New Barclays account to be closed, No reason given

born_again

trient said:

ivormonee said:

trient said:

some internal exchanges that alluded to suspicion of fraud

It seems an exceptionally low bar to have bank accounts unilaterally closed on mere suspicion of fraud, without anything more tangible. 

And that's why, in spite of the usual advice here to leave it and move on, I insisted on taking the issue beyond the mere "computer says no". Of course they never "tipped me off" as to the nature of their initial ruling, but they did eventually carry out an internal investigation and must have realised they were in the wrong. But yes, their unilateral action was completely unwarranted hence I wasn't able to let it go.

Computer will only say NO when you apply. Anything after account is opened, that is due to human intervention.

Nasqueron

boingy said:

The "tipping-off" thing always has me a bit puzzled. If you're up to no good and your account gets frozen surely that a pretty big clue that you've been rumbled. You'd have to be daft to think anything else.

And most people are not up to no good!

Because they don't want the people who are up to no good to be able to work out how they were compromised, whether it was a particular payment (so they know not to use that way again) or the type of payments (so they know to vary them) etc. Anyone doing a crime will know there is a chance they get rumbled eventually so giving them help on how they were caught is banned 

grumpy_codger

Yorkie1 said:

ivormonee said:

trient said:

some internal exchanges that alluded to suspicion of fraud

It seems an exceptionally low bar to have bank accounts unilaterally closed on mere suspicion of fraud, without anything more tangible. In theory, most transactions could potentially allude to suspicion of fraud whereas in reality they are normal transactions for the account holder! What banks ought to be doing, to be seen to be fair, is to question the account holder if any suspicions arise for them, thereby giving them the opportunity to provide explanations and/ or evidence to allay those suspicions, rather than just point-blank closing the account.

Whilst not disagreeing with the sentiment of your post, the law specifically forbids banks from doing this (the anti-money laundering tipping-off rules).

Can you quote the part of the rules specifically forbidding asking questions?

flaneurs_lobster

grumpy_codger said:

Yorkie1 said:

ivormonee said:

trient said:

some internal exchanges that alluded to suspicion of fraud

It seems an exceptionally low bar to have bank accounts unilaterally closed on mere suspicion of fraud, without anything more tangible. In theory, most transactions could potentially allude to suspicion of fraud whereas in reality they are normal transactions for the account holder! What banks ought to be doing, to be seen to be fair, is to question the account holder if any suspicions arise for them, thereby giving them the opportunity to provide explanations and/ or evidence to allay those suspicions, rather than just point-blank closing the account.

Whilst not disagreeing with the sentiment of your post, the law specifically forbids banks from doing this (the anti-money laundering tipping-off rules).

Can you quote the part of the rules specifically forbidding asking questions?

Don't think there's any rules about asking questions, giving answers however... 

Yorkie1

flaneurs_lobster said:

grumpy_codger said:

Yorkie1 said:

ivormonee said:

trient said:

some internal exchanges that alluded to suspicion of fraud

It seems an exceptionally low bar to have bank accounts unilaterally closed on mere suspicion of fraud, without anything more tangible. In theory, most transactions could potentially allude to suspicion of fraud whereas in reality they are normal transactions for the account holder! What banks ought to be doing, to be seen to be fair, is to question the account holder if any suspicions arise for them, thereby giving them the opportunity to provide explanations and/ or evidence to allay those suspicions, rather than just point-blank closing the account.

Whilst not disagreeing with the sentiment of your post, the law specifically forbids banks from doing this (the anti-money laundering tipping-off rules).

Can you quote the part of the rules specifically forbidding asking questions?

Don't think there's any rules about asking questions, giving answers however... 

The mere fact of communicating an issue, whether by using the question or information format, might constitute tipping off by alerting the account holder to a suspicion or an investigation of money laundering or other similar issues. 

grumpy_codger

flaneurs_lobster said:

grumpy_codger said:

Yorkie1 said:

ivormonee said:

trient said:

some internal exchanges that alluded to suspicion of fraud

It seems an exceptionally low bar to have bank accounts unilaterally closed on mere suspicion of fraud, without anything more tangible. In theory, most transactions could potentially allude to suspicion of fraud whereas in reality they are normal transactions for the account holder! What banks ought to be doing, to be seen to be fair, is to question the account holder if any suspicions arise for them, thereby giving them the opportunity to provide explanations and/ or evidence to allay those suspicions, rather than just point-blank closing the account.

Whilst not disagreeing with the sentiment of your post, the law specifically forbids banks from doing this (the anti-money laundering tipping-off rules).

Can you quote the part of the rules specifically forbidding asking questions?

Don't think there's any rules about asking questions,...

Yes, that was exactly my point. 

