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?

people are not being stopped or not allowed to have access to their money, but there will be queries about cash.

If you ween't given access to a large amount of cash, then you could transfer money to another account elsewhere. Why? Because it is traceable, you can see the beneficiary, and if they were dodgy, it woudl flag up

Cash is not traceable, so banks will ask for receipts, or if you haven't bought the item, then an invoice or quote, so there is a record of the intended recipient of that cash. Yes, you could do the fuck what you wanted with it after you'd got it, but the bank has fulfilled their obligations to regulators by making the relevant checks.

The bank aren't beig nosey,they are making checks they are obliged to do. Its notabout making your buider pay his vat.

Gryffin,

It is absolutely a bank's obligation to report suspicious activity, I think the aim of the law is to catch large scale criminals, not that someone might use a few k to pay a tradesman and that tradesman may not declare the money to hmrc.

What next? Are banks going to restrict cash withdrawals to £50 in case someone might pay cash to their cleaner?

Clear, being a Mlro is a tough job, trying to compromise business needs with ethics and law (and pompous aggressive salespeople!). However, a cash withdrawal of a relatively small sum should be allowed without intruding into a customer's privacy.

As long as cash is legal tender then the banks ought to allow people to access their own money.

If cash is unacceptable then it should be done away with.

There is no logical reason for one rule to apply for large sums and another for small. I could use any amount of cash for nefarious activities, £10, £100, £1000, £10000.

The OP was denied access to her own money. She showed them an invoice and that was not deemed acceptable. She left without being allowed to withdraw her money. That is unacceptable.

Oh and my bank just asked what I wanted the money for when I took out large sums. They were happy with me saying "building work". They gave me my own money, which surely was my RIGHT, not a PRIVILEGE.

I have said at least three times that the cashier in this case was OTT (excepting that I was not there to judge the situation) but I have sought to highlight the reasoning behind why the bank will have asked the questions.

And it is true that criminal networks have been dismantled by something as trivial as a relatively small cash transaction which, when investigated, unraveled deeper concerns. There is also no de minimis limit built into the ML Regs and banks are just as likely to be penalised for control failings related to small transactions as they are large ones.

And actually, banking is a privilege and not a right. Yes, the bank will have contractual obligations in relation to customers and their funds, but where these conflict with financial crime prevention the right of a bank to delay or question is enshrined in law.

There is also no right to hold a bank account. Banks decide who they do business with, and which transactions they effect. Standard bank T&Cs contain the right to refuse to process any transaction. Don't like the scrutiny, keep the money under your bed.

Banking is neither a privilege nor a right.

The banks are private companies who are in it to make money. They can choose who to do business with.

Retail banks need to be involved in people's financial lives in order to make their money. They need our pay, and they need our debts. That is their business.

It is an arrangement which is supposed to be beneficial each way, if it is working properly.

To pretend that the banks are doing us all some kind of great big favour it entirely ridiculous.

You're right, privilege is the wrong word. But it is certainly not a right, where customers can transact without any question.

Wasn't there a whole load of stuff recently as well, that basic bank accounts should be available to pretty much everyone, as lack of a bank account was limiting job opportunities for the less well off people in our society. I am sure I read something about that.

In this case then, since the bank had decided that the OP might be up to no good with their own cash, it would have been consistent to freeze the OP's account and investigate. I assume they didn't and were willing for the OP to be potentially nefarious (possibly indirectly) with a few hundred quid but not thousands.

The problem here isn't money-laundering regulations. It's banks acting arbitrarily for their own internal motives.

If any of you work in a bank, have you ever spoken to customers before?

I work in complaints and the amount of people I speak to, one a week at least, who say they are starting a new job but need to accept a large transfer into their account then remove it in cash (keeping a small amount for themselves) really makes you understand where the laws are coming from.

It's fine to scoff about it, but money laundering dies happen, and a cashier can end up in jail if they are seen to not be doing their job properly - or tipping off, which is what it would be if you asked and were told the amount over the counter for the limits.

Fraudsters research all this do generally they know how to fly under the radar - your average mumsnetter probably won't until they are quizzed in branch.

And to the person who said they will keep asking for lower amounts until it's agreed - seriously? You don't think this will arouse suspicion?

Everyone might hate bank staff but we're not all thick as pigshit jobsworths.

NiceTabard - not everyone is as honest as you. Fraudsters and money laundering folk are not thinking about these things the way you are!

Yes that's right, the govt is encouraging banks to accept financially excluded people, but at the same time they are not making any allowances for the additional risks those accounts may present. So basically the bank takes the risk, even though the person could be a convicted money launder. Even the state backed banks have the right to refuse to open accounts in these circumstances.

Anyway grows weary talking shop on a saturday eve for their bad reputation, when it comes to this stuff banks generally are trying to do the best they can within a very tight regulatory landscape. Sometimes things go wrong, sometimes staff have a power complex and love to be difficult, sometimes they get it wrong. Sometimes, innocent people get caught in a web of processes that force the wrong outcome.

