Well, let's put a bit of balance in place
The FCA asked banks to submit figures centred on one 12 month period
Excluding the period of NF's de banking
Is that going to give a fair result?
Many MPs are aghast at this self serving report.
As for NF being referred to as a 'tool', he is a very useful one in this case, as who else would be capable of bringing the banking establishment to heal?
It's always foolish to name call
The FCA didnt require evidence, just a tick box answer.
Is that a good way to get unbiased information?
Gransnet forums
News & politics
Careful what you say, or you may end up without any banking facilities.
(480 Posts)The DT headline news today is that Nigel Farage's bank, Coutts, unilaterally shut down his bank account with them, not, as they said originally because his assets fell below a minimum figure but because:
He doesn't align with our values He is seen as zenophobic and racist. He is considered by many to be a disingenuous grifter. Being associated with NF represents a material and ongoing reputaional risk to the bank
So now you know, we have a a new set of self-appointed censors in the land. Hold the wrong political views - and thats it, your bank account will be closed down.
And why should they stop at political views? Will the banks start closing the bank accounts of any one with contentious ethical or religious views, or because they are in the public eye for some aspect of their behaviour.
Will Huw Edwards, Philip Schofield, Katie Price, Prince Harry have their bank accounts closed down because the banks, who daily process millions, if not billions of £s for drug dealers, corrupt members of corrupt regimes, whose people starve while they stash £millions away in secret bank accounts, consider that the above named ^do not align with their values'
Who gave the banks, and when, the right to censor what we do and what we think and withdraw, that absolute essential of life today - a bank account - because someone's political or other views offend their delicate consciences?
Well put, MOnica. Big Brother is safe and well!
Quite.
But now Farage has a new target in the FCA. The man is a tool.
After investigation, by the FCA, it has been established that there is no evidence of people being debanked because of their politics.
Still, I suppose it gave Farage and co 5 minutes back in the spotlight to grandstand: 🙄
news.sky.com/story/farage-fury-as-bank-regulator-finds-no-evidence-of-account-closures-due-to-views-12964780
www.theguardian.com/business/2023/sep/19/nigel-farage-fca-review-coutts-politicians-debanked-no-evidence
www.ft.com/content/2e5481ab-808f-4c87-b52a-9424e5e9d48a
Transparency International is a global movement working in over 100 countries to end the injustice of corruption.
www.transparency.org/en/about
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. :-)
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.
There are, now, some restrictions on some Russian people, and their funds:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/russia-sanctions-guidance/russia-sanctions-guidance
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.
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.🙄
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.
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.
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 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 🤔
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/
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.
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.
😂😂 Thankfully
It's not down to me.
It's a legal issue.
Simple.
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?
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😂
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.
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.
If Farage is successful in sueing, it will create a precedent and could lead to a change in banking rules.
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
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 
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »