You can no longer pass cash into someone else's bank account - am I the last person to know about this?

[AbbyGal]

Tried to pay Ds's birthday money into his account but in case of money laundering, I wasn't allowed and had to pay it into mine and then transfer it across to him.

Apparently this has been a thing for a couple of years - the cashier said it was a real issue for their elderly customers who now have to come in themselves.

Just thought it might be useful info for someone.

Santander in my case. It was £60 so not huge amount. Has I realised, I'd have just paid it in via an ATM.

Does sound like it depends on your bank though - or is Nationwide still a building society which might make a difference?

You could pay cash into someone else’s account at Barclays if you have their printed paying in slip but that’s not always easy.

DH paid money into DS' bank account last week, over the counter birthday cash, the account is linked to me not DH. Halifax

You can still do it at the machine in HSBC, if you can find a branch open. Which you probably can't.

Happened to my sister as well but only when she tried to Pay into dad's account, she'd already payed into her daughter's but was stopped from doing the same into dad's.
I've not experienced this at the post office though, I often go in and pay into the children's accounts, no one's stopped me yet.

I transfer money all the time , why does it matter if it's traceable?
I've paid tax 🤷‍♀️

Would it not depend on how much cash is being paid in. I can understand if it's large amounts of cash but not £20 for example. Sounds like common sense has gone out of the window.

Yes, this. By all means refuse/question somebody turning up with twenty grand in cash; but up to a couple of hundred? Especially a parent paying into their own child's account. Surely they realise that the money in a child's account will have pretty much all come from their parents/grandparents anyway, as a 9yo isn't going to have earned it themselves? What is the actual point in having children's accounts in the first place if parents aren't able to access them on their own child's behalf?

This all just sounds like a thin excuse to keep up the war on cash. What money laundering drugs lord is really going to have nothing better to do than launder it a tenner at a time through a child's account? The time it takes them, they might as well just earn the money legitimately!

Like most people, I wouldn't personally be without the internet, but there are still a lot of (mainly) elderly people who have never used it, and never will. Surely the banks must realise that this is deliberately making the lives of a vulnerable group more difficult for no real purpose at all. Nasty.

Even those of us who are very at home online might still like the ability to conduct our everyday transactions without the default/only way being to be tracked at every turn, with the implicit assumption that we're probably up to no good.

I transfer money all the time , why does it matter if it's traceable?

It's great that it works for you; but people are different. A lot of elderly people, in particular - as well as some people with severe learning difficulties - find cash much more convenient and either aren't online or otherwise struggle with it.

My MIL is in her 70s, but very 'young for her age'. She recently asked us for help in setting her up with a tablet, as she can see the benefits of being online and doesn't want to be left behind; but even she is resolute that she doesn't want to do any banking online. It's scary for a lot of old folk who hear about the elderly being scammed and are very aware that their online savvy is very limited, having lived most of their lives without it.

My DM asked me to pay some change into her account (Halifax) when she was poorly and couldn't get out, they wouldn't let me. Didn't care it was for an 80 year old that couldn't do it herself.

Are the bank clerks liable if they are found to have been paying in money for someone laundering?
I mean no, no one's going to launder a tenner at a time but might be testing the water to see what they can do, it might explain why some won't do it if they're held responsible by the bank/law if they've paid money into an account that then is doing something fraudulent?
I wouldn't be risking being held responsible for someone else's fraudulent activity if that is the case.

Didn't care it was for an 80 year old that couldn't do it herself.

It really is nasty and blatant discrimination. It would be great if somebody like Martin Lewis could start a campaign about this and shame the banks into showing some basic human respect to vulnerable groups.

They always go on about how much they value and want to help local communities (notwithstanding closing all the local branches), but I suppose talk is cheap and 'truth' is subjective these days.

I mean no, no one's going to launder a tenner at a time but might be testing the water to see what they can do

But surely, then, you'd test the water and find that you could pay in a tenner, but then be prevented when you wanted to pay in ten grand. It's not like that first happily-accepted tenner opens a magic door allowing you to flood that account with mountains of dirty cash forevermore.

I wouldn't be risking being held responsible for someone else's fraudulent activity if that is the case.

You could say that about most jobs, though. Everything in life comes with some risk. If you're that paranoid that you'd refuse to grant a basic service to somebody paying in a child's £20 birthday cash, then you probably shouldn't get a job in a bank - same as you shouldn't work in a DIY store if you're too frightened to sell somebody a step ladder, in case they fall off it and injure themselves; or in a food shop selling grapes, in case somebody subsequently chokes on one.

