Careful what you say, or you may end up without any banking facilities.

Thank you M0nica for the above post, I enjoyed the clarity of it, even though it was addressed to DL

growstuff ... I'm not sure what your point is?

But, so far as NF has disclosed he had a certain amount of time (look it up I've forgotten ) to transfer his money out of Coutts.

As he was refused a suitable account by other banks (dont forget they all work under the same limitations).

M0nica reiterated above 'mud sticks', so when one bank drops you another doesn't want you either.

Coutts of course held on to NR cash.
He wrote a letter saying something along the lines of,

I will come with a security van to collect my money in cash, if unless something is sorted out

Ergo, new boss made an offer to him to keep his account.

M0nica

Diamondlilly Most people who have had bank accounts closed down have found it almost impossible to open an account with another bank. It is the 'mud sticks' problem.

If one bank has terminated your account and you have no way of knowing why, other banks do not check with your previous bank, they just mark you down as 'trouble' and turn you down.

Who or what Nigel Farage is is utterly irrelevant, it doesn't matter who it is, Andrew Tate, a known criminal, it doesn't matter. It is simply impossible to function and live in modern society unless you have a bank account and the less and less cash is used the more essential it is to have one.To be deprived of a bank account without a full investigation and, I think, a publishable reason, should not be possible.

I know we have been told that banks etc may have access to secret knowledge of crimial behaviour, but I think the only reason the banks should have for closing down an account without a reason should be because there is an active police investigation taking place and charges are expected to be laid.

No, I know, and I have said that the banks need to fully explain to people why they are closing accounts. MoneyMail has been running a campaign on this for quite a while now.

I know they are legally bound to close accounts if anything "untoward" financially is flagging up, but any people with accounts closed aren't in this category.

And, then, as you say, other banks don't want them either.

I think the least banks should do is to say, in writing, what the issue is, and allow people to defend themselves. Banks make mistakes.

Accounts should never be closed over political stance. It's not relevant whether someone supports various issues.

My point is that Farage has had his accounts reopened/not closed, but other people aren't being helped by this - banks are carrying on as normal.

I think a proper independent adjudicator should be appointed to investigate, and rule on, the closed bank accounts of non-famous people as well. 🙂

NF has got Coutts to do this already DiamondLily Although, I think it will kick the problem into the long grass.

Also I'm sure investigating all de banking retrospectively would take eons.
So, I doubt that would happen overnight

But there is a website set up (I'm afraid I dont know its name) which is dedicated to helping people.

Much like you, I would like to see others benefit asap.

All who have had their accounts closed in this way should have the record of it removed so that they can open another one, if the original bank can't give a good reason for closure.
If the banks are worried it might let some criminals through, they need to get their act together to stop that in a sensible way.

That's not a bad idea FarNorth

To date it costs £100 to retrieve £1 of laundered money.

So the scheme doesn't even accomplish it's objective

Farage is attempting to sue the bank, but, again, most people wouldn't have the funds, or the free publicity he gets, to do this.

That's why some sort of adjudicator, independent of banks, would be better if people wanted to complain about their accounts being closed.

Some accounts are closed for legitimate reasons, such as suspicions of money laundering/fraud etc, and that's fine, but these random account closures need to be scrutinised, because not being able to get a bank account has a severe impact.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12365893/Nigel-Farage-takes-legal-steps-battle-compensation-Coutts-lawyers-demand-meeting-NatWest-bosses-accounts-bank-axed.html

If Farage is successful in sueing, it will create a precedent and could lead to a change in banking rules.

Hopefully, but banks have a habit, with potential problems, of sorting out the immediate issue, which would be Farage, and then kicking the can down the road.

The only legitimate reason for closing an account because of money laundering, would be a conviction DiamondLily

Not just the suspicion of it.

That would make Banks above the law.

That is partly what all this is about.

FarNorth

If Farage is successful in sueing, it will create a precedent and could lead to a change in banking rules.

We can but hope😂

Namsnanny

The only legitimate reason for closing an account because of money laundering, would be a conviction DiamondLily

Not just the suspicion of it.

That would make Banks above the law.

That is partly what all this is about.

How would you see that working Namsnanny, if the bank was suspicious would they refer the customer to the police for investigation but keep the account open in the meantime?

😂😂 Thankfully
It's not down to me.
It's a legal issue.
Simple.

