in your account once they have seen your crime number, Police statement, photographs etc.

grumbler

I'd be surprised if in any documents the Police call this sort of crime 'theft'.

And if you voluntarily post or hand over any valuable item to a scammer I don't think that any home insurance will cover this.

GeoffTF

Yes the bank are right

grumbler said:

I'd be surprised if in any documents the Police call this sort of crime 'theft'.

And if you voluntarily post or hand over any valuable item to a scammer I don't think that any home insurance will cover this.

It is called "making off without payment" and is a criminal offence under section 3 of the Theft Act 1978:

https://www.claims.co.uk/knowledge-base/offences/making-off-without-payment

It is effectively the same as paying by cheque and then deliberately cancelling the cheque.

GeoffTF

Yes the bank are right

IanManc said:

GeoffTF said:

grumbler said:

I'd be surprised if in any documents the Police call this sort of crime 'theft'.

And if you voluntarily post or hand over any valuable item to a scammer I don't think that any home insurance will cover this.

It is called "making off without payment" and is a criminal offence under section 3 of the Theft Act 1978:

https://www.claims.co.uk/knowledge-base/offences/making-off-without-payment

It is effectively the same as paying by cheque and then deliberately cancelling the cheque.

Making off without payment relates to leaving somewhere without paying for goods that are due to be paid for before you leave.

That is not the same thing as money being taken back by a bank, and the offence of making off without payment is of no relevance to that scenario.

The buyer made off with the goods having made an electronic payment, but then instructed his bank to reverse that payment. He has taken the goods and deliberately failed to pay for them. As I understand it, that is theft.

Yorkie1

If actual payment is made at the time then it is not MOWP because payment has been made, even if later reversed.

If actual payment is made at the time then I very much doubt that the offence of theft is made out either.

However, fraud is a more likely offence, either at the point of obtaining the goods by falsely representing that the payment would be valid (not reclaimed), or at the point of reclaiming the payment by false representations at that point.

MrFrugalFever

Yes the bank are right

Good luck with your large cash withdrawals. Personally that smacks of tax avoidance/evasion and the bank is well within their rights to ask you about this in case you are being coerced or scammed as the bank know that once they hand over £10k+ they cannot be refunding it back to you in the event it all goes south.

For future reference for some posters the AML regulation requires action to be taken when a payment is being made to a value of 10,000 EURO's or more. Banks are also required to query withdrawals of the same amount, although I suspect each bank will have their own threshold at which point they start querying (say £1,000 and above etc).

KYC and TCF has effectively been refreshed and now falls under 'Consumer Duty' as of last year and this puts further pressure on all FCA regulated businesses to engage with their customers in a more genuine way to fully understand their needs/requirements/intentions and financial goals. 

GeoffTF

Yes the bank are right

IanManc said:

GeoffTF said:

IanManc said:

GeoffTF said:

grumbler said:

I'd be surprised if in any documents the Police call this sort of crime 'theft'.

And if you voluntarily post or hand over any valuable item to a scammer I don't think that any home insurance will cover this.

It is called "making off without payment" and is a criminal offence under section 3 of the Theft Act 1978:

https://www.claims.co.uk/knowledge-base/offences/making-off-without-payment

It is effectively the same as paying by cheque and then deliberately cancelling the cheque.

Making off without payment relates to leaving somewhere without paying for goods that are due to be paid for before you leave.

That is not the same thing as money being taken back by a bank, and the offence of making off without payment is of no relevance to that scenario.

The buyer made off with the goods having made an electronic payment, but then instructed his bank to reverse that payment. He has taken the goods and deliberately failed to pay for them. As I understand it, that is theft.

It definitely isn't the making off without payment offence that you asserted it was.

Please give a link.

GeoffTF

Yes the bank are right

IanManc said:

GeoffTF said:

IanManc said:

GeoffTF said:

IanManc said:

GeoffTF said:

grumbler said:

I'd be surprised if in any documents the Police call this sort of crime 'theft'.

And if you voluntarily post or hand over any valuable item to a scammer I don't think that any home insurance will cover this.

It is called "making off without payment" and is a criminal offence under section 3 of the Theft Act 1978:

https://www.claims.co.uk/knowledge-base/offences/making-off-without-payment

It is effectively the same as paying by cheque and then deliberately cancelling the cheque.

Making off without payment relates to leaving somewhere without paying for goods that are due to be paid for before you leave.

That is not the same thing as money being taken back by a bank, and the offence of making off without payment is of no relevance to that scenario.

The buyer made off with the goods having made an electronic payment, but then instructed his bank to reverse that payment. He has taken the goods and deliberately failed to pay for them. As I understand it, that is theft.

It definitely isn't the making off without payment offence that you asserted it was.

Please give a link.

Give a link to prove you're wrong? You did that yourself!

I clearly explained what the offence of making off without payment consists of. The link you yourself gave also explains it. A bank taking money back after a payment has been made is not the same as someone leaving a scene before paying for goods for which payment is due on the spot.

If you can't see that then I can't help you.

@Yorkie1 has also tried to explain this to you four posts above.

I do not believe that valid payment has been made if the buyer promptly instructs his bank to reverse the payment, but that would be up to the courts to decide. It is the Police's job to decide the charge. I do not believe that the bank will claim that they are have just acted on their client's instructions and cannot reinstate the payment anyway. If you have proof of the sale, I expect that the bank will return the money to your account.

boingy

At least one of you needs to stop and move on. Otherwise you'll fill up the internet. 

Middle_of_the_Road

Yes the bank are right

Banks should not be allowed to reverse payments on the strength of unfounded claims from the buying party without some sort of proof of wrongdoing by the seller. They're all too quick to take the word of these fraudsters, and seem to make no attempt to find out the situation before blindly take action against their own customers. 
If a transaction is in dispute, they could hold payment until all the facts are established. This would make these false claims scams a little less appealing to these opportunists.