to want to close my bank account after this gross invasion of privacy?

[somanymiles]

I went to get cash out of my bank account this morning to pay the builders (£6,000) and was told I could not take that amount out without hard copy proof of what I was spending the money on eg an invoice. I was given no notice of this so of course did not have anything except a quote on my phone which they did not accept, even though I offered to email it to them. This was not a question of confirming my identity- it was that they have a new policy where you gave to prove what you are spending your cash on. When I asked what the threshold was for the new policy I was told they were not allowed to tell me. I am furious. Surely what I spend my money on us nobodies business but mine. It certainly isn't HSBC's business.I am thinking of closing my accounts there with all the hassle that will entail. AIBU?

If a home owner decides to pay in cash for building work done, then that is their prerogative. If they don't want an audit trail to show the payments they have made then that is on their own head and in their personal circumstances they might be fine with that. However, I wouldn't trust a builder who asked for cash rather than a cheque or transfer. They might be a legit builder but asking for payment in cash is the sort of tactic used by cowboys and unless you know them well, you won't know for sure who you are dealing with until it is too late and they have gone on off into the sunset with your money leaving a mess behind them.

TBH I can't see in this day and age how cash is convenient for anybody - who has large sums of money just hanging around? I think the OP has proved that going to the bank and getting the money is hardly hassle free and personally I wouldn't want to be wandering around with sort of cash on me.

We now have another few people discussing 'suspicious' withdrawals without stating in what way it is 'suspicious'. How is withdrawing one's own clean money 'suspicious'?Lots of so called finance professionals on this thread who prefer to invoke their status than actually explain themselves.

I have 20+ years experience as a relatively senior investment banker. However I am prepared to justify my statements with logic and evidence.

I'm happy to deal with large sums of cash. As an expert in the field of data-mining (on a banking backbone DB/DWH) I prefer to keep things "off grid" as much as possible.

It really is nobody's business but mine what I do with my money.

By the way, banks earn very little on cash these days. They have to place it overnight at less than1%. I don't think they are being awkward because of that. For your average £150k head of compliance, it is less hassle to be overly vigilant, at the expense of inconveniencing customers, than to correctly think through and apply aml correctly. No compliance officer is sacked for being overly vigilant to smallish retail clients (aka, toosy banks,mugs).

And finally, as I have also explained upthread, the entire banking system depends on the myth that you can withdraw your money in cash any time you want to.

Many people withdrew 6 figure sums from Northern Rock in its last days. The Bank of England co-operated with the then management to ensure that there was enough cash in place to meet every single withdrawal. If customers feel that a current account is not a secure place to hold cash, they will no longer use banks. So, if I phone my bank and, with notice, tell them that I want to close my account and withdraw the balance in cash, they cannot refuse me, regardless of reason.

Larry, there is quite a lot of talk that the FSCS wouldn't be able to keep its promise if a major bank were to collapse.

ButI,

I suspect that is true, which is why I referred to the "myth". However, I do think that they could hold the fort for quite some time, especially in the case of a clearer. However, it is well known that a bank run will start if people cannot get their hands on their money. That is why they were hypervigilant with Northern Rock and why a broader run on the banks did not develop.

It is indeed the case that many bank systems (Ireland being an extreme case) are far larger than governments can realistically support.

For some time, sure. But if a bank like Barclays, Santander or HSBC were to collapse I would imagine it would be very difficult for the FSCS to pay out.

They can print money, at the end of the day. It is not without consequences but, in that sense, they have as much as they need. What was noticeable about the last banking crisis is that all accounts were honoured, even beyond the guarantee amount, and that even all senior bond holders were paid in full. If there were to be another banking crisis, I am not so sure that would happen.

I believe the U.S Fed and far eastern central banks put a lot of pressure on our government not to allow the bonds to default as they are a big investment class for overseas pension funds. Anyway, this is a little off topic.

Gosh larrygrylls, I am sorry that my status as an MLRO does not earn me enough money to have a valid opinion in your eyes. For the record, you sound just like the greedy, sales obsessed , psychopathic front line bankers that I deal with day in, day out who are wizards when it comes to making money but deliberately stupid when it comes to risk mitigation.

As all of the compliance people have said, the cashier was right to ask questions, as the withdrawal was unusual FOR THE OP. Applying AML rules requires a risk based approach, and what is normal for one person will be unusual for another. We have all said that the cashier probably should have been satisfied with the answer given rather than requesting further proof, but then none of us were there to judge the situation for ourselves.

But then - what do I know, as I'm sure my take home pay and bonus were far inferior to yours last year.

Gryffindor,

Your first post was one of the only sane ones I read above and you broadly stated that people COULD have their own money, in disagreement with some of the others.

