First Direct and Natwest closing bank accounts for political reasons inc being gender critical

[Snorkers]

Apprently First Direct have closed the account of the Wings over Scotland founder for his beliefs (He's Gender Critical), and Coutts, owned by Natwest, closed Nigel Farage's account.
Whatever you think of Nigel Farage he is entitled to a bank account.

This is really worrying.

I bank with First Direct. I am gender critical. Do I need to hide my beliefs to keep my bank account? Will tey stop me getting access to my money?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12249755/Nigel-Farage-claims-three-loved-ones-bank-accounts-closed-Brexit.html

Well if that’s the case then why can’t they just say so. Atm none of us really know why people have that bank account closed because the banks don’t divulge that.

It you take Ferage out of the situation, there seems to be an issue with creating bad relations between protracted characteristics.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12253081/Vicar-accuses-Yorkshire-Building-Society-bullying-closing-account-trans-protest.html

As covered above, banks may not be able to disclose to Farage if it would give him prior knowledge of an investigation into a potential crime.

However, Farage aside, there have been other instances of institutions explicitly refusing service to clients because of GC views. IANAL, but I assume this would be much harder, post-Forstater.

That is an interesting one, because of the BS's very explicit rebuttal:

A spokesman said: 'We never close savings accounts based on different opinions regarding beliefs or feedback provided by our customers.

Presumably the vicar has a copy of the comments he made and, now the DM are on the case, they are likely to see the light of day. Anyone want to take a bet on who is lying, here?

The BS also said:

'We only ever make the difficult decision to close a savings account if a customer is rude, abusive, violent or discriminates in any way, based on the specific facts, comments and behaviour in each case.'

Which is pretty bizarre. A client is not under any obligation not to discriminate, since private individuals, acting in an individual capacity are not subject to the EA. The BS, however, is and, if they have closed his account for his GC beliefs, they have (as per Forstater), potentially discriminated against him. I really hope the Vic takes this on.

This is a growing problem and is only getting worse as governments investigate central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). The Government of Canada went wildly beyond their remit during the Canadian trucker protests just arbitrarily shutting down the banks of people involved or people giving money to support the truckers. KiwiFarms has never been found in breach of any law but no payment processor will touch them. Networks of influence are supplanting judicial process and even the law. Though the law helps with introducing things like "Politically Exposed Person" which is to say if you get involved in politics there's now a basis to just disconnect you from financial processes. Accountants would drop you as you were now a PEP just as banks can. Your freedom exists in side certain bounds but don't upset the political classes. And proof isn't needed when it's not a court but just a network of influence. Example the Steele Dossier on Trump which was made up by Clinton associates and handed off to friends in the FBI who never questioned it despite obvious flaws, and tried to use it as a weapon against Trump and source of headlines saying "Russian influence! Russian influence! Russian influence!"

There needs to be concerted push back against this behaviour to ensure protections for political speech (incl. GC speech). Otherwise things are going to end up like the cartoon below and that's going to get spicy.

I hope he does. How can it be that he can't ask questions? Are seats available for the elderly, disabled and pregnant women?

I would be interested to know if Yorkshire building society has disability awareness month flags up now it's July, it would be good to have photos.

There is no intersectionality top Trump in the equality act for sexual orientation or gender reassignment being more equal and there is something about creating good relations between protected characteristics.

This is free speech issue and needs challenging in Parliament. Being a gender atheist and being able to express those decisions is protected and the Yorkshire Building Society needs to be reminded about that.

I'm trying not to allow words like 'totalitarian state' slip into my thoughts, but they keep coming.

See one of my other tweets at 23:00

If the bank suspects money-laundering or sanctions-busting based on his transactions, the bank cannot give Farage any details as this could constitute a "tipping off" offence under the Proceeds of Crime Act. They are obliged to stay silent while investigations are underway.

If the bank is refusing to give a reason why Farage's account has been closed, then it must have a reason for not giving a reason.

We know that other accounts that Farage was closely linked to were closed a number of years ago.

The Brexit Party account was refused by four banks.

And the Reform Party account was closed. We have additional information about what happened with the Reform Party account and how the money that went into it couldn't be explained properly.

We then have George Cottrell who worked directly for Farage who was done for laundering and we have other close associates all strongly connected with Russia and/or laundering.

Aaron Banks was known to be bank rolling Farage giving him large sums of money for some time around 2016. It's odd. Especially given Banks' Russian links.

