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?

This is going to sound arrogant but I have to agree with quangles re the misunderstandings of how money laundering and proceeds of crime work. Quangles and Craic and others have explained it really well.

Believe what they are saying or not but as someone who has to complete money laundering and proceeds of crime training and compliance annually I can assure you they are correct.

Take it up with your bank , mp or whoever you like. The law won't be changed to suit you, nor should it, nor should a junior teller at HSBC be expected to prejudice her career, her reputation and in the worst case scenario, her liberty because some of you take the hump.

This last point will make some of you fume even more but it is possible to be convicted of failure to comply with ML requirements even where it is not proved the transactions involved dirty money/tax fraud but were of a nature where the person dealing with the money, if acting reasonably, should have taken steps to verify the position but failed to do so.

The post office thing is (I think) because there are new regs on prohibited items and they either have to check as a box ticking exercise, or they are trying to prevent you from sending something you're not allowed to.

But the thing is - why aren't you allowed to, and what's on the list? That might help a bit.

Withdrawing cash is tax neutral. Not much more I can say. You are insinuating that a bank can consider your role in what a 3rd party who receives the cash may or may not do with it. They have no legal right to do this unless they have a real (not ridiculously speculative) reason to suspect tax evasion.

larrygrills any one regulated by FSA is supposed to be alert to ml activities. The teller cannot just turn a blind eye to a cash withdrawal of that size. It is an unusual transaction.

There are very few reasons (tbh I'm struggling to think of any beyond perhaps the intention to make lots of very small gifts to a very large number of people )where it would not be more convenient for both the payer and payee to pay by bank transfer. For that reason the teller is obliged to ask. If OP then gets shirty or evasive and/or this becomes a pattern the teller has no option other than to pass on her concerns.

Thanks caitlin.

Actually in one of the most famous Aml cases an employee was sent to prison for buying share in his company before the release of positive sales figures. He went to prison vbecause he could have had access to the sales figures ahead of time. Not that he did have access (that was never proved) but that he could have.

The obligation on banks is to make checks whether or not you think they are speculative.

This is all so depressing. I know 6k is a lot (in cash) - but in the big scheme of things, it's nothing. There are plenty of mn'ers who have that much (and multiples of) go through their accounts monthly. Having to explain why you want cash - jesus wept.

I was just about to open an account with HSBC too and I'm a cash gal. :(

Quangle,

You are confusing insider dealing with aml.

It's the same standard of proof required, that was my point

It's a question of balance between your data privacy rights and the bank Anti Money Laundering responsibilities. I personally think it's a massive hassle changing banks so probably wouldn't do that esp as mentioned by others that all banks are required to have the same controls.
They should have given you some content/explanation around it however to avoid you getting upset...for that alone I would complain/feedback to them. They want the customer feedback and branches are performance rated on this as well as other factors.

We had a situation recently where an endowment policy matured and was paid into our bank account, dh made immediate arrangements to transfer the money to our Building society account to pay off part of the mortgage. I was then phoned at work by our bank's fraud department and asked if I was aware that several thousand pounds was being removed form our joint back account, and was I happy for the transaction to go ahead. I had no problem with being contacted - the bank was presumably just checking that i was aware, that I wasn't being robbed blind by dh and that it was above board. I think it's responsible of the banks to check on this.

TBH, whilst I appreciate that the OP is annoyed by what she perceives to be intrusive questioning, if this incident and subsequent MN response has made her think about why her builders might be wanting £6k in cash, then I for one think it's a good result. hangs head in shame as realise I sound just like a DM reader

Wanttoshop I would genuinely advise against HSBC then. They are basically rebuilding themselves after their ML fiascos and are tougher than almost anyone these days. They've just fired a whole load of their customers from one of their banking divisions because it was deemed too much risk to have a concentration of these kinds of (legitimate ) customers.

Thanks Quangle, I guess that rules out HSBC too?

YANBU. Who wants to leave their money with Nanny Bank? Go elsewhere.

Anyway wrt to "it's my cash and I want it now" - wasn't it last year that there was a new rule passed that means when you give your cash to the bank it's not "yours", but instead you agree to "loan" it to the bank - hence beware bail-ins etc.

(Rules out First Direct sorry!)

A deposit has always effectively been a rolling overnight loan, callable on demand. The bail in is all about allowing other capital holders ( equity, loans etc) to take a hit before governments bailed a bank out. In last resort, depositors over euro 100k would lose their deposits.

I am wondering too...Are you paying in cash to avoid VAT. That I suspect is what the bank are looking at. I wouldnt mind tbh a bank questioning why for example my 80 year old DM was taking out a lot of cash. In fact she did it a few years ago fo some 'builders' who said it would be easier for her to pay them in cash. She then tried to draw out the same sort of amount as you.

