Careful who you support politically or who you are friends with

[Nemo]

Someone I know was "debanked" and he claims that it was because he made regular contributions to the British First political party. He will now do a freedom of information request after finding out that this is possible.

I found his views a little far fetched ubtil I came across this article about Standard Life not wanting to take a pension contribution from someone because he was a friend of Nigel Farage:

https://www.msn.com/en-za/news/world/ho ... r-AA1e89Bt

[SalvorHardin]

I wish I could say that I was surprised, but this sort of behaviour is increasingly common in Britain today.

The large number of posters on TLF who approve of what Coutts did to Nigel Farage has caused me to revise my opinion of TLF and what I post here (indeed, whether I bother at all).

The chance that someone on TLF decides to stir up trouble by reporting a post to the authorities, ISPs, employers, clients, etc. has rocketed IMHO.

1984 was a warning, yet increasingly it's being used as an instruction manual.

Moderator Message:
Text speculating on future moderation on TLF removed.

[JohnB]

We had a heated debate about this on a Zoom pub meet. Most people thought that companies have an absolute right to choose not to deal with anyone they choose, unless they were doing it in a systematic way based on a protected characteristic (race, gender etc), in the same way that pub landlords can refuse service without justification. This is to protect the company and its shareholders from financial loss or reputational damage from difficult people.

[Nemo]

We had a heated debate about this on a Zoom pub meet. Most people thought that companies have an absolute right to choose not to deal with anyone they choose, unless they were doing it in a systematic way based on a protected characteristic (race, gender etc), in the same way that pub landlords can refuse service without justification. This is to protect the company and its shareholders from financial loss or reputational damage from difficult people.

Financial loss - can't see how that could happen. From what i know about financial services the only person who could lose is the 'investor.

Difficult people - people who don't think like you

How did Standard Life find out that he knew Farage? Do they monitor the social media of all their clients?

I used to be the money laundering parner at a firm of Chartered Accountants. I'm very careful of what I post and where it gets posted.

[NotSure]

A colleague at work recently had to sign a form stating he was not a "PEP" (politically exposed person). He has a very common surname, so came up when checked during a mortgage application.

All the rules around PEPs do seem overly onerous. I can understand why a bank might simply shrug it's metaphorical shoulders and seek business elsewhere. IMHO, it's the law rather the banks that are most at fault.

...Identifying a PEP
PEPs can be:

heads of state, heads of government, ministers, and deputy or assistant ministers
members of parliament (MPs)
members of courts of auditors or of the boards of central banks
ambassadors, chargés d’affaires and high-ranking officers in the armed forces
members of the administrative, management or supervisory bodies of state-owned enterprises
members of supreme courts, constitutional courts or other high-level judicial bodies whose decisions are not generally subject to further appeal, except in exceptional circumstances
PEPs also include:

the person’s family members
close business associates
beneficial owners of the person’s property (someone who enjoys the benefits of ownership even though the title of the property is in another person's name).....

....Handling PEP clients
If your client is a PEP, you should apply enhanced due diligence measures. You should also treat business with PEPs on a case-by-case basis.

Under regulation 35 of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, (MLR 2017) if your client is a PEP you must:

get senior management approval for the business relationship
take adequate measures to establish the source of wealth and source of funds
closely monitor the business relationship throughout
It’s also recommended that you tell those responsible for monitoring risk assessments in your firm that a business relationship with a PEP has begun.

Once you establish that you have a PEP client, you can look at the basis on which they're categorised (lower or higher risk) and the nature of the retainer they’re asking you to undertake.

This will help you make sure that your enhanced due diligence is proportionate and effective......

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/anti-money-laundering/peps

[Nemo]

All the rules around PEPs do seem overly onerous. I can understand why a bank might simply shrug it's metaphorical shoulders and seek business elsewhere. IMHO, it's the law rather the banks that are most at fault.

Still has me wondering how Standard Life knew that someone was a friend of Nigel Farage. To go back to the OP - the bank must have been monitoring where the donations to Britain First came from and decided that they didn't like the organization, even though it is quite a legal one.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out — because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out — because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me —
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.

According to a relative who lectures in IT at a UK universlity 'you ain't seen nothing yet' - just wait until AI and a digital currency come along.

[NotSure]

Still has me wondering how Standard Life knew that someone was a friend of Nigel Farage...

If you simply google "simon heffer" "nigel farage" you get a lot of hits. Even SH's Wiki page links them, though not as "friends".

But the question remains: So what?

The 2017 (i.e. Conservative) legislation pus a lot of onus on the banks to treat PEPs with (expensive) caution. Of course, it also gives politically motivated bankers an excuse to discriminate. Bad do all round, as far as I can see. But it must be hard to come down on the banks when that legislation is in place, IMHO.

Now we have new laws/rules about "unfair bank closures". Lot's of fun for lawyers ahead - the existing 2017 laws would seem to provide the banks with plenty of wriggle room (though I am not a lawyer).

[Nemo]

The other point to consider is that due diligence costs money, sometimes a lot of money. It was a cost that had to be swallowed up by my partnership as we changed hundreds of pounds an hour for partner time.

A bank, working on small margins, running a current account would not find it commercially viable to do due diligence on someone that they were not making money on. The relatives of Farage were also debanked which begs the question of how the banks knew who they were.

It can sometimes have its humorous side. Last year I was in a queue at a bank and a financial adviser was wander up and down the queue handing out flyers for financial services. I pretended to be interested and we got talking. Eventually I said in a rather loud voice “is it true that anything I say to you is subject to you making a secret report to The National Crime Agency about me”. It got rid of him rather quickly

[XFool]

Someone I know was "debanked" and he claims that it was because he made regular contributions to the British First political party. He will now do a freedom of information request after finding out that this is possible.

I found his views a little far fetched ubtil I came across this article about Standard Life not wanting to take a pension contribution from someone because he was a friend of Nigel Farage:

https://www.msn.com/en-za/news/world/ho ... r-AA1e89Bt

On the one hand I generally incline to the view banks and other organisations should not let the personal political positions of their clients effect business decisions - unless they are legally banned or proscribed parties.

The trouble is... it is now far from easy to get to the real facts and truth of these matters, given the current cultural warrior, right wing posturing's; such as on display in this article.

How on earth a historian and political journalist such as Simon Heffer can write this is beyond me:

"My adviser was quite straight with me and told me my association with Nigel (if it can be aggrandised by that term) was of interest to the financial services industry because he was “a politically exposed person”, a term that, in my innocence, I had never heard up to that moment."

Really? Even I have heard the term "PEP" previously.

Followed by:

"My former colleague Dominic Lawson has written of problems he encountered trying to open a bank account for his daughter, who has Down’s syndrome: the problem was that his late father, Nigel Lawson, a man of impeccable probity, had had the effrontery to challenge the orthodoxy of climate change, and therefore was “politically exposed”."

Oh come on! Leaving aside his silly and erroneous notions on climate change, (and thus his connection to a climate change denying political organisation) Nigel Lawson was a politically exposed person: Or certainly had been in his working life - he had been UK Chancellor of the Exchequer!

[XFool]

I used to be the money laundering parner at a firm of Chartered Accountants. I'm very careful of what I post and where it gets posted.

I think we can take that in our stride...

[Urbandreamer]

I don't know if it's "off topic", but you don't need to be in politics to be de-banked.
Somewhat famously Peter McCormak has has banking troubles.
https://themarketperiodical.com/2021/02 ... mccormack/

I think that he has also had troubles with his personal bank account, as Lloyds seem to really hate anyone involved in crypto.

"Which" also seem to think that these things WERE common two years ago.
https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/wh ... Xrh7F1YCx1

More than a bit distressing.

[XFool]

I don't know if it's "off topic", but you don't need to be in politics to be de-banked.
Somewhat famously Peter McCormak has has banking troubles.
https://themarketperiodical.com/2021/02 ... mccormack/

I think that he has also had troubles with his personal bank account, as Lloyds seem to really hate anyone involved in crypto.

Crypto is perhaps another matter?

"Which" also seem to think that these things WERE common two years ago.
https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/wh ... Xrh7F1YCx1

More than a bit distressing.

From the article:

Who's most at risk of having their bank account frozen?
"Resolver found almost three-quarters of complaints about frozen bank accounts mentioned 'digital' banks, but anyone could be at risk of having their account frozen.

One person in Resolver's analysis said a £40 transfer to their account from a friend immediately caused account suspension.

Another experienced a 13-week freeze after three transactions (one of which was £50) from a relative triggered a red flag.

Other reasons Resolver picked up in its analysis included deposits of benefits like Universal Credit raising an 'alarm' with a bank, rebate payments from HMRC causing accounts to be put 'under review', and ordinary salary payments suddenly causing people to be cut off from access to their accounts."

If the above is correct this is simply incompetence. Personally, if I experienced the above (I do not expect to), I would regard those 'banks' as fraudulent, for advertising themselves as providing "banking services".

[Spet0789]

We had a heated debate about this on a Zoom pub meet. Most people thought that companies have an absolute right to choose not to deal with anyone they choose, unless they were doing it in a systematic way based on a protected characteristic (race, gender etc), in the same way that pub landlords can refuse service without justification. This is to protect the company and its shareholders from financial loss or reputational damage from difficult people.

I think that is precisely the right way to consider this.

As ever, the hardest decisions come when two ‘rights’ come into conflict. In this case, the right of a private business to make choices about the business is does against the right of an individual to hold and express political views.

If Coutts had dropped Farage as a client because he’s not wealthy, no problem. But I am uncomfortable that they may have dropped him because of his (unattractive but legitimate) political views.

[88V8]

...Most people thought that companies have an absolute right to choose not to deal with anyone they choose>...to protect the company and its shareholders from financial loss or reputational damage from difficult people.

...But I am uncomfortable that they may have dropped him because of his (unattractive but legitimate) political views.

Quite.
It would be so disruptive to be debanked. Some MPs have apparently suffered, surely that is akin to terrorism?
Much as I might chortle if it happened to certain lefties of course.

V8

[Urbandreamer]

From the article:

Who's most at risk of having their bank account frozen?
"Resolver found almost three-quarters of complaints about frozen bank accounts mentioned 'digital' banks, but anyone could be at risk of having their account frozen.

One person in Resolver's analysis said a £40 transfer to their account from a friend immediately caused account suspension.

Another experienced a 13-week freeze after three transactions (one of which was £50) from a relative triggered a red flag.

Other reasons Resolver picked up in its analysis included deposits of benefits like Universal Credit raising an 'alarm' with a bank, rebate payments from HMRC causing accounts to be put 'under review', and ordinary salary payments suddenly causing people to be cut off from access to their accounts."

If the above is correct this is simply incompetence. Personally, if I experienced the above (I do not expect to), I would regard those 'banks' as fraudulent, for advertising themselves as providing "banking services".

I suggest a re-read of what you quoted. It doesn't claim that it is "digital" banks doing the freezing, though that may indeed be the case.
However it is also just as likely that it is transfers to or from such digital banks that cause traditional banks to freeze the account. We can't quite tell from what was said.
The only case that I am personally aware of involved a transfer from a traditional account to Revolut. Possibly knowledge of that event has produced a bias in me.

[XFool]

I suggest a re-read of what you quoted. It doesn't claim that it is "digital" banks doing the freezing, though that may indeed be the case.
However it is also just as likely that it is transfers to or from such digital banks that cause traditional banks to freeze the account. We can't quite tell from what was said.
The only case that I am personally aware of involved a transfer from a traditional account to Revolut. Possibly knowledge of that event has produced a bias in me.

OK. I may be similarly biased against digital newcomers, as the the only known case of a fraudulent transaction on a credit card of mine in ~50 years was to one of these type of new banks.

OTOH, thinking about it, in the nature of things are they not more likely to be used, conveniently, by money launders and fraudsters than conventional banks?

[Nemo]

I used to be the money laundering parner at a firm of Chartered Accountants. I'm very careful of what I post and where it gets posted.

I think we can take that in our stride...

You won’t find the ‘real’ me on any social media, and my favourite search engine is TOR used with a secure VPN

I was warned by a banker friend some time ago about social media and the banks. What he told me then was bad enough so I dread to think what they are like now:

And this certainly applies to the banking sector. The last decade has increasingly seen banks all over the world ramp up their social-media strategies, primarily as a way to improve customer experience and expand business opportunities.

https://internationalbanker.com/banking ... ngagement/

Many years ago it used to be said that if the Russian every invaded the UK all that they would need to do was to take over HMRC due to the information that they held on people. To that now add the banks! Where do the banks get their information from - you don't declare your political views when you open an account do you?

Nemo
(only paranoid because they are watching me)

[Urbandreamer]

OK. I may be similarly biased against digital newcomers, as the the only known case of a fraudulent transaction on a credit card of mine in ~50 years was to one of these type of new banks.

OTOH, thinking about it, in the nature of things are they not more likely to be used, conveniently, by money launders and fraudsters than conventional banks?

I think that we are drifting off topic.

Historically cash and traditional banking was what was used by money launderers.
How could the use anything else, when that was all that there was?
Indeed, I could be wrong, but I thought that the term money laundering came from the use of small cash based businesses, such as launderettes, that could receive funds that were difficult to trace.

“Digital” banks need to offer a USP (unique selling point). In the case of Revolut (no I don’t have an account), it is a multi-currency, international payment, account. Handy for those who travel a lot.

Of course with funds entering and leaving from multiple locations it might be difficult for them to do the job of the UK police. Especially as most of the jurisdictions that those transactions may happen in are subject to different laws made by different governments.

Of course as I said, that really is OFF TOPIC.
The subject is the frequency of banks suspending accounts for reasons that are unrelated to fraud or criminal action.

[jaizan]

We had a heated debate about this on a Zoom pub meet. Most people thought that companies have an absolute right to choose not to deal with anyone they choose, unless they were doing it in a systematic way based on a protected characteristic (race, gender etc)

Within reasonable limits, freedom of speech ought to be protected at least as much as race and gender.

I'm certainly not a supporter of Farage, but what he says & does is within acceptable limits.

[Lootman]

We had a heated debate about this on a Zoom pub meet. Most people thought that companies have an absolute right to choose not to deal with anyone they choose, unless they were doing it in a systematic way based on a protected characteristic (race, gender etc), in the same way that pub landlords can refuse service without justification. This is to protect the company and its shareholders from financial loss or reputational damage from difficult people.

If a pub doesn't want to serve me that has little effect on me. I just go to another pub down the street.

But a bank suddenly freezing my account and assets has a profound and almost immediate effect. Bills don't get paid, my income doesn't arrive and so on.

So a bank should not ban me just for no shirt or no shoes like a pub might. At minimum it should give me (say) 3 months notice and cooperate with me to transfer to another bank.

To me banking services are right up there in importance with water, food, energy, shelter etc. It should not matter whether I support Trump, Black Lives Matter, Putin, Israel or am neutral on such things.