Then we have the US Presidential link where Farage has been named publicly as a person of interest, the influence of troll farms influencing social media being now felt legitimate and Wagner actively claiming they ran the troll farms as part of hybrid warfare against the US.

We know that Russia directly funded far right parties in France and Italy and other EU countries. We know there is links between Republican figures and Russia (cos individuals got jailed for it).

UK law (and other laws in countries were these banks operate) states that banks have to do due diligence and check politically exposed persons against sanction checklists. They do not have to prove wrongdoing, but are liable if something later comes to light. Insurers won't cover them if it turns out there is a problem either. And that's before you consider the fines for not tackling laundering.

So it's risk management.

The banks can see all this circumstantial evidence which is in the public domain - and go this account is too risky for us. It could cost us a lot of money. They may also have seen activity of the account which looks problematic. They do not need to prove a case, just have concerns. In Farage's case, there are multiple strands you can look at, any of which might constitute a concern.

This is far removed from just having 'wrong opinions'. Having 'wrong opinions' isn't going to potentially land the bank in a money laundering investigation, the reputational damage that may cause, the loss of money, legal implications for operating in certain countries or enormous fines.

Given how closely the US (in particular), the UK and EU are looking at Russian money, it's just not something banks can turn a blind eye to in the way they have previously. There are a couple of banks in Germany that have been done in recent years too.

Given what's out there, would you be willing to sign off more than the most basic account (which Farage admits he HAS be offered but declined as it doesn't suit his narrative) for Farage if you were one of these banks? Cos I'd really struggle knowing everything that's public. You'd be nuts to - it'd trash your own career and your entire bank if anything did get followed through by law enforcement anywhere in the world.

This ISN'T a free speech issue. It's a legal financial issue which has a long documented history. I very firmly believe in free speech and the idea of a cashless society isn't one I like because of the control issues which are being highlighted by this case. I dislike Farage intensely but still respect his right to say things I dislike. However there is a real case here about how close he's sailed to the wind legally and about who has funded him.

As the myriad cases against Trump advance with great care and precision, the timing is interesting.

It's entirely within the bounds of possibility that the FBI have started asking questions of organisations associated with Trump associates, and that in and of itself is enough to trip a compliance threshold.

In this matter, we have to discount anything that can't be corroborated from a unconnected source, since Farage is hardly known as "most truthful man in Britain".

Also - not that he mentioned it - he is a dual citizen. So it's entirely right and proper that he may be under more scrutiny than someone who isn't.

This is a man who lied and abused the UK political system to stir up unrest and hatred to further his own ends. Quite why he's now become Princess Diana with a pint is a mystery.

The Telegraph is behind a paywall, they report that Nationwide building society has cancelled Christina Jordan after she was elected in 2019, the whole family had accounts closed after 30 years.

The Metro bank closed closed the account of Brexit party MEP Henrik Neilsen too.

Farage is KNOWN to have lied about money connected to Arron Banks previously.

There is the Trump stuff, the Wagner admission, new Russian sanctions and more international scrutiny on money laundering which are all recently developing stories - all dovetail towards Farage in an awkward way. Any one of them has the potential to have an investigation which Farage's name pops up in.

Farage IS the perfect example of Political Exposed People that legislation was written directly for. He is not the victim of a law which is now being misused in some kind of witch hunt.

We need to be clear in seeing the difference between that and other issues which MAY raise free speech concerns. It's a crucial distinction and one that Farage has a vested interest in blurring the lines with.

Other cases MAY fall under the umbrella of the abuse of power of banks using these rules but I've not seen one where I can say that you can blame it on 'wrong views' categorically. Yet. The element of genuinely abusive behaviour towards staff is one that crops up and can't be discounted. Now gender critical individuals could fall foul of that but I can't see any thing that really makes me think that's definitely happened in a way that looks like an outright abuse of power.

I mean JKR still has no issue banking...

Both Toby Young and the case of the Vicar make me raise eyebrows as to a bigger backstory for genuinely going too far. Where I have concerns on that is how banking systems have become so appalling that you struggle to get issues resolved and how frustrating that is - it leaves particularly vulnerable people exposed to being labelled as 'being abusive' when they've got to desperate levels of frustration and then are binned by banks. That for me is a whole different issue to do with the bank complaints system. Banks get questioned on the number of unresolved complaints they have - if they can close them by saying someone is abusive - it gets the regulator off their back from looking at how they are operating.

Arguably there needs to be oversight / independent appeals over 'abusive behaviour' bannings. But that's very very different to the Farage case.

As I say, don't fall foul of confusing the two very separate issues.

