Horror Story

[AF62]

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

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.

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.

[Mike4]

Never mind all the above, I'm still curious about what is supposed to happen when the bank is not satisfied with the answers given about where the money came from.

Do they have to send it back? Or hang onto it and call the old bill? Or what? Because the bank in the OP seems to have just done nothing other than sit on it indefinitely and drive the genuine owner into insolvency, which seems a strange course of action if that is what the law requires.

[AF62]

Never mind all the above, I'm still curious about what is supposed to happen when the bank is not satisfied with the answers given about where the money came from.

Do they have to send it back? Or hang onto it and call the old bill? Or what? Because the bank in the OP seems to have just done nothing other than sit on it indefinitely and drive the genuine owner into insolvency, which seems a strange course of action if that is what the law requires.

They disclose it to the National Crime Agency - https://www.brettwilson.co.uk/services/ ... y-reports/ but as noted in that article, the bank is prevented by law from disclosing the fact that it has made a SAR so the customer just thinks the bank is doing nothing to solve their problem.

[elkay]

They disclose it to the National Crime Agency - https://www.brettwilson.co.uk/services/ ... y-reports/ but as noted in that article, the bank is prevented by law from disclosing the fact that it has made a SAR so the customer just thinks the bank is doing nothing to solve their problem.

This is the bit that concerns me....
- If the bank is suspicious than an offence has occurred, they will be guilty of "tipping off" the account holder, by freezing the account.
- If they are not suspicious, then the account holder should be allowed to operate the account.

It seems a bit of a Catch-22 situation to me.

elkay