I would say though that in the last few weeks I have seen about 20 genuinely suspicious patterns of transactions where we have engaged law enforcement who agree. Money laundering is a HUGE issue facing banks and if the odd individual gets caught up in otherwise effective procedures then this is unfortunate but largely unavoidable.

There was a lot of stuff recently about banks turning down people for basic bank accounts against their own rules because basically they didn't want them as they weren't going to be profitable. There was a horizon prog about it or something.

Being excluded from bank accounts contributes to poverty in this country. I think in these cases the banks are using the (sensible) regs as an excuse to keep people out who they won't make money off.

I am struggling to find the prog on google but this looks interesting for anyone interested in what is apparently called banking exclusion!

oh ouch someone gets shafted by being falsely accused of fraud due to error in the bank!

I like that he had to go and take all the money out of his account in cash isn't that what everyone has spent the whole thread saying should be avoided!

Maybe the banks should focus on the real criminals rather than people using money as legal tender.

Floppityflop, the only way banks will identify real criminals from people using money as legal tender is making checks such as this.

If banks don't question where cash is coming from or going to, then they are failing in their duty to identify if it is being used for criminal activity.

It is not about checking that your builder tells the taxman that you paid him £8k in cash.It is checking that you are paying a builder £8k in cash and not investing in criminal activity with £8k cash.

There is no cust welfare or sales as such here, as there is no bank benefit here, it is about trying to spot and stop criminal activity funding

Yes, access to CASH will be restricted while validated, but you will have access to funds as it can be traced where it is being sent to or from, which cannot be done by cash, which is why these checks are in place.

I agree with othet posters who work in bank, staff at branch aren't being nosey or acting OTT, its with good reason, and with the grief we get from customers face to face, its certainly not for our own benefit to do this

I'm sure there are much bigger fish than people withdrawing cash at the limit, as people who work in banks know - they have been identified before and banks fined. Money laundering is about more than just cash withdrawals and banks could make their controls more sophisticated. However, I believe proof of ID is all that is required. Wouldn't asking fir anything more constitute a tip-off anyway?

I work for an investment company, not a bank, we don't deal with physical cash. But one of our products does not officially allow withdrawals. This is such a shit rule that we got around by allowing withdrawals in exceptional circumstances. The threshold for who agrees them started at senior management and has now ( five years later) got to the point that as long as a reason is given we don't need approval we can just do it. We've accepted "because I need the money" before. This isn't a regulatory issue though, just shitty terms and conditions that the staff like myself try our best to work around.

Six grand in cash is a lot, especially if you never normally make that kind of transaction, of course your bank should question it. If they don't and it turns out to be dodgy they get in shit.

Not being profitable is not a valid reason for a bank up deny someone an account. However having a history of fraud or money laundering convictions is!

My company is FCA regulated and we get as much shit whether we mess up over 1p, £1k or £100 k.

Is this really about money laundering or stupidity? Is 5k (that is the alarm limit) going to make or break a money laundering operation? Is it about tax evasion? Is income tax on 5k so vital to the inland revenue?

If above is true then why not focus on the likes of amazon, google & Starbucks who use sophisticated means such as off-shore share options, HQ's, overseas distribution networks and campaign contributions to legally launder money (non taxed income).

I'm afraid this restriction is more about making sure that we leave a digital footprint - the limit used to be 20k, then 10k & now 5k, pretty soon it will be down to 1k and shops will refuse to take your cash as banks will make it to expensive to handle cash.

Meanwhile last time I checked the terrorists were still terrorising & the drug dealers were still selling so what exactly has been the result of all this anti-criminal anti-laundering laws and restrictions? Who is it exactly that is being restricted apart from OP .... Read here www.economist.com/news/britain/21580182-british-exports-china-are-rising-government-policy-holding-back-business-eastward

why did your builders want payment in cash rather than bank transfer ?

could it be that they do not plant to pay tax or VAT on the work they are doing for you.

Talk in peace plenty of posters have already mentioned why someone might want cash. Why not? It's perfectly legal tender, designed to be used to settle a debt .

I can understand the cashier asking what the money is for, as a box ticking exercise- what I don't understand is demanding proof (and rejecting the proof supplied as not good enough ) as has been mentioned above, what if you said I'm going to the races and want to spunk the lot? They wouldn't refuse to give you it.

The MLR rules changed several years ago.
I am an MLR compliance bod - cos I'm an accountant
its well known that banks are asking for proof. I would carry it just in case.

The OP might have a rather severe problem opening a new bank account if they do kick off about this because the bank will put a 'flag' against her name that every other bank will see as part of their MLR account opening checks.

If she has lots of builders doing lots of work, unless she is very clear about paying each of the subbies separately and the materials herself, chances are VAT is being evaded, let alone tax.
I wonder if she's seen her builders liability insurance cert?