Farage IS the perfect example of Political Exposed People that legislation was written directly for. He is not the victim of a law which is now being misused in some kind of witch hunt.

My eyes remain dry. However, if Elton rewrites "Candle in the Wind" as some sort of "Farageaid", I may not be responsible for my actions.

Now we know the right wing playbook, his pound-shop antics are not only transparent, but predictable.

Telegraph article can be read here: links to archived version of the article.

http://archive.today/jLOHS

I mean JKR still has no issue banking...

Thank you for all your insightful comments. I don’t think JKR is a great example though, as she is a famously fairly litigious billionaire. Much easier to pick on a retired vicar.

Didn't co-op bank block one of the feminist organisations a few years ago?

Example of how 'abuse' might be used against you.

You have a genuine complaint. You struggle to get through to anyone. When you eventually do, you get an offshore call centre with someone who can't understand you and you can't understand them. They go through your complaint then say they can't deal with it, it's not their department. They won't transfer you to the right department (their system won't allow them to even if they wanted to). So you get directed elsewhere. You eventually after numerous attempts get through only to be told it was the original department you needed to speak to they just didn't do their job properly possibly due to poor English. So after several hours on the phone getting stressed, frustrated and deliberately phobed off / appalling levels of customer service that would drive even the most patient insane someone loses their shit at someone who can't speak English. They then get their account closed and the complaint is ticked as resolved as being 'racist'.

Now I've not done this, but I've got very very close to losing it. Making complaints in my experience and DHs experience has been made deliberately difficult by banks in order to deter them or to help reject them. DH is very good at making complaints and very good at keeping calm but has nearly been sent over the edge by a bank.

This isn't uncommon. This also strikes a chord with other people.

And this is precisely why Farage is trying to piggie back a legitimate issue.

But in terms of having your account closed purely because you are on a black list for being gender critical? Na nope. Not buying into it.

It isn't one about Free Speech for me. It's one about something entirely different. And Farage's case is something else again.

That would fall under an area of concern.

Has the LGB Alliance had issues with banking as they would be the most obvious target on this imho.

Or Posie Parker.

Would JKR, KJK or LGBA tell us?

If they had to change banks and then found another, they may think it more prudent to stay quiet incase there is a repeat.

I posted the link upthread.

I seem to remember this was not the only story at the time. More recently thete have been problems with payment platforms for Conservatives for Women, the Free Speech Union and others.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5852547/Co-operative-bank-bans-feminist-group-using-services.html

When I mentioned this being a free speech issue I was referring to the vicar whose account was closed by the Yorkshire Building Society because he questioned the flags in the branch — not Farage who, as you say, has probably had his closed because of money-laundering suspicions.

Fairly sure given that they make a point of speaking up on injustice they would say something tbh.

Not my area, but I understand the Politically Exposed People restrictions are causing all sorts of problems particularly within the diplomatic community. A newly arrived ambassador needs a bank account. He falls within the PEP definitions. He may be from somewhere "unfriendly" such as Iran, Belarus or Afghanistan at which point the bank may spend time pondering. He might be from a Latin American country known for drug production so set off a banks algorithms.

Apparently even Diplomats from friendly states as well British MPs are suffering as a result of the extra bureaucracy.

Perhaps Farages bank did a review of existing customers and decided that he does not meet current acceptability criteria. If so my instinct is that the PEP restrictions are putting an unacceptable onus on banks to make a moral judgement, and that this is a task better handled by an independent body. As in we accept an Ambassor from Iran, or an MP from the Reform Party, so unless there is clear evidence of criminal or unacceptable financial behaviour, we allow them a bank account.

But, if they try if with JKR, their Head of Compliance is going to be getting a letter from a £1000/hour solicitor. So they are unlikely to try.

The problem with that is that the UK government can't do this.

Banks are international bodies. So a problem in London may affect a bank in the US or vice versa.

Banks are tip toeing around international considerations and laws not just British ones.

The UK could accept an Iranian diplomat but the US may have issues with them. The bank operates in both and if a transaction goes from one country to the other they suddenly find themselves liable. Or the bank finds they may be exposed to their insurance being invalid.

The UK government can not act as guarantor on such situations.

This is where it is a globalisation issue not a national issue. We see similar in terms of borders online and legal jurisdictions.

The legal definition of a PEP is to highlight potentially difficult situations to encourage individuals to consider their personal associations and business dealings as much as anything. It helps both individuals and banks.

If you are aware that all your mates are being done for money laundering, distancing yourself from certain individuals might be wise. Farage has doubled down instead really.