Absolutely FUMING with Abbey

gatita

Tomm
WHY are you reading this thread if it bores you so much? Its SO easy not to click on it, if you want to know how its done, I am sure someone will be kind enough to show you how. I don't have time as I am enjoying myself lazing in the sun

dchurch24

Perhaps we should ask Northern Rock and the rest of the banking industry what they are going to do with OUR money?


...but, if, as so many people have said, that it's law that they ask these question;

a) can you provide a link to the statute?
b) most banks must be breaking the law, as most do not ask this question.

...so, is it law, or isn't it.

Personally, I don't believe that it is - yet.

dchurch24

dunstonh wrote: »

Im no longer with a bank but obviously need to keep up to date with money laundering regs. Banks will have their own floor limits on amounts. Unusual transactions or even regular transactions can require questioning. The questions if done ideally would be in a conversation style.

I reported someone once for making frequent cash payments into his credit card. His occupation didnt match someone that should be handling so much cash. Tax and benefits fraud also comes under money laundering regs. So its not just money laundering itself any more. In his case I suspect it wasnt money laundering but tax evasion.

Also, as for the personality of the individual, I was once involved in a fraud where someone who seemed very friendly and knowing did some transactions over a period of 2-3 months and got known to the staff visually so we didnt have to check his signature any more as we knew it was him. He then switched to a stolen cheque book to make withdrawals on another account. The bank lost thousands over a period of a few weeks. When it was investigated it was found that flaws had happened at every stage. His own account was set up with a fake name. The staff member had let him off with not enough ID because he seemed genuine and the staff member was fairly new to the job and the cashiers had fallen for his charm and personality and became complecent because they thought they knew him.

Whilst you as a customer may not see things like that as you only look at your position, do remember the bank staff see a lot more and many of the rules in place today have stopped a lot of the old frauds that used to take place. Yes, its an inconvenience to the genuine customers but also remember that if you are genuine you have nothing to hide. But dont blame the staff.

Just think what comments you would be posting on this board if your account was emptied by a fraudster. No doubt you would complain that the bank didnt do enough to stop it.

No offence meant to you, but when was it that bank staff became policemen?

setmefree

dunstonh wrote: »

.

I reported someone once for making frequent cash payments into his credit card. His occupation didnt match someone that should be handling so much cash.

.

Wow perhaps i should report this Government for making frequent billion payments into the Banking industry, i'm sure their occupations dont match that salary

just a joke
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

dchurch24

Now, this is probably going to cause offence - and none is meant, but I'm not sure what qualifies bank staff to make decisions like "does this person seem suspicious?"

Personally, I think that they are justifying their jobs by claiming that this is the case.

I'm convinced it's asked so they can cross-sell you other 'products' and nothing more.

Reporting fraud to the police does nothing - they are no longer even investigating credit card fraud.

Surely, something as technical and demanding as detecting fraud wouldn't be left up to a simple, minimum wage bank teller?

....but then knowing the contempt that banks treat their customers with these days, maybe they would.

dunstonh

No offence meant to you, but when was it that bank staff became policemen?

1984 is when it all started albeit on a much lighter touch than it is today. Frequent acts of parliament since have increased the requirements. Many in the industry have used the term "unpaid policemen" on behalf of the Govt.

I have an apology to make. I have misled. Its not 15 years imprisonment but 14 years for which those in financial services can face.

Now, this is probably going to cause offence - and none is meant, but I'm not sure what qualifies bank staff to make decisions like "does this person seem suspicious?"

Training and experience and internal guidelines. Remember its not just money laundering but also tax evasion, benefit fraud and anything similar to that. The rules apply to estate agents, solicitors, accountants, financial advisers and bankers and some others.

Personally, I think that they are justifying their jobs by claiming that this is the case.

Nope. Indeed, I told an IFA to report a case today that he was asking me for an opinion on which he has done. It is now being investigated. Fairly likely the case will be given the ok and the person involved will never know they have been investigated. However, its not worth the risk for the IFA in question not to report it.

ShelfStacker_3

dchurch24 wrote: »

No offence meant to you, but when was it that bank staff became policemen?

By this standard, supermarket cashiers shouldn't try and stop under 18s buying booze, lest they become "policemen". Just let them go through, it's not your job to do anything about it!

dchurch24

Good point, and one I hadn't thought of.