6 ms·

So people are starting to realise that they can't actually trust the organisations that control their money. I wonder if this sort of thing will raise awareness

So people are starting to realise that they can't actually trust the organisations that control their money. I wonder if this sort of thing will raise awareness about who we actually trust, and whether we should be trusting anyone at all.

csomar 10y ago
I think the law is the problem. First, banks should not be held responsible for wrong doings by their customers. (think if hosting companies were responsible for the content their customers publish). Second, the law gives them power without a recourse. This is because the law makes them responsible in case one of their customers were laundering money.
- kagamine 10y ago
  Reasons I can think of for why the banks are responsible for the wrong-doings of their customers, as you put it, is because HSBC among others have been caught laundering money[1] (or at the very least not preventing it). So making them responsible is similar to making barmen responsible for checking IDs before serving alcohol. Sure, the underage drinker is the one perpetuating the crime, but by criminalizing the barman you insist upon a check in the system. The hosting company comparison doesn't fit, you can publish a myriad of content and quickly to a host, checking all of it, against laws for explicit content and copyright alone would be a mammoth task. Banks only offer financial services they themselves choose to provide. In essence they only provide FTP and the only file you can FTP is a number (to put it simply). Banks need regulating (is there anyone alive in this day and age who doubts this?), not just on an international level, but locally and for the 'little man' too. My own experience this last year involved making a formal complaint to the consumer financial complaints body where I live about an error made by the bank, freely admitted to by the bank, and the result was "suck it up", including the financial cost. Banking is in a poor state, having lost the faith of the public. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC#Controversies
  - meanduck 10y ago
    So you are saying we are gonna let banks get away with it because Govts cant find better revenue source ? The amount of overreaching laws just to ensure Govts revenue is staggering. I shudder to think what would happen if UBI is added into the mix.
    - kagamine 10y ago
      > So you are saying we are gonna let banks get away with it I said nothing of the sort. > overreaching laws just to ensure Govts revenue Follow the link from my previous post, are you suggesting that laundering the profits from trade in opiates and helping fund terrorism is better than some laws that require banks to be accountable for their actions? Those money laundering transactions are processed for a fee. HSBC made money from people suffering and from people dying/being killed. It looks to me as though in the case of Mohammad Rahman that the banks have been given a procedure by the government to be followed but have neglected to implement a workable solution, based on there being no recourse for individual customers. It appears, at least in the case of Mohammad Rahman that the bank failed in their duty to the customer while citing "it's not our fault and we don't really care anyway". Followed by "oh shit, bad press! Remedy at 12 o'clock!" but that nothing will change in the long term because they still don't care either morally or ethically. If banks want to be in the business of banking then they ought to make banking their job and that does not only involve profit at the cost of everyone and everything, not excuse themselves with a shrug every time demands are placed on the banking system.
      - meanduck 10y ago
        The laws that powers banks to withhold someone money are the same laws that Govts use to maximize tax revenue. Drug/Terrorism is mostly irrelevent.
        kagamine 10y ago
        It isn't irrelevant at all when the law allowing them to seize funds exists directly due to the law being changed in order to prevent HSBC and others having been caught laundering money from cartels and terrorists. It really is not irrelevant.
candiodari 10y ago
If the purpose behind is is to get the government to force banks to responsibly handle money ... you forget it's the government that requires these rules in the first place. Barclays obviously carries the biggest part of the blame, but when consulting for a bank, we were constantly reminded that there are EU regulations stating that any transaction above 10.000 euros is to be automatically flagged and reported, and if such a transaction is "unusual" (yes that's what the government rule says), it is to be blocked, along with all other transactions on the account, until evidence is provided that the transaction was (a) legitimate (b) not made with the purpose of evading tax. Note that the owner of the blocked account needs to prove the tax department has no issues (for instance a letter stating no outstanding debts). If Barclays is anything like my local banks, it sucks, but chances are they're not doing this just to spite their customers. Since that job I carry 1000 euros in cash in my wallet, and never again shall I have a single bank account again. I managed to have a third account in a separate country last year under a not-identical name (if you're married in the EU chances are you have the right to use any combination of yours and your spouses names, including both of them with or without a dash in between).
- Silhouette 10y ago
  If the purpose behind is is to get the government to force banks to responsibly handle money ... you forget it's the government that requires these rules in the first place. But the government rules do not require the bank to continue to lock up the money even after evidence of legitimacy is provided or to make further errors that prevent the customer from demonstrating the legitimacy in the required way even if they want to. Both of those things appear to have happened here.
- informatimago 10y ago
  Notice that 10,000 euros is nothing; as a free lance consultant, you can invoice easily much more than that monthly. So basically they're tracking everybody.
  - kuschku 10y ago
    Something like 60% of the people only do transfers over 10'000 Euro once a year or less. Most people earn far less, and only ever transfer such large amounts when they buy a car.

