In this case its likely you’ve thrown everyone off because you quotes Monzos information specifically in regards to complying with money laundering legislation and their obligations to check and report suspected accounts.
If your concern is elsewhere you should probably change your quoted text to the relevant information.
Again, I was, I thought, incredibly specific about the exact phrase and the part of the phrase I was querying.
I wasn’t aware why people were talking about completely unrelated things but it does make more sense now 
I just wish they did as I asked and read the actual words I used rather than skimming and making assumptions!
Considering the replies, I think that has probably not come across clearly.
More specifically, it looks more like you are more concerned about the wording of this specific part of that web page, and not the one you quoted which is in reference to a completely different thing.
We also freeze accounts when we suspect criminal activity
[…]
- The police tell us to block an account. This can happen as part of financial crime investigation, and we’ll co-operate with any requests from law enforcement.
Correct. And?
Okay. But I choose my words fairly carefully. If I wanted to ask about a suspended account, I would find it important to mention that.
With respect, you’re still not looking what I actually wrote. I’m talking about the instance when they say they will act despite not being bound by the law. That’s literally the only point I was making and made appropriate citations.
If they did mean to write what they wrote (rather than what it seems they might have meant) it will in fact make a material and important difference in these circumstances, hence me starting this thread
Precisely!
That bit and the bit I quoted which has the same meaning:
we’ll co-operate with any requests from law enforcement
I made it very clear that the larger section I quoted was to reference the TONE. I quoted the tone to help make my point: they are conflating the two and, as I said, the bit I’m questioning (and the bit you quoted saying the same thing)
is carefully worded to be something that reaches far beyond that.
The tone of the post is “we are regulated so we have to do all things regulated banks have to do. We do this to protect you and ourselves against terrorism etc.”
The actual statements are something materially different. The statements are:
we’ll co-operate with any requests from law enforcement
and
We also freeze accounts when […] the police tell us to block an account.
Now @Rat_au_van has argued they didn’t mean to say this and that well be the case hence me expressing uncertainty and asking for clarification. But it does appear to me that they have carefully chosen the phrasing they have chosen and use of words such as “any” is deliberate.
If so I’m asking why.
That’s why I’ve been asking everyone to re-read my post and actually reply to the things I said!
Most people have gone off on a tangent and put completely unrelated words in my mouth making absurd claims that I don’t understand the POCA, that I’ve erred in law or that I’m asking/expecting Monzo to not do things they are obliged to.
No it doesn’t. They are separate issues, describing separate actions they will take on those two separate issues.
In relation to what you quoted in your OP. They do not say this at all. You’re literally making things up at this point.
Rather than speculating(or interpreting the law as you see if fit) I personally would take this to a lawyer or a citizens advice bureau and ask for their interpretation of it, if you were concerned
“we’ll co-operate” = we will act
“any request” = requests backed by evidence and, where necessary, a court or judge as well as any other conceivable request
i.e. the sentence literally includes in plain English the logical statement " will act despite not being bound by the law"
This is formal logic not something you can ignore and chuck to the side.
I don’t have any issue with interpreting the law. I understand the law and it’s implications. I have an issue with whether Monzo mean exactly what they’ve said or something quite different.
Again, reading my post should make this clear! I never queried anything about the law at any point in time!
One is in relation to Monzos legal obligations in regards to money laundering. the other is their statement in regards to operating with the police. Those aren’t the same…
You should ask a lawyer for a clear answer to your question if you need an answer to this…
My point is you would ask a lawyer(citizen’s advice) to look at the wording of all of this and see if they come to the same conclusion that you do. If they come to the same conclusion then there is an issue that needs to be cleared up. If not then you will be better off for learning what it means and clearing up the confusion.
Neil - the actual meaning is clear. I don’t think anyone’s debating that. We don’t need more lawyers or - heaven forbid - the CAB to weigh in to work that out.
The point is whether Monzo actually meant that meaning (and if so why), hence the question in the first place!
(btw, if you’ve worked with CAB you’ll know there are hardly any qualified lawyers and you def won’t get to speak to one if you get in touch, especially about something like this)
But… you are literally debating that 
Now you’ve completely lost me.
Let’s look again.
Statement 1: we’ll co-operate with any requests from law enforcement
Statement 2: We also freeze accounts when […] the police tell us to block an account.
How is one of these two statements about cooperating with the police and the other not? They are, I thought, self-evidently BOTH about cooperating with the police!
You say “those aren’t the same”. What?! They’re both under the same bullet point in Monzo’s post!
Am I going completely mad here?!
It’s taken this many posts for people to check what I actually wrote in the first place after a massive derail and now I’m being sold two sentences about the same thing are in fact not?
Once more:
“we’ll co-operate” = we will act
“any request” = requests backed by evidence and, where necessary, a court or judge as well as any other conceivable request
Following formal logic: they certainly are saying what I’m saying they’re saying (tongue twister )
Please please PLEASE stop putting words in my mouth
I’m not debating what the words as they’ve written mean!
I am debating whether that is what they meant to mean!
Look at what I said:
This is what I’m “literally” doing. The difference is important.
This is the case from the very first post where I summarised all I had said and asked the question:
Could Monzo clarify why they have chosen this wording
The debate is going round and round in circles at the moment so perhaps either move on to new points or wait for monzo to reply
Agreed. The difficulty was when five separate people failed the grasp the single point I was making from the start and I had to correct all their misinterpretations. You seem to be the only person who actually got it from (almost) the start 
(sorry about the almost, I forgot about your first post 
)
thanks for the backhanded compliment 
Replies like yours only fan the flames though
So is your issue solely with how that blog post is worded?
Because Monzo are definitely not “collaborating with law enforcement to strip away financial rights” since the law says Monzo have to freeze any account that Monzo think might be being used for illegal activity.
@anon28680395 why don’t you ask Monzo directly for an official statement rather than ask a bunch of customers in the forum? You’ll just get peoples opinions and interpretations here. I don’t see how that can be useful.
You might get @simonb appearing in the thread if you’re lucky, and he may get an official statement rather than his personal view. But tbh I would go direct and save everyones time.