And that would be fine if it didn’t leave people unbanked, which it does, and is a serious punishment which leaves people unable to receive salaries, rent homes or receive benefits. It can leave people homeless and employed for six years. In some ways the consequences are worse than a custodial sentence, all due to a ‘suspected’ wrongdoing which has not been proved true, essentially the judgement of a bank’s customer service team. My point is, these consequences should only be bought about be legal systems.
9 Likes
Who have thought committing a crime had consequence.
5 Likes
I’m not saying that the current system is good or fair. But it’s the best we have right now to try and safeguard the banking system against wrongdoing.
Does it catch out and unduly punish the small fish while those running fraud rings live happily abroad? Yes. Can the justice system cope with hundreds of thousands of potential fraud cases? No.
Perhaps a sliding scale ought to be applied.
3 Likes
That’s a problem for other industries to resolve, don’t blame the victim industry.
Can’t pay salary or benefits by bank? Pay it in cash.
Can’t rent a home? Shouldn’t have become a criminal and make others believe you may victimise them too.
Don’t act like the banks are the only problem, other solutions are available.
2 Likes
The basis of some of the objections here is that banks are able to investigate and impose their punishment with next to no transparency. Indeed it seems that to even know for sure that you have such a marker requires a data protection subject access request. I have no doubt that many people who receive CIFAS markers have done what they have been suspected of but six years seems like an excessive period of time when it was previously only one year they remained on record for.
Looking at decisions of the FOS in relation to CIFAS markers I wonder if some of the detail provided in the decisions is only discovered, by the person receiving the marker, at the point the ombudsman becomes involved.
The system I think is generally right but could be more transparent and more proportionate.
3 Likes
Falls into tipping off then, which could lead to additional impact on financial services to circumvent processes and so forth.
While I understand what you’re saying, I don’t think someone (innocent or not) committing fraud should get a free pass from it, however big or small it was.
OP knew what they were doing, but seemingly didn’t really understand the consequences of their actions.
3 Likes
I just find it a bit sad that when Nigel Farage was debanked by Coutts, HMG reacted immediately. I’m sure that life must be awfully difficult when you have your wealth management services disrupted. However, there’s a broader issue here that gov needs to look at and I recognise that “tipping off” is a part of that and a constraint for the banks in how transparent they can be.
1 Like
Farage didn’t commit fraud, he was exited because of his views. And what he experienced is another big issue with UK banking, the fact that banks can just pick and choose who they bank with based on how they feel that given day.
That needed rightly addressing. People who commit (alleged) fraud receive less sympathy for better or worse.
6 Likes
You think someone innocent of committing fraud ‘shouldn’t get a free pass’?
2 Likes
Do we have any idea of how many people are wrongfully given a CIFAS marker?
I doubt those stats exist.
This particular law firm claims that CIFAS upholds 16.8% of complaints.
“Cifas has admitted that it upholds just 16.8% of complaints – it only considers whether a marker was correctly loaded, not wider arguments.”.
1 Like
I’m having trouble locating this, has anyone else been able to find the source?
The article doesn’t provide any citations to back up its claims, and upon checking, it appears this firm, like many others, offer paid services claiming they can remove markers. This makes me question their motives
3 Likes
The stat isn’t sourced and I’d treat it with a pinch of salt, but also it’s a legal firm offering legal representation to get them removed if they think you have a case, not some random online service.
1 Like
Who believes they are innocent or not* sorry.
It’s more concerning that CIFAS are not publishing detailed stats themselves.
Whether the system is right or wrong, full transparency should be a requirement.
5 Likes
Agreed. For something that can be so life altering (innocent or not, even people coming out of prison sentences for 6 years after violent crime can open a bank account and resume their lives) there needs to be transparency and oversight.
6 Likes
I agree, this is exactly what I was aiming for when I asked for statistics.
I don’t believe changing the “punishment” is the right solution. There must be consequences for actions, and without sounding overly strict, it seems to be a growing trend that people want to face fewer repercussions for wrongdoing these days.
1 Like
My issue with it is that it’s disproportionate.
If I stole/defrauded my employer, I’d get the sack, depending how much/how severe, I could go to prison, but maybe a suspended sentence.
But I can still have my bank account.
You make a small (sometimes big!) mistake and you really struggle for 6 years!
5 Likes
The more I read into CIFAS, the more it feels like a future scandal in the making.
CIFAS also runs a database for Insider Threats. Employers report suspected applicants and even current staff for dishonesty…
So in effect, if a new potential employer checks the database, you could be rejected for a job, based on a submission made by a former employer, with no due process… 
Unless I’ve misunderstood? Full info at the below link. Keen to hear other views…
“’ Insider Threat Protect is the only solution in the UK that helps you identify and stop dishonest conduct by job applicants and employees within the workplace. Using our solution organisations can search against thousands of fraud risk cases at any stage in the employee life-cycle – from recruitment to retirement. “
3 Likes
I’m pretty sure people wanting avoid punishment for wrongdoing has been consistently ubiquitous since punishment for wrongdoing was first invented 
5 Likes