“Prejudiced and nasty” Nigel Farage…

[MangetoutsaysGetOutMan]

… doesn’t understand irony.

It's not strictly correct that we don't have a state bank/banks: 48% of the NatWest Group - which includes Coutts - is state-owned.

Oh wow, in what world did we all think we'd be siding with NF! But I totally agree with PP. Coutts lied about the reason for closing his account, which shows they know they were underhanded....surely they didnt think that NF would go quietly??.

Thanks to posters who have answered my questions about banking. I’d never thought about it before and it’s really interesting.

they’re a business and he’s damaging their brand. Plenty of other banks

How does that work? I had no idea who NF banked with until they closed his account.

I wonder if this has anything to do with ESG scores, they sound very fluffy but I think this is where it ends up.

It's also interesting that lots of posters have felt the need to explicitly state they don"t agree with NF's views before expressing concern about the banks actions. Stop playing the denunciation game, it perpetuates the idea that there is a debate to be had about banks closing accounts for wrong think. If NF was exposing the bank to risk them that would have been the documented reason for their decision.

Indeed. Coutts allowed it to be believed that NF's bank account was closed because it did not reach the wealth limit required.

Which is a MASSIVE confidentiality breach.

Coutts have really stuffed up here, in many ways. And yes, we own half of NatWest, which owns Coutts!

Do individual taxpayers get the choice not to bail out Coutts if it gets into difficulties, should its values not align with theirs?

made me laugh, Coutts banging on about it’s inclusive/diversity-friendly values, when you need £3 or so to bank there …

Coutts wouldn't be able to say if they suspected any of his money movements. I mean, they're welcome to despise him but they wouldn't be able to say if they had other suspicions about the source of his funds (Who is paying him?) as tipping off is an offence.

Yes to this. Coutts have stuffed up, I doubt they thought it would get out.

£3m !! Not £3 ffs

They would be able to write that in confidential internal documents but that's not what the SAR revealed.

It will be interesting to see if he brings a discrimination case under the Equality Act. The act doesn’t list political belief as a protected characteristic but I believe there have been employment tribunal rulings that have hinged on political beliefs being a subset of philosophical belief,
which is protected, so it might have legs.

They wouldn’t be able to withhold that from the SAR though would they? If they did have suspicions of dodgy dealings it would be in the SAR response.

Of course for all we know there is a lot more in the SAR response than what has been stated and Farage is just cherrypicking the bits that cast him as a victim.

Confusingly, as an aside, AML regs also use the term SAR to mean suspicious activity report.

You have a way with words.

Summed it perfectly in my view.

He was offered a NatWest account and he turned it down.

www.reuters.com/world/uk/nigel-farage-says-set-lose-coutts-account-offered-natwest-one-instead-2023-07-04/

I genuinely don't know. This refers to not being able to disclose it once you've made the Suspicious Activity Report SAR so not sure could be disclosed in the Subject Access Request SAR. But happy to be corrected.

https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/guidance/the-prevention-of-money-laundering-and-combating-the-financing-of-terrorism/prevention-of-ml-and-combating-the-financing-of-terrorism-part-8-14-tipping-off-or-prejudicing-an-investigation

Agreed it would be very interesting I'd like to see him do it. Also, I think other people have been impacted as well so it would be interesting if multiple people brought actions

Legally speaking in that circumstance, senior staff personally and the bank itself would be in breach of the Regs to have given him back his now "clean money" to lodge in another bank.
Before that stage they have to fully investigate each penny they hold and moved.
Their obligation would be to prove and officially sign off on all transactions before a penny was given back.
The new bank would be seeking assurances that he is a client whos funds are in good standing (not the proceeds of criminal acts).
In theory if they failed to do this the new bank should freeze any funds from any client account as its money received from a bank the new bank suspect of money laundering.

Ah, good point. Thanks.

If only hitler was starved of finances early in his campaigns…

Are you sure it’s not because he didn’t have enough cash? Either way, I have no problems with this. It’s bad for business to have someone as toxic as Farage associated with your brand.

Me too

Karma comes with many faces. This is one of them

This is bollocks and absolutely not a reflection of the law. PEP are allowed banking services FGS - they will not get sanctioned for a Brexiteer at the bank. Ridiculous.

The NF business is appalling. Total over-reach of the bank because he didn’t ‘align with values’. There is no justification.

No it can not be reported while there is an ongoing investigation. To do so is a criminal offence and jail time attaches to the individual employee.
One of the reasons investigations would usually involve some type of legal counsel is for the bank to obtain client confidentiality which if memory serves falls withim an exemption in the Subject Access Request obligations.