DF Capital

mills112

eskbanker said:

mills112 said:

i know that amounts over a certain X will trigger questions, so it may be the 100k that trigger questions.  i know that AML is not related to the FSCS limit, i was saying that it is the increase in the FSCS limit that made me put more than 100k into an account and so the AML has been triggered, where I never had any issue before.

That still only demonstrates correlation, rather than causation, i.e. AML for a transaction over £100K doesn't imply that it's because it exceeded £100K....

i suppose you are right but i have never had this issue before and i have invested with at least 20 banks during my time and the only difference here is the amount is more than 85k it may be the imporant factor here.

masonic

mills112 said:

eskbanker said:

mills112 said:

i know that amounts over a certain X will trigger questions, so it may be the 100k that trigger questions.  i know that AML is not related to the FSCS limit, i was saying that it is the increase in the FSCS limit that made me put more than 100k into an account and so the AML has been triggered, where I never had any issue before.

That still only demonstrates correlation, rather than causation, i.e. AML for a transaction over £100K doesn't imply that it's because it exceeded £100K....

i suppose you are right but i have never had this issue before and i have invested with at least 20 banks during my time and the only difference here is the amount is more than 85k it may be the imporant factor here.

In fairness, nobody has any specific issue until they have it for the first time.

eskbanker

mills112 said:

eskbanker said:

mills112 said:

i know that amounts over a certain X will trigger questions, so it may be the 100k that trigger questions.  i know that AML is not related to the FSCS limit, i was saying that it is the increase in the FSCS limit that made me put more than 100k into an account and so the AML has been triggered, where I never had any issue before.

That still only demonstrates correlation, rather than causation, i.e. AML for a transaction over £100K doesn't imply that it's because it exceeded £100K....

i suppose you are right but i have never had this issue before and i have invested with at least 20 banks during my time and the only difference here is the amount is more than 85k it may be the imporant factor here.

But if this is the first of those transactions since tweaks to the AML regulations (or their implementation) then that's at least as likely to be the important difference.

poseidon1

mills112 said:

eskbanker said:

mills112 said:

i know that amounts over a certain X will trigger questions, so it may be the 100k that trigger questions.  i know that AML is not related to the FSCS limit, i was saying that it is the increase in the FSCS limit that made me put more than 100k into an account and so the AML has been triggered, where I never had any issue before.

That still only demonstrates correlation, rather than causation, i.e. AML for a transaction over £100K doesn't imply that it's because it exceeded £100K....

i suppose you are right but i have never had this issue before and i have invested with at least 20 banks during my time and the only difference here is the amount is more than 85k it may be the imporant factor here.

Your adverse experience suffices to cross DF Capital off my extensive list of potential deposit takers, so I certainly appreciate your sharing.

By the way Oxbury bank is of similar size so not necessarily the reason for DF's nonsensical request.

With their version of AML Oxbury seem to have been  happy to assume Chase Bank had done appropriate due diligence on the funds I had originally deposited ( they hadn't).

slinger2

My £6k in presumably the same 4.41% 2-year fix went through without a hitch. Clearly it's the £120k that's the issue. (I've been a customer with them for a year or so, never had a problem)

mills112

eskbanker said:

mills112 said:

eskbanker said:

mills112 said:

i know that amounts over a certain X will trigger questions, so it may be the 100k that trigger questions.  i know that AML is not related to the FSCS limit, i was saying that it is the increase in the FSCS limit that made me put more than 100k into an account and so the AML has been triggered, where I never had any issue before.

That still only demonstrates correlation, rather than causation, i.e. AML for a transaction over £100K doesn't imply that it's because it exceeded £100K....

i suppose you are right but i have never had this issue before and i have invested with at least 20 banks during my time and the only difference here is the amount is more than 85k it may be the imporant factor here.

But if this is the first of those transactions since tweaks to the AML regulations (or their implementation) then that's at least as likely to be the important difference.

but i put in 35k into investec and 35k into kent reliance at the same time and they have been fine.  no issue at all. so it can't be this new AML regulations.

mills112

poseidon1 said:

mills112 said:

eskbanker said:

mills112 said:

i know that amounts over a certain X will trigger questions, so it may be the 100k that trigger questions.  i know that AML is not related to the FSCS limit, i was saying that it is the increase in the FSCS limit that made me put more than 100k into an account and so the AML has been triggered, where I never had any issue before.

That still only demonstrates correlation, rather than causation, i.e. AML for a transaction over £100K doesn't imply that it's because it exceeded £100K....

i suppose you are right but i have never had this issue before and i have invested with at least 20 banks during my time and the only difference here is the amount is more than 85k it may be the imporant factor here.

Your adverse experience suffices to cross DF Capital off my extensive list of potential deposit takers, so I certainly appreciate your sharing.

By the way Oxbury bank is of similar size so not necessarily the reason for DF's nonsensical request.

With their version of AML Oxbury seem to have been  happy to assume Chase Bank had done appropriate due diligence on the funds I had originally deposited ( they hadn't).

exactly this.  if money comes from a uk current account, and mine came from Natwest, then it can be safely assumed that Natwest would have already investigated any issues with the money if there was a problem.  it is not from a foreign bank or a non standard uk one, but a large bank like natwest.  they should really use some common sense when it comes to money laundering checks and not start nit picking.  that questionaire is just ridiculous for a credit of 120k, where i am asked to provide all sorts of details about my finance, which has nothing to do with them and certainly nothing to do with the 120k that they should be investigating, if they need to do this.  i don't need to be investigated like i am a criminal and have to demonstrate where all my money comes from, simply because i had decided to open a 24 months savings account with them.

mills112

slinger2 said:

My £6k in presumably the same 4.41% 2-year fix went through without a hitch. Clearly it's the £120k that's the issue. (I've been a customer with them for a year or so, never had a problem)

yes, it is definately the high value that is the problem.  but 120k is actually not that much for a large bank and i have deposited 85k with lots of banks in the past and never had this problem.

masonic

mills112 said:

eskbanker said:

mills112 said:

eskbanker said:

mills112 said:

i know that amounts over a certain X will trigger questions, so it may be the 100k that trigger questions.  i know that AML is not related to the FSCS limit, i was saying that it is the increase in the FSCS limit that made me put more than 100k into an account and so the AML has been triggered, where I never had any issue before.

That still only demonstrates correlation, rather than causation, i.e. AML for a transaction over £100K doesn't imply that it's because it exceeded £100K....

i suppose you are right but i have never had this issue before and i have invested with at least 20 banks during my time and the only difference here is the amount is more than 85k it may be the imporant factor here.

But if this is the first of those transactions since tweaks to the AML regulations (or their implementation) then that's at least as likely to be the important difference.

but i put in 35k into investec and 35k into kent reliance at the same time and they have been fine.  no issue at all. so it can't be this new AML regulations.

The thread now appears to have been deleted, but someone else was complaining of experiencing this with another bank today.

It is a shame it's gone as it contained useful information, including that these changes are being rolled out gradually (also mentioned earlier in this thread).

mills112

update 2 - i was sceptical that the money would actually be back in my account by the end of today as I had asked for the account to be closed and the money to be returned to my nominated account at around 2.30pm so that would normally have missed the CHAPS cut off time for arriving back on the same business day, but it is indeed all back in my account now, but of course without any interest paid so I have lost nearly 2 weeks of interest on 120k (angry emoticon)

won't be using this joker again in future.  but at least i got my money back quickly as they could have hang on to the money for a while if they wanted to.