csomar 10y ago

I think the law is the problem. First, banks should not be held responsible for wrong doings by their customers. (think if hosting companies were responsible for the content their customers publish). Second, the law gives them power without a recourse. This is because the law makes them responsible in case one of their customers were laundering money.

kagamine 10y ago
Reasons I can think of for why the banks are responsible for the wrong-doings of their customers, as you put it, is because HSBC among others have been caught laundering money[1] (or at the very least not preventing it). So making them responsible is similar to making barmen responsible for checking IDs before serving alcohol. Sure, the underage drinker is the one perpetuating the crime, but by criminalizing the barman you insist upon a check in the system. The hosting company comparison doesn't fit, you can publish a myriad of content and quickly to a host, checking all of it, against laws for explicit content and copyright alone would be a mammoth task. Banks only offer financial services they themselves choose to provide. In essence they only provide FTP and the only file you can FTP is a number (to put it simply). Banks need regulating (is there anyone alive in this day and age who doubts this?), not just on an international level, but locally and for the 'little man' too. My own experience this last year involved making a formal complaint to the consumer financial complaints body where I live about an error made by the bank, freely admitted to by the bank, and the result was "suck it up", including the financial cost. Banking is in a poor state, having lost the faith of the public. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC#Controversies
- meanduck 10y ago
  So you are saying we are gonna let banks get away with it because Govts cant find better revenue source ? The amount of overreaching laws just to ensure Govts revenue is staggering. I shudder to think what would happen if UBI is added into the mix.
  - kagamine 10y ago
    > So you are saying we are gonna let banks get away with it I said nothing of the sort. > overreaching laws just to ensure Govts revenue Follow the link from my previous post, are you suggesting that laundering the profits from trade in opiates and helping fund terrorism is better than some laws that require banks to be accountable for their actions? Those money laundering transactions are processed for a fee. HSBC made money from people suffering and from people dying/being killed. It looks to me as though in the case of Mohammad Rahman that the banks have been given a procedure by the government to be followed but have neglected to implement a workable solution, based on there being no recourse for individual customers. It appears, at least in the case of Mohammad Rahman that the bank failed in their duty to the customer while citing "it's not our fault and we don't really care anyway". Followed by "oh shit, bad press! Remedy at 12 o'clock!" but that nothing will change in the long term because they still don't care either morally or ethically. If banks want to be in the business of banking then they ought to make banking their job and that does not only involve profit at the cost of everyone and everything, not excuse themselves with a shrug every time demands are placed on the banking system.
    - meanduck 10y ago
      The laws that powers banks to withhold someone money are the same laws that Govts use to maximize tax revenue. Drug/Terrorism is mostly irrelevent.
      - kagamine 10y ago
        It isn't irrelevant at all when the law allowing them to seize funds exists directly due to the law being changed in order to prevent HSBC and others having been caught laundering money from cartels and terrorists. It really is not irrelevant.

candiodari 10y ago

If the purpose behind is is to get the government to force banks to responsibly handle money ... you forget it's the government that requires these rules in the first place. Barclays obviously carries the biggest part of the blame, but when