Revolut handed customers ID including passports to scammers

Ergates

And wider still, it would be a great idea if criminal investigations were initiated and actioned by the organisations allegedly created for the purpose - the police and the courts - instead of badly scripted bank software and clerks in a call centre backroom.

For that to be an option, the police and courts would need full access to monitor your bank account and transactions. Do you want that to happen?

Chief_of_Staffy

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82141047#Comment_82141047

Why would they need that? The suspected crime would be reported by the bank. Then the police would investigate. If there was evidence of criminality then at that time, and not before, they may impose intermediate sanctions. In the same way police don't need cameras in your house to investigate a crime committed within, they don't need access to your bank account to investigate associated suspicious activity.

masonic

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82141247#Comment_82141247

That is a description of the bank initiating and actioning an investigation, only handing over to the police when they've found something suspected of being criminal. That is essentially what happens now.

If instead the police were to do that, they'd need to be able to search for suspicious activity themselves, which would require them having access to the banking data of anyone capable of criminal activity.

Unlike a burglary or assault taking place in a home, financial crime is unlikely to be reported by the account holder, especially when said account holder is committing the crime, or enabling it. Someone needs to do the detective work to find the accounts doing dodgy things. You say that shouldn't be the bank, which is fair enough, so give the police the data to sift through instead.

One slight problem with the above is that the banks are currently doing what they do for free (yes paid for by by customers in the end), whereas the police will require additional funding from taxation. The latter may be politically and socially unpalatable, given the level of taxation is already a sore point.

Chief_of_Staffy

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82141545#Comment_82141545

It's not what happens, however. The banks are mandated to take immediate action on suspicion of malfeasance, from rejecting a transaction to locking the account completely, without notice and for an indefinite period. Indeed, 'suspicion of malfeasance' is too strong a description, it's more like any inability to guarantee full compliance with the law. In terms of the house analogy, it's a bit like a landlord saying, "I don't like the way my tenant comes and goes at odd hours, I suspect he's up to something so I'll just lock him out on the street until I can find time to check it myself. And if he asks, I'll say I can't discuss it."

masonic

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82141930#Comment_82141930

Yes, the law requires the bank to freeze the account at the point they perform the obligation of notifying the authorities of the suspected criminal activity.

It is not for an indefinite period, though. The account can be frozen for 7 working days plus a 31 day moratorium while the NCA considers the case. After that it can be extended in limited circumstances by court order.

In other words, the length of time the account remains frozen is already in the hands of the law. The bank has no choice in the matter.

In the house analogy, it is like the police cordoning off the property ahead of a forensic investigation, but forensics not showing up for a few weeks.

I wouldn't disagree with you that it often takes too long for the authorities to perform their investigation. However, your proposed solution of making them do more of the initial leg-work is unlikely to change this. A better solution would be to give the authorities more funding so that they can triage statutory reports more promptly.

Maegi

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82135930#Comment_82135930

I asked Rita to close their account with them a number of years ago (when they replaced my Mastercard & Maestro cards with Visa prepays) 10p remaining but 'she' refused to do so without a written letter.

It's still open as i recently logged into an online retailer that i hadn't used for more than five years and Revolut had automatically linked itself for payment.

GDPR clearly doesn't get a look in at that place.