Namsnanny

😂😂 Thankfully
It's not down to me.
It's a legal issue.
Simple.

It would be a wholesale change to the banking system. I don’t disagree with the principle, if it reduced organised crime that could only be good - the police resources would be an issue to make it happen. The responsibility can’t just lie with the banks to allow what they suspect is illegal activity until there’s a prosecution though.

Namsnanny

The only legitimate reason for closing an account because of money laundering, would be a conviction DiamondLily

Not just the suspicion of it.

That would make Banks above the law.

That is partly what all this is about.

I do believe (although I could be wrong), that the FCO insist that if there's suspicion of fraud/laundering, accounts must be frozen/closed.

They require this to be done before any police investigation.

That's certainly what I've ever read, although perhaps that's wrong.

Ah, found it, although it is on a paywall:

"Like most other reasons for closing an account, the bank does not have to tell you why your account has been closed, and you only need to be suspected of fraud – and not convicted for a bank to close the account.26 Jul 2023."

In the case of money laundering, unless given permission by the police, a bank will close your account – often without notice – and is not allowed to tell you why.

www.thetimes.co.uk/money-mentor/article/can-bank-close-my-account-without-consent/

www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/current-accounts/natwest-nigel-farage-banking-scandal-are-you-at-risk/

I dont think you are wrong, DiamondLly

I think it's me that hasnt explained myself well😊

The Police have to be involved, then the accounts can be frozen
But not (if I'm right) closed.

Speaking of FOC, they have been strangely quite on the subject 🤔

Thanks DiamondLily that’s very helpful in understanding the situation. The rules do need to be rewritten, but the current system seems reasonable for suspected fraud and money laundering situations in the meantime.

I think they can close them, but if there was a trial, and the person found innocent, then they could re-open them.

But, many people aren't tried or convicted, for various reasons, and, according to current rules, bank accounts can remain closed, on suspicion alone.

I would imagine they'd have to send any balances to non convicted person though.

I think the rules do need to be clarified though. Some people are having accounts closed, and genuinely appear to not have a clue why.

The point being if the accounts are closed, and no information disclosed, it's against normal legal precedent.

Ergo so many normal people have been caught up in this farce.

The system isnt working.

It also isnt catching fraudsters/people engaged in money laundering.

I quoted figures of it costing £100 to recoup £1 of laundered money.

It is open to mis use, as all the normal account holders can testify.

So why support it?

In my view it isnt acceptable to stray too far from innocent until proven guilty

We wouldnt be in this mess otherwise.

Afterall in most of these cases they havent even been told the reason for closing the account.

Should this kind of abuse of regulations be even possible?

I said earlier we shall probably never get back to how banks used to be, because of ESG (to name but one).

Any attempted at an enquiry will be skillfully kicked into the long grass.
Hoping the public has a short attention span (which often seems to be the case).

But I feel duty bound to do what little I can to support the current momentum towards transparency and fairness in the banking system, for all of us.

No, I don't support accounts being closed without reasons being given, and people given a chance to defend themselves.

I suppose the fraud/money laundering things might be not to give those suspected any info, although I don't know.

But, there's a huge difference between suspect criminality and closing them for political reasons.

I think this must have been going on a while. I received an inheritance in 2012, and the solicitor sent the money through by BACS, but also sent me a letter as he said I might need paper trail proof for my bank where the money had come from.

I think the banks might be better getting involved with the many scams robbing people of large amounts of money, via texts, emails, dating scams etc.🙄

Why have British banks afforded useful facilities to so many Russian oligarchs?

These are the people who suddenly became incredibly rich after the fall of the USSR.

They now own huge amounts of prime real estate in London - or Londonistad as it is sometimes known.

There are, now, some restrictions on some Russian people, and their funds:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/russia-sanctions-guidance/russia-sanctions-guidance

varian

Why have British banks afforded useful facilities to so many Russian oligarchs?

These are the people who suddenly became incredibly rich after the fall of the USSR.

They now own huge amounts of prime real estate in London - or Londonistad as it is sometimes known.

Because underneath that squeaky clean veneer they stink.

Which is why we must support any chance we get to insist on transparency.

Irrespective of the political persuasion of the person actually trying to improve the situation. :-)

Transparency International is a global movement working in over 100 countries to end the injustice of corruption.

www.transparency.org/en/about