stevensfo wrote:AF62 wrote:stevensfo wrote:AF62 wrote:Mike4 wrote:I have to say I think I'd be onto my solicitor after about a week of a new bank refusing to give me access to my funds.
But what the bank is asking for proof that they are actually *your* funds, and you are not acting as a money mule or facilitating some other scam where you are passing *someone else's* money through that new account.
Anyway, the story of someone who has fallen out with their existing bank for unspecified reasons and oddly the first transaction with the new bank is the deposit of £25k and not a pay cheque or something else more normal - sorry, not getting a lot of sympathy here.
Although I hate to admit it, given the constant stream of banks in court, I can understand that they may be suspicious if a large amount of cash is paid in to an account or funds deposited from foreign sources. But where a deposit originates from a well-known UK source, surely there should be no problem. In that case, shouldn't they be asking the bank?
Steve
The money mules 'hop' the money through a number of accounts to make it more difficult to recover, so just because it came from a UK bank doesn't make it 'clean'.
I've been following the financial news for many years and from what I read, the amounts transferred are usually well over 25,000 and the accounts raise suspicion because they have not been open for very long.
Not at all. Here is an example for £12k - https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/ ... resolve-it
Did the fraudster own the account the £12k was transferred into, probably not - https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/ ... k-accounts
stevensfo wrote:The take-home message is that the serious money launderers and corrupt organisations are well-known to the authorities. I think this is pretty much obvious.
I am sure the *serious* "money launderers and corrupt organisations" might be known to the authorities, but does £12k fall as "serious" and even if it does, the fraudsters are likely on a different continent and well out of the reach of the arm of UK law enforcement.
stevensfo wrote:The pressures on the law-abiding people who wouldn't know what AML was if it bit them on the bum, is more to do with the smoke and mirrors damage limitation that started after the financial crisis. Banks have to at least pretend that they're taking it all very seriously, while letting the corruption continue, including using offshore companies to purchase properties and pay salaries.
Steve
Banks now have to take it seriously because otherwise the contingent reimbursement model rules come back to bite them.