Barclays terminating my account without explanation
Comments
-
This is unacceptable. Legislation should be brought in requiring banks to provide the reason for closing a personal account.
There is actually a lot of Legislation that says that banks cannot tip off people if they are suspected of criminal activity.
You are operating under the assumption that banks have the time and resources to close peoples accounts for no reason.. If anything banks are required to have a certain amount of customers within each current account bracket including non-profitable customers.
it is likely that the OP has perhaps had a lot of chargebacks against his name maybe without his knowledge, Payments from accounts that have been confirmed as fraud. Potential money laundering risks. All of which could be without OP's knowledge but the Bank isn't allowed to confirm these until any external investigation is complete. In the mean time they can cease the relationship.Save £12k in 2019 -0 -
@John Galt - could it be anything to do with this? Can you recall ever being asked to confirm information by Barclays and you haven't done it?
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5708407
I'd be seconding this as a possible reason. I used to work for them, and people who did not update this were at risk of getting their accounts closed as it would mean Barclays didn't have up to date information which they're legally required to. And they will have sent numerous reminders. Or at least should have.0 -
This is unacceptable. Legislation should be brought in requiring banks to provide the reason for closing a personal account.AstroTurtle wrote: »There is actually a lot of Legislation that says that banks cannot tip off people if they are suspected of criminal activity.
You are operating under the assumption that banks have the time and resources to close peoples accounts for no reason.. If anything banks are required to have a certain amount of customers within each current account bracket including non-profitable customers.
it is likely that the OP has perhaps had a lot of chargebacks against his name maybe without his knowledge, Payments from accounts that have been confirmed as fraud. Potential money laundering risks. All of which could be without OP's knowledge but the Bank isn't allowed to confirm these until any external investigation is complete. In the mean time they can cease the relationship.
Therefore I would expect the police to be informed. Or are the police happy for the banks to investigate and close any account where criminal activity is suspected?
If this is the case, it is worrying that the authorities allow innocent victims to be treated in this way.
PS: I have never heard of a case where the banks have come clean and given a reason to an innocent victim after an investigation.0 -
-
Thrugelmir wrote: »Before jumping to any conclusions one needs the full facts. Not just from one party. As customers we all pay for the operational costs of the banks. In one form or another.
PS: Are we happy that banks can now act as police, judge, jury and executioner?0 -
Therefore I would expect the police to be informed. Or are the police happy for the banks to investigate and close any account where criminal activity is suspected.0
-
Therefore I would expect the police to be informed. Or are the police happy for the banks to investigate and close any account where criminal activity is suspected?PeacefulWaters wrote: »How do you know police haven't been informed? Or aren't investigating?
But if they were being investigated by the police surely the holder of the closed bank account should be informed at some point. I believe that a suspect has a right of reply.
But I have never heard of any such (innocent) suspect being contacted by the police at any point in any investigation.0 -
I am not saying that the police are neither informed nor investigating.
But if they were being investigated by the police surely the holder of the closed bank account should be informed at some point. I believe that a suspect has a right of reply.
But I have never heard of any such (innocent) suspect being contacted by the police at any point in any investigation.
If a bank staff member has the slightest suspicion of money laundering they have to report it. They cannot in any way tip off the customer. Tipping off carries a heavy prison sentence.
The right to reply only comes if the police bring in the suspect for questioning.
If a bank is informed that there is insufficient evidence they can choose to close an account but revealing the reason as suspected money laundering would still mean possible prison time for bank staff.
Granted, there are other reasons why accounts may be closed. But giving reasons for those and saying nothing to a suspected money launderer would rather give the game away, don't you think?0 -
PeacefulWaters wrote: »If a bank staff member has the slightest suspicion of money laundering they have to report it. They cannot in any way tip off the customer. Tipping off carries a heavy prison sentence.
The right to reply only comes if the police bring in the suspect for questioning.
If a bank is informed that there is insufficient evidence they can choose to close an account but revealing the reason as suspected money laundering would still mean possible prison time for bank staff.
Granted, there are other reasons why accounts may be closed. But giving reasons for those and saying nothing to a suspected money launderer would rather give the game away, don't you think?
Just for clarity I will summarise my understanding of the process as you have described. I am also quite happy to accept your statements regarding possible prison sentences for bank staff.
1. A bank staff member has suspicion of money laundering and reports it to the relevant department in the bank.
2. The bank decide that there is some possible substance to the suggestion of money laundering.
3. The bank informs the police who investigate the issue but decide that there is insufficient evidence and inform the bank of this.
4. The bank decide to close the bank account but cannot reveal the reason for fear of possible prison time.
5. There is insufficient evidence for the police to instigate any criminal proceedings but the bank account holder has had their account closed. They do not know why and at no point are they aware that the police have investigated them so have never had any right of reply.
6. The justification for never giving a reason is that it would give the game away to the suspected money launderer.
I do have one further question which is whether a bank ever decides to close an account before the police investigation is concluded?
I would understand if you declined to answer for fear of falling foul of the AML legislation.0 -
PeacefulWaters wrote: »If a bank staff member has the slightest suspicion of money laundering they have to report it. They cannot in any way tip off the customer. Tipping off carries a heavy prison sentence.
Err... guys... I am not laundering money and nothing in my bank statements supports any theory of criminal or inappropriate activity... for one thing, the amounts are relatively insignificant and second, the number of transactions is also relatively insignificant.
Also, it would be a little odd if Barclays would allow everything to be transferred to another bank - intact, via switch - if there was any suspicion of crime, don't you think? That would only shift the problem elsewhere and seems unlikely. Also, they are closing my current account and savings account... but are allowing my mortgage to continue... what does that suggest?
The mystery continues...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards