Would it not be prudent for Bob to alert the bank that these payments are incoming?
I receive my salary similar to this manner you explain, so last month I made sure to contact Monzo and explain that a lot more money then usual would be going through my account and sent paperwork to explain its origination.
It took less then 2 mins. Bank account not frozen.
Ok for arguments sake Bob’s late Nigerian aunt died. He was told that he would be getting 25% of her estate in inheritance but was unaware how much or when, it could’ve been a long drawn out process that takes months and for all he knew he was getting £3,500 not £80,000.
In the past year I’ve received 3 high value payments into my Santander account ranging from 10 to 35 thousand each time and if at any point the bank had asked me why or where the money came from I would’ve explained to them that it’s not though fraud or money laundering but is none of your business why I’ve come to receive said funds.
I’m sure that would be fine and would reassure any financial institution. People committing fraud, money laundering or terrorist financing are well known to instantly confess the second they’re challenged 
They might not be happy but at the end of the day it is none of their business why. You may need to prove it’s not illicitly obtained or sent fraudulently but the reason of why is none of their business.
In my mind this is no different to the police asking to search someone’s bag with no cause, most people with nothing to hide would just do this but they have no legal reason to look in someone’s bag so why let them?
Different set of laws. Laws Monzo is adhering to. If they don’t, the FCA will happily fine them (and for a business like Monzo that could be crippling.)
It is their business. Literally. The business of banking isn’t just about storing your money, but making sure people who are open to fraud and financial crime are protected.
And maybe to you this isn’t different from the police searching a bag with no cause (also illegal) but it is, very clearly and specifically. The law may be an ass, but it is the framework within which Monzo must operate (as must you and I).
The FCA publish good information: https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/financial-crime
I don’t see where that guidelines says they must know where or why I have said money.
Did you get the money illegally?
If you did and you don’t tell anyone, that’s a crime and Monzo are liable as part of that.
If you didn’t, what’s the harm in telling your bank, who are looking after said money for you?
Yes I got it legally, and the harm is it’s NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. In this situation I’m happy to provide proof from the sender that it was not sent fraudulently but ultimately the reason they sent me the money is no reason for the bank to know.
There you go! Proof from the sender. Sorted.
P.S. sometimes we have to do things we don’t want to. I hate being an adult.
Always happy to provide something saying yes this money was sent my me on this date end of but any reason further than that isn’t the banks business.
Your argument of nothing to hide to tell them doesn’t work.
Do you have anything illegal on your phone? No
Sure can I take a look through your phone then? No why not? Because it’s none of my business.
Filing under: agree to disgree.
Have a great day.
As has been explained above, the law makes it banks’ business.
We can agree or disagree with that, but the place to direct that conversation to is the Government. I imagine many banks would much rather they had no role in this…
Which law and more specifically which part of that law.
I think you’ll likely find that there is no law forcing you to tell a bank why you have x y z funds.
Theft can happen through omission.
The components of the offence of theft are to appropriate property belonging to another with the intention to permenantly deprive them of it.
The Theft Act states that money and ‘things in action’ are property. A wrongful credit to a bank account is a thing in action, therefore property.
The excess salary Bob has received belongs to another (his employer). If he leaves it in his bank account, moves it to another or spends it, or do anything other than seek to return it to the employer he is assuming the rights of the owner of that property, thereby appropriating it. As he has come by the property in error, a failure to take reasonable steps to return it to the owner (his employer - it doesn’t become his simply because it’s in his bank account) will be taken by the court as intention to permenantly deprive, completing the offence of theft.
This isn’t new law or new case law - the statute is from 1968 and case law since has been pretty emphatic on all of the above.
It is their business. You do need to disclose source of wealth, that includes where it’s come from and why.
For better or worse, you cannot expect privacy when it comes to your finances.
And they would probably freeze your account and submit a SAR to the NCA at that point.
At the point reasonable suspicion has been reached it stops being your private business, and the overwhelming interest for society at large in the detection and prevention of crime trumps your article 8 rights (which are qualified rights in any case, not absolute).
You’d also be a fool for taking that line with your bank, just inviting needless grief on yourself.
I’d agree that you can’t be forced to tell anyone anything. But if you don’t then your account may well be locked and your funds seized if you appear to be committing financial crime.
We don’t have to like this. But to ignore the way the world works will make it practically impossible for you to help change it for the better.
The police can’t ask to search someone’s bag for ‘no cause’. They must have grounds for reasonable suspicion that they will find prohibited articles (weapons of offence, evidence of a crime, or tools to assist in the commission of a crime) for a search under s1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act; or drugs for a search under s.23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The exception is where a s60 authorisation is in Force and then they don’t need reasonable grounds, the person to be searched just needs to be in the geographic area the s60 is in Force.
If you say to a police officer “you can search me if you like” it doesn’t make any difference. If they don’t have grounds they can’t search you; if they do then your consent is entirely irrelevant and they can use reasonable force to effect the search.
You can’t consent to be searched by the police.
In my situation, receiving three high value payments and in two of the cases withdrawing the whole lot in cash quite soon after it was deposited into my account no issue it SAR was incurred. Also Santander did ask me where the money came from and I informed the above, came from a friend if I need proof that it wasn’t sent fraudulently then I have it but other than that it doesn’t matter why and that satisfied them.