(Kevyn) #12

How is it absolutely rubbish? People who fall victim to this are usually conducting fraudulent activities. I accept it as I don’t want criminals to get away with crimes. Yes, it does mean that some innocent people get false flagged, but this will be found out in an investigation.

Revolut do not need to give preference to the laws of Portugal because they operate based on the laws of the UK. Customers accept that requirement when they sign up to Revolut. Just like my bunq account is based on the laws of the Netherlands. I accepted that when I signed up to it even though I haven’t the foggiest idea what the Dutch laws state.

(Jonathon) #13

We have this.

Just for all suspected fraud cases.

It makes perfect sense. If someone was committing fraud, if they knew they were being investigated then it would be instantly moved and few would be convicted.

(Ghost) #14

I’m actually pretty excited to try N26, purely because I like the app and the backing behind it - it gives a slight sense of comfort in comparison to Starling (who are a bit too close to RBS for my liking at the moment).

The only off-putting thing is, apparently they don’t have a page where you can see your direct debits… they come out fine and give you notifications, but you can’t see them anywhere? What sense does that make?


Call me old fashioned but I still believe in the presumption of innocence


That’s really odd! That wouldn’t meet my minimum criteria for a bank account, I think.

(Jonathon) #17

It’s got nothing to do with that. Certain crimes require a slight amount of investigation to even establish guilt or possible guilt. That’s what police detectives do. That’s why, for example, people get followed, tapped etc first. It’s all very well having this mantra, but it doesn’t aid in combating crime at all.

If you can pull up any data that suggests this is routinely targeting legitimately innocent people then I would have a case to consider my opinion, however I do not see this.

This makes absolute sense, to not let the person know they are being investigated until we can know for greater certainty whether they are potentially criminal or not.

(Jamie 🏳️‍🌈) #18

Sure, but in the UK offences are investigated on the balance of probability they took place. (One can be arrested upon reasonable grounds for suspicion.) All these things are completely compatible. The balance of probability does not inform the suspicion of involvement, the suspicion does not presume guilt, it merely allows the gathering of evidence (and crucially, in this instance, the prevention of the suspect destroying evidence or making off with the proceeds of crime) whilst an investigation is ongoing.

All of which is why those who have their assets frozen in this way do not automatically find themselves in prison the following day.

(Graham - Mental health professional) #19

Any way we can get this thread back on track, please?

I’m sure I’ve seen similar conversations elsewhere about fraud. Just wondering…:thinking:

(Jack) #20

Just a polite reminder to stay on topic everyone, If you’d like to discuss other topics there’s other threads better suited.

I’ll split what’s been discussed so far so the chat can continue. :slight_smile:


Fintechs have to abide by the laws of the costumer’s country, thats why they usually don’t roll out to every euro country at once.

As an example, Curve has still not launched in Portugal as they are still getting into compliance with Portuguese laws.

As for you completely disregarding due process, thats highly troubling from a democratic standpoint. So you agree with giving banks the power of seizing financial assets without court order? That would never fly here in Portugal.

As an example it’s common in other countries to have banks that don’t allow crypto currency related activity. Here in Portugal about a year ago a bank tried to do the same and it was major news, they suffered a lot of backlash and a lot of accounts where closed even by people who didn’t have the faintest idea of what crypto currency is, the idea of someone telling you that you have limitations on what to do with your money was enough.

They reverted that policy within 3 days.

Bank secrecy is very important here in Portugal and it’s crucial for banks to maintain at least the illusion that no one sees what’s in your bank accounts or touches your money. Banks will go to great lengths to maintain costumer’s privacy and will have total transparency with the costumer when they can’t do that due to court orders

Getting on topic from now on :wink:


If the person is up to no good, freezing their account is tipping off, they will disappear, shred any evidence etc.

The only people it won’t tip off is the ones that aren’t actually committing fraud - they will wonder what on earth is going on whilst they can’t live their life normally.

There should be actual evidence before freezing someone’s account, not merely suspicion. That evidence could be gathered before the account is frozen and should in my opinion be presented to a competent authority who then issues the freeze order.

It’s called due process and separates democracy from despotism.

(Jonathon) #23

We can agree to disagree. This is how the authorities feel is the best way to combat fraud.

I don’t know of many (actually, any) cases of people being unable to live their lives normally while their account is frozen where they were ultimately not guilty - I’m sure there are some, but it’s blowing it out of proportion here.

I don’t believe having your account frozen is despotism. But there we are.


You talk as if there were no bank records…

(Jonathon) #25

Of course there are. Freezing is to prevent it being moved and therefore lost. It’s evidence.

Clearly some of you have better knowledge of financial crime than the experts! You should go for a job!!

(Nick) #26

I’m with @coffeemadman. Banks freezing accounts where they suspect fraud is no bad thing. It’s all very well saying “there should be evidence” but, of course there is! Banks aren’t going to freeze accounts on a hunch, they’re going to do it because there is evidence of suspicious behaviour - be it a pattern of behaviour, or transfers from accounts which turn out to be flagged, or following reports from another bank where someone has subsequently disputed a transaction.

The main thing freezing does is it stops the fraudster transferring the money out of the account to somewhere else where it is no longer recoverable. That’s a big thing when you’re an innocent person who’s been tricked into transferring your life savings into the wrong account. You’d definitely want that account frozen so then money can be sent back to you, rather than have it left alone despite reports/suspicion/evidence of fraud and the money moved out of it to the next account in the chain.

Read the financial pages. They are full of stories from people who were defrauded and couldn’t retrieve the money because the perpetrator had already moved it to another bank.

Lastly, banks are not going to want to piss off a huge number of legitimate customers, so it’s likely far more difficult to get your account accidentally frozen than you might expect.


Accidentally or not, giving banks the power to freeze accounts would be unconstitutional here in Portugal and still to me a head scratcher how people in UK and other countries dont get outraged by that.

Any other type of evidence collected need a judge to sign into it, but for bank accounts is suddenly ok to have banks acting independently on that?

It’s the same as phone companies listening in on every phone call and rat you out to the cops if you say something “suspicious”

I understand some of this is probably cultural, Protestant vs Catholic as Luther and others associated privacy/secrecy in the church with corruption, in the same way Protestant tradition countries don’t have secrecy when it comes to tax returns, etc


I mean, even if we did get outraged our government doesn’t actually care. Haven’t you seen Brexit? 48% of the country hates it and that’s probably increased since then since it’s been going poorly. Government has said “nah no second chances”

(Richard Cook) #29

7 posts were split to a new topic: Removed Posts - 10/10/18

(Richard Cook) #30

Hi everyone :wave:

I’ve just removed a few posts that weren’t contributing to the discussion. As a reminder of our Code of Conduct:

We avoid:

  • Ad hominem attacks (criticising a poster personally, not their post).
  • Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content.

We’re happy to let this discussion continue. The topic of the role banks have to play in helping to prevent financial crime is an interesting one (especially if you’re following the Danske Bank developments). But let’s avoid personal attacks on each other.