You can pay in for kids in cash if your a trustee on the account. I do think it's stupid for small amounts like birthday cash. I just keep the cash and transfer from my account now.

I don't belive there is the processing power to pick up patterns of £20 transfers in cash into a money laundering pattern. More likely they want to spend counter staff on this type of thing. All my nearest banks closed and are over ten miles away now so I opened a non high street bank in parallel. I do feel for the disabled and elderly

It’s really not the banks fault, the regulators set the rules and they are getting more and more stringent. The frustration should be aimed at the criminals who mean the rules have to be tight, Santander got a huge fine this week for failing to be strict enough!!

I've been out of banking for 12 years but yes then the cashier could be held personally responsible, and end up in court, if they had any doubts that the transaction was above board and paid it in. I would guess a preprinted paying in slip would make a difference and is probably required at a post office (or possibly a card these days) Just rocking up with somebody's account details on is probably considered a little iffy now, especially with cash.

I’ve paid money into DH account within the last year. Just gave them the account number… NatWest.

I had to amend a standing order the other day and because of what I was doing had to reset it up using telephone banking. The standing order is to husbands eldest dd who we've been paying from our joint account for 5 years, because I said I'd not met her they wouldn't set it up ffs (she lives away)

Does that involve needing someone’s card and pin?

Now it makes sense. I’ve never been able to pay birthday cash into the DC bank account. I have to pay it into mine and then transfer it. . It was mildly irritating at first, but now I’m used to it.

Now it makes sense. I’ve never been able to pay birthday cash into the DC bank account. I have to pay it into mine and then transfer it. . It was mildly irritating at first, but now I’m used to it.

It's one thing if it's a child who will be used to having a parent help them through all aspects of their life; but for an elderly or disabled person who may be housebound or just unable to get to the bank themselves, it's humiliating and takes away their agency and even more of their independence than necessary.

There's also the increased risk of financial abuse or theft if they're forced to use somebody else's account in a roundabout way, rather than just having a nominated person pay their money straight into their own account.

Again, maybe not quite so much an issue (although still infantilising) if it's their own trusted adult son or daughter doing it for them, but what if they have no family and it's an unrelated employed carer asked to do it? That's seriously problematic and looks seriously dodgy - for the carer just as much as the client.

I wonder how nonchalant and dismissive the big bank bosses and people who make money laundering regulations to absurd levels would be if their own massive salaries had to be paid into somebody else's account first and then they had to trust them to transfer it across to them when they had chance/could be bothered....

Paying in cash is also traceable as in you can see cash is paid in so they could just keep an eye if its lots in short space etc
I think money launderers prob no better ways than going and paying £20-30 in a bank account here and there

Paying in cash is also traceable as in you can see cash is paid in so they could just keep an eye if its lots in short space etc

Indeed - they almost certainly have CCTV in the banks anyway (my local OneStop has a TV up showing me buying a loaf of bread), so it's clearly nonsense. They could even ask for your name and ID if they were that paranoid, but the fact that they just outright refuse gives the clear lie to the excuse that it's for security or anti-money laundering purposes.

Banks tend to want to do anything they possibly can to stop people being able to use branches - that way, they can claim that nobody wants to use branches anymore and close them all down, devastating communities and especially vulnerable groups.

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

Sorry the op didn't make it clear she meant in person

I manage my mums finances and I thought they meant any money between accounts .

I would presume you couldn't pay anything into anyone else's account tbh .. I have always paid into mine and transferred over online .

Why not just use the machines in the bank if the clerks won't do it

The more you restrict available methods, the more you have a captive audience for the remaining method(s) and you can introduce charges.

My grandma sometimes puts some money into my account for me to buy myself a present, because I live in the UK and she's in my home country. She doesn't use the internet at all. Her bank have made it so that while you don't pay for online transfers, you do pay for transfers executed in-branch. What you don't pay for is to pay in money to someone else's account, so she withdraws the money first and then banks it into mine.

I have two bank accounts in my home country. One has free national transfers but you have to pay for the card if you don't carry out a minimum number of payment transactions a month, another has a free card but you can only make one free transfer per month, with all the others carrying a charge. So they're both bad but in different ways and that seems to be the way generally. I've not encountered quite the same differences in bank provision in the UK - in my experience basic services are still covered as included.