If so, then the statement that the law "specifically forbids banks"  "to question the account holder" is nothing but an urban myth or some overzealous interpretation of the term 'tipping-off'.

Eco_Miser

Yorkie1 said:

flaneurs_lobster said:

grumpy_codger said:

Yorkie1 said:

ivormonee said:

trient said:

some internal exchanges that alluded to suspicion of fraud

It seems an exceptionally low bar to have bank accounts unilaterally closed on mere suspicion of fraud, without anything more tangible. In theory, most transactions could potentially allude to suspicion of fraud whereas in reality they are normal transactions for the account holder! What banks ought to be doing, to be seen to be fair, is to question the account holder if any suspicions arise for them, thereby giving them the opportunity to provide explanations and/ or evidence to allay those suspicions, rather than just point-blank closing the account.

Whilst not disagreeing with the sentiment of your post, the law specifically forbids banks from doing this (the anti-money laundering tipping-off rules).

Can you quote the part of the rules specifically forbidding asking questions?

Don't think there's any rules about asking questions, giving answers however... 

The mere fact of communicating an issue, whether by using the question or information format, might constitute tipping off by alerting the account holder to a suspicion or an investigation of money laundering or other similar issues. 

As does freezing or closing an account, especially an immediate closure.

GeoffTF

grumpy_codger said:

flaneurs_lobster said:

grumpy_codger said:

Yorkie1 said:

ivormonee said:

trient said:

some internal exchanges that alluded to suspicion of fraud

It seems an exceptionally low bar to have bank accounts unilaterally closed on mere suspicion of fraud, without anything more tangible. In theory, most transactions could potentially allude to suspicion of fraud whereas in reality they are normal transactions for the account holder! What banks ought to be doing, to be seen to be fair, is to question the account holder if any suspicions arise for them, thereby giving them the opportunity to provide explanations and/ or evidence to allay those suspicions, rather than just point-blank closing the account.

Whilst not disagreeing with the sentiment of your post, the law specifically forbids banks from doing this (the anti-money laundering tipping-off rules).

Can you quote the part of the rules specifically forbidding asking questions?

Don't think there's any rules about asking questions,...

Yes, that was exactly my point. 

If so, then the statement that the law "specifically forbids banks"  "to question the account holder" is nothing but an urban myth or some overzealous interpretation of the term 'tipping-off'.

The customer can ask questions, but the bank cannot answer them. The customer may not yet have realised that his account had been frozen. The bank cannot ask any questions that would give the customer any more information (just about all of them). The practical solution for the bank is not to ask the customer questions at all.

Grumpy_chap

boingy said:

The "tipping-off" thing always has me a bit puzzled. If you're up to no good and your account gets frozen surely that a pretty big clue that you've been rumbled. You'd have to be daft to think anything else.

And most people are not up to no good!

The "tipping off" part is not about preventing the individual from realising they've been rumbled, but preventing the individual from being able to access the possibly ill-gotten gains.

Consider an individual who the bank suspects of receiving money from money-mule activity or selling drugs or whatever.
If the bank simply freezes that account while they do their investigations, then the individual is aware that they have been rumbled but there is nothing the individual can do about it.
If the back phones the individual and asks them to clarify the source of the funds, the individual will be moving those funds out while the call is in progress, so the bank might then freeze the account but by that time the individual is largely un-bothered.

grumpy_codger

GeoffTF said:

grumpy_codger said:

flaneurs_lobster said:

grumpy_codger said:

Yorkie1 said:

ivormonee said:

trient said:

some internal exchanges that alluded to suspicion of fraud

It seems an exceptionally low bar to have bank accounts unilaterally closed on mere suspicion of fraud, without anything more tangible. In theory, most transactions could potentially allude to suspicion of fraud whereas in reality they are normal transactions for the account holder! What banks ought to be doing, to be seen to be fair, is to question the account holder if any suspicions arise for them, thereby giving them the opportunity to provide explanations and/ or evidence to allay those suspicions, rather than just point-blank closing the account.

Whilst not disagreeing with the sentiment of your post, the law specifically forbids banks from doing this (the anti-money laundering tipping-off rules).

Can you quote the part of the rules specifically forbidding asking questions?

Don't think there's any rules about asking questions,...

Yes, that was exactly my point. 

If so, then the statement that the law "specifically forbids banks"  "to question the account holder" is nothing but an urban myth or some overzealous interpretation of the term 'tipping-off'.

...The bank cannot ask any questions that would give the customer any more information (just about all of them). The practical solution for the bank is not to ask the customer questions at all.

Practical solution - maybe. Belt and braces. Everything else is yet another opinion or overzealous interpretation that, most likely, has little to do with what the law actually says.