Nationwide flex account anti money laundering measures

MattMattMattUK

BRichard said:

Absolutely, that's why I said it's outrageous.

Outrageous that bank are required to comply with the law?

Nasqueron

BRichard said:

Absolutely, that's why I said it's outrageous.

Money Laundering and financial crime is a serious issue helping criminals avoid tax, avoid sanctions and hide stolen money, that is why the law requires the banks to know their customers. I would prefer mild inconvenience to turning us into the Cayman Islands helping people like Russian oligarchs hide their ill-gotten gains. Lobby your MP if you want more secrecy in banking, don't attack the banks complying with their regulatory requirements.

COIAHLGW

Your relative should have another account at another FI ready to go, just in case....  Even if it is not used much, it is still always a good practice to have one in case of any account shutdowns / glitches.

BRichard

It's unfortunate we actually seem to have people who want to argue in favour of giving more personal data to the government and the implication seems to be that if we want "secrecy" there must be something wrong. There are reasons to be against ever increasing government surveillance which are not motivated by anything criminal or dishonest. Governments do not have a great track record when it comes to misuse, and lax security of personal data, and there have been many instances of data breaches with banks as well.

UKX69

BRichard said:

It's unfortunate we actually seem to have people who want to argue in favour of giving more personal data to the government and the implication seems to be that if we want "secrecy" there must be something wrong. There are reasons to be against ever increasing government surveillance which are not motivated by anything criminal or dishonest. Governments do not have a great track record when it comes to misuse, and lax security of personal data, and there have been many instances of data breaches with banks as well.

Quite right. Don’t mind giving details when needed, but draw the line on overkill.

born_again

BRichard said:

It's unfortunate we actually seem to have people who want to argue in favour of giving more personal data to the government and the implication seems to be that if we want "secrecy" there must be something wrong. There are reasons to be against ever increasing government surveillance which are not motivated by anything criminal or dishonest. Governments do not have a great track record when it comes to misuse, and lax security of personal data, and there have been many instances of data breaches with banks as well.

What has source of funds details to a bank got to do with the government?

The more one doth argue, the more guilty one looks.

Nothing personal 👍

Their rules & their game. It is a case of comply or go elsewhere, but that may mean that details are shared with new bank, on failure to comply as per regulations.

BRichard

The more guilty I look? You must be trolling.

DullGreyGuy

BRichard said:

It's unfortunate we actually seem to have people who want to argue in favour of giving more personal data to the government and the implication seems to be that if we want "secrecy" there must be something wrong. There are reasons to be against ever increasing government surveillance which are not motivated by anything criminal or dishonest. Governments do not have a great track record when it comes to misuse, and lax security of personal data, and there have been many instances of data breaches with banks as well.

It doesn't go to the government, it goes to the bank. The bank can then state they are complying with legislation by asking these questions and refusing to deal with those who arent willing to answer the questions.

Several banks have received fines into the billions for failing to make appropriate enquiries, keeping records etc. It's rather triggering for other banks or other subsidiaries in other countries to then realise they need to get their house in order to avoid such a fine themselves. Banks tend to go big so you tend to get a load of posts about the same bank at the same time as they make a concerted effort to fill gaps in their records. We had a lot of pain with HSBC a couple of years ago when they were repeating their KYC on all business account holders

BRichard

Isn't the data passed to the government if they ask for it? If they were investigating money laundering for instance. I have already explained that I do not trust banks or governments with any more personal data than I have to because they have a track record of misusing data and not keeping it secure.

DullGreyGuy

BRichard said:

Isn't the data passed to the government if they ask for it? If they were investigating money laundering for instance. I have already explained that I do not trust banks or governments with any more personal data than I have to because they have a track record of misusing data and not keeping it secure.

Government doesn't investigate money laundering, the National Crime Agency does as a law enforcement agency. 

Like the police they can ask for evidence to support investigation of a crime and have to go through due process for the data protection release. That goes the same for any law enforcement agency wanting to collect evidence, once had the police asking for the owner of a particular clubcard as a stolen vehicle was found with a cash receipt with club card number on it after the vehicle was recovered.