Most high profile cases of corruption have been based on tracking bank account activity over months if not years. In the UK that’s not possible if the banks immediately freeze funds
And they do that if instructed to
2 Likes
You mean the system most European countries have? Yup, such a serious problem with bombs going off everyday in Switzerland…
That’s not how terrorist funding works 
2 Likes
After having firstly frozen funds, thus tipping off the account holder?
That is how our system of government is set up. It is shocking the amount of power the government can delegate. Some Government Ministers have the power to detain people and, again, you can usually only challenge it based on a judicial review - an error in law. Some police commanders have literally a licence to kill, if needed, to protect against terrorists. There are calls for better protections, a new Bill of Rights etc.
The UK hasn’t had the shock of revolution or dictatorship that many other countries have suffered so we haven’t really needed formal protection from the state as other countries have ingrained into their constitutions. The UK is mainly supported by custom, as in, we expect the state not to take advantage of its powers so we allow it to rule as it does. Watching the Brexit debates in Parliament shows this as many of the precedents MP’s expect have been challenged by the current speaker.
2 Likes
You’re very misinformed. Switzerland also freeze accounts, they also do not have to wait for a court order or similar, there system is somewhat similar to ours.
Not in all cases no. There are various watch lists. I’m not a fincrime expert but there’s enough information out there on it although naturally a lot of this is secret
I agree with your overall assessment of the situation
Maybe you should do some studying on the matter? In Switzerland a court order is needed to freeze accounts
My solution is the same that works well in most European countries and ensures people’s rights as well as transparency in the system. Are you saying in the UK the justice system is particularly inneficient? Then maybe that should be improved on?
Not to mention the abundance of such cases in the UK is maybe related to the fact that the system is based on stopping small infractions instead of building cases to remove the core problem. You freeze some funds here and there instead of fighting the organizations perpetrating the crimes
Maybe you should do some studying on the matter, as obviously I was being hyperbolic but the fact is that terrorism funding passing through Europe had never been the huge problem many try to portray and there’s no data saying such supposedly anti terrorism funding measures have any effect on actual terrorism funding. Nonetheless many measures that restrict the rights that people supposedly would be able to expect in a contemporary democratic society are enacted with terrorism given as a justification for their need
I think, if you want to criticise the legal system of this country, a bank forum is probably not the place for it.
We get that you disagree but it’s the law of the land here.
Can we move on now please?
17 Likes
I can kind of understand where you are coming from. For example if you get arrested the police are not the same people that sentence you. In the case of the banks they are judge, jury and executioner.
As is said above the banks are only operating subject to the laws of the land.
Like i said, this isnt true, Swiss banks have the power like the UK to freeze suspect accounts and then contact the authorities. They’ve had this for a long time.
You can read an example here How a New Swiss Law Can Help Egypt Get Its Money Back - Middle East in Revolt - Political Unrest in Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Lebanon and Tunisia - TIME
“They must monitor that client’s financial activity and clarify any unusual transactions. But unlike many other countries, Swiss banks don’t have to wait for a court order to freeze suspicious accounts - they can act on their own initiative.” When Swiss banks detected suspicious activity on the account held by disgraced Peruvian spy chief Vladimiro Montesinos in 2000, for example, they reported it to the authorities and froze the assets, as they are obliged to do under Switzerland’s anti-money laundering laws. The same thing happened with Taiwan’s former president Chen Shui-bian in 2008.
In fact the Swiss have said in the past that our efforts are not good enough.
But experts say Switzerland wouldn’t have to work so hard at fighting corruption if the banks in other countries were more careful about whose money they accept. When the government investigated the case of Nigeria’s former leader Sani Abacha, for example, they discovered that a substantial portion of the $700 million he had stashed in Swiss accounts had first gone through banks in the U.S. and the U.K. Funds of criminal origin often come to Switzerland from other countries where “know-your-customer” rules are not as strict, Nason says, pointing out that Swiss financial institutions must have detailed information not only about the account owner but also about their beneficiaries and those holding power of attorney over the assets. “In Britain, you can verify your identity when opening a bank account by showing a utilities bill with your name and address on it,” he says. “If you tried that in Switzerland, you would be laughed out of the bank.”
This isnt the case. Banks are not judge, jury, and executioner. They don’t convict you of a crime, your not arrested or imprisoned or sentenced for anything. Your account is frozen pending investigation, its not the same at all.
The loose equivalent might be being brought in for questioning or some of your assets might be seized for investigation, or being restricted access to places. Your not charged with a crime at that point, your not sentenced, you’re just under investigation. The results of that will have you charged or your assets returned to you.
1 Like
No I was not talking about it in a legal sense as of course a bank can’t sentence you to imprisonment.
I was talking about in a moral sense. They see something they don’t think is right, they themselves do the checks and it’s them that if found guilty (by them) they then take steps to freeze your account while telling you nothing.
Kind of seems stacked against people from the start really.
Yes I am being deliberately simplistic just to explain my original comment of judge, jury and executioner.
I don’t think this lines up with what i think you might be trying to go for. They don’t find you guilty of anything. Guilt assumes that the person has been proven guilty, the banks don’t do this, they have no stance on your guilt or innocence. At the very least this is the wrong word.
The banks take steps to stop crime and suspend suspect accounts pending an investigation by the NCA, but this just isnt the same as them being judge, jury, and executioner. They don’t do any of those tasks. It would be like saying that any investigation into someone means they are guilty regardless of outcome.
In what way?
1 Like
You’re right it wasn’t the best word to choose. Maybe I should of said found to of done something untoward. In saying that the receiver of said monies might be innocent of any wrongdoing.
Judge, Jury and Executioner comment again applies. If they had a independent 3rd party (Jury) to objectively look at all cases then it would be a lot fairer. As it is right now you have a bank wanting to protect itself from being fined from the FCA or and the PRA So it’s in it’s own interest to be as conservative as possible. As I don’t hear of any fines for freezing an account because they’ve acted slightly gun ho.
They do… The NCA looks at these cases. Your money is an asset, its not a person (theres a difference), if the bank was arresting you and putting you in prison you would be right, they would be judge, jury, and executioner, but they don’t do this. They freeze accounts suspected of criminal activity and the NCA investigate. The outcome of the NCA decide if it goes to a judge to be prosecuted.
Id still be interested in why you think this is stacked against people from the start?
That’s news to me but do they look at it immediately and make a decision. Or do they then look at the decision after the fact?
Yes money is a asset but it has the habit of impacting people on many levels.
Well now that I know the above which I didn’t know before. It’s indeed not as terrible as I thought it was at first.
There’s very few if any (none that I’m aware of) private companies who decide on punishment of the law. In almost all cases where a private company is involved it’s for a very specific thing and usually to do with either informing the correct authorities or preventing the loss of evidence. It’s always the authorities who are in charge of investigation and prosecution.
If ever a thread had that “Saturday look”, this one does. 
4 Likes
I’ll raise your Saturday and give you a Bank Holiday Monday. 
4 Likes