The bank was nervous and she called me. I told the builders to provide a proper invoice for the amount. After some mucking around they did. I also told them as they had quoted £5k that was what the invoice would say. They didnt do a bad job tbh so all OK.

Loving the superfluous reference to "Coutts"

Hmmm - just because the government has decided that cashiers in banks can be added to the list of those who may intrude on our private lives without good reason, does not make it right. If I choose to withdraw £2,000 from my bank it is not the business of the cashier why I want it (regardless of the exasperation seen above from those in the banking industry). In my opinion, the quote above does not justify intruding on my right to a private life.

Yes! This! Sarine you are spot on. This insidious invasion into our personal lives is way overstepping a mark. I personally feel we are on a slippery slope. Joking a bit, Russell Brand said that we need a revolution. We bloody need something. How dare they. Way too much governmental interference.

Sarine's post was followed by a post by fishfingers From the tone of your original post, perhaps the reason they asked for further proof in the form of an invoice was because you were acting defensively bla bla.
Wtaf?? Just bend backwards over a bit more, fish. Let them walk all over you. That's right. A bit more...yep that's right. Now let them walk all over you. Nice and easy. Yep that's it.

It may seem a large amount but it was for 5 builders (major renovation) and included materials. I'm not sure the youngest one has a bank account - still lives at home with his Mum! Regardless, my point is, it's my money, and I feel I should be able to take it out when I want. I was not defensive when the teller asked me why I was taking it out, I simply told the truth. I did get annoyed when she asked me for proof as I was unprepared. I did show her an invoice on my phone and offered to email it to her to print out. I don't know if all the builders working on the house are registered for VAT- we are paying a day rate. My point is that I should be able to take out any amount of my money and frankly make a bonfire in Trafalgar Square with it without having permission from the bank. Anyone who thinks that is okay has possibly not read 1984. Still angry! And no cash to pay builders tomorrow. Yes, they refused to gibe me my own money. I am not a drug dealer, just a mum trying to pay for renovations to our new house.

CaptainTripps how do you think the government should combat financial crime then? Or should they just turn a blind eye and let the terrorists/drug dealers etc have an easier ride? What about the more minor offenders such as tax evaders-are you happy to prop up the fiscal system from your own purse while they get away with it comfortably without any awkward questions asked?

Yes, I wanted to draw a few thousand out in cash a couple of years ago - to pay builder.

It wasn't as straightforward as I had hoped. I had to take in extra ID just to write myself a cheque to cash..

HSBC again.

Prior to that one, I thought my car using cash - well my debit card - and as it was over £10K I had to notify the bank first - stating what day I would be making the transaction. I didn't actually mind this one, as it seemed more useful in preventing card fraud. Unfortunately, once I had bought the car, I tried to get shopping in the supermarket and the card was blocked for the remainder of that day. Embarrassing

I think you'll find the government is complying with EU wide policy on money laundering.

Some one commented £6,000 isn't much and many people will have that going through their "accounts" each month. They will indeed the operative word being "account"

I still haven't seen any plausible explanation of why when you have a bank account you would want or need to pay that amount of money in cash. Some one suggested builders needed it to buy materials. I'd be concerned at using builders whose line of credit at their supplier's was so precarious.

Anyway rant all you like but this isn't really HSBC setting out to spoil OP's day.

My bank kept £60,000 of my money for nearly 2 weeks, while I proved to the satisfaction of their money laundering guy that I had the right to it.

It had come into our Crédit Agricole account from our Lloyds account via a currency broker and had the statement text 'Tfr to M+Mme B'.

There used to be someone in our branch who could ferret around in their suspense accounts and transfer it into our account, but he left.

Each and every time we transferred money for work on the house, I had to provide a complete dossier, from the completion statement after the sale of our UK house, to the transfer to the bank current account, to the savings account, back to the current account, to the transfer to the currency broker, to our account in France. It used to drive me mental.

Thankfully, we now no longer have any money, having lined the pockets of several not very competent tradesmen in the Limousin

And before anyone goes all "nanny state" there's a fantastic anecdote in "Can any mother help me" which is a collection of letters a group of mothers sent to each other during and post ww2 mainly seeking advice from each other about parenting etc. it's a sort of homemade MN.

Anyway one of the mothers explains in a letter to the others that she has been working and enjoying it. But her husband works for a bank and they will not extend a mortgage to him while his wife is working as it denotes a less stable family and therefore a less good credit risk . So she has to give up work.

It's amazing. And only mention it because it illustrates that the range and extent of bank intrusion in our lives is not new. And that's what I mean when I say they are not purely commercial organisations like Tesco who don't have to stop you buying that extra bar of choc or bottle of vodka even though it's bad for you. Banks are actually supposed sell you only products that are suitable for you and not allow you to tKe on risky levels of debt. Few other commercial organisations have that responsibility. They fail repeatedly, of course, but my point is that they are not just like any other shop on the high st. Hence in part all the questions, "nannying" etc.