I find your misreading of my post bizarre. I have not worked in the business for 5 years in any event. I am not defending overpaid people, merely stating why they may be overvigilant. Thanks for the personal criticism, though!

Moving back to the actual thread, can you explain in what sense someone withdrawing their own (presumably clean money) is suspicious, whether it is unusual or not? What might they be doing with it which arouses your suspicion?

Incidentally, glad to see you are still receiving your bonus. My pay from employment last year was a nice round number: 0.

I don't work in retail banking so am not up to speed with their procedures and guidelines, but in this scenario I would be thinking:

• withdrawing money to pay builders cash in hand, avoiding VAT. Profits of tax evasion are proceeds of crime, capable of money laundering, so in this case both the customer and the builder are capable of investigation and action by HMRC and/or the NCA. Possible need to submit SAR to NCA, could support an existing or potential investigation into the builder.

• possibility of money being used to purchase other black market goods where other payment methods are not an option, eg drugs, firearms (far less likely than previous scenario)

• potential that customer is vulnerable and being scammed/blackmailed - withdrawing cash under pressure. The FCA are putting increasing pressure on banks to identify customers or transactions where this is involved, as there is an implied duty of care to protect against this where possible.

So, ask customer why they are withdrawing the money, and the answer may betray one of the above scenarios which may require further action. Alternatively, the customer gives a straightforward answer which makes sense, they get their money and leave happy.

In this case, maybe the cashier was being overzealous in not accepting the answer, maybe HSBC has bonkers new procedures (following their $1.5bn AML fine last year this is likely) or maybe the OP was evasive under questioning and the cashier didn't believe her.

Sorry to come on strong, but I work in a very high pressure area where the customer facing guys are deliberately obtuse when it comes to understanding that I am doing my job and not just being difficult for fun. They often use the comparatively low risk salaries to justify why I cannot possibly be right. I actually think I am a bloody good MLRO, especially when it comes to balancing commercial needs with risk management.

I mean, the comparatively low salaries of Risk employees compared to front line.

Also, the placement/layering/integration methodology mentioned upthread is pretty outdated these days - if you use the analogy of online banking fraud - the funds are already placed. That only really works where the illicit funds are generated in cash, which is not always the case with modern crime typologies.

it's the weekend, I need to switch off

It is inconvenient, but also makes sense. It will protect customers fromabuse/scams and also prevent laundering. I can't think of a legitimate transaction for that kind of money that wouldn't have paperwork to back it uptbh.

For instance you wouldbeveryfoolhardy to hand over 6k to a builder without an invoice/receipt. So their rules would make it more likely you would get one.

Sorry, posting on new Iphone and can't seem to master spaces!

And i suspect the reason they don't disclose the limit, is that fraudsters/launderers will just stick to transactions below that limit if it becomes common knowledge. Or they are trained to enquire about any transaction they are suspicious about, regardless of amount.

I can't believe that there are people who are seriously stating that it is reasonable for banks to disallow people access to their own money!

It is not up to the banks to dictate what their customers may or may not spend their own money on for crying out loud.

Tabard, Banks are basically expected to act as law enforcement and investigators these days - and are penalised heavily for not doing so. It is really not their own decision to act in this manner.

On the flip side, in a responsible society we all have a duty to act responsibly when we suspect criminal activity - not suggesting that is the case here but some disruption to individuals is a small price to pay to live in an environment that does not encourage criminality and corruption.

As I have stated upthread, it appears that the cashier was OTT, but then we only have one side of the story upon which to draw judgement.

But any cash withdrawal could be used for nefarious purposes.

So that doesn't make any sense.

And it really is NOT on to tell people that they are not allowed to access their own funds unless they produce receipts for things they haven't bought yet.

Another possible crime indicator -

• individual does not wish to have true level of savings showing for various reasons (e.g. would lose means tested benefits, increased tax liabilities etc) so withdraws large funds to hide under the mattress. Says it is for building work that is never completed.

Honestly, there are so many things that large cash withdrawals can indicate and banks are expected to consider these and act appropriately, or be fined/lose their banking licence.

There is a legal obligation to report a SAR in these cases, and if necessary, seek consent from the NCA to proceed with the transaction. Sometimes they give this consent so they can follow the money trail in support of a criminal investigation.

Of course this all sounds outrageous to the honest individual who thinks banking is a right rather than a privilege, but banks are highly regulated. Additionally, many organised crime syndicates have been investigated and dismantled by something as simple as a cashier noticing something unusual and asking questions.

I think Gryffindor is spot on - money laundering and stuff is their business. If you don't want anyone poking their nose in keep your money under the mattress. Banks are heavily regulated and although they are a service, they can get in trouble for not taking an active role in crime prevention of the kind already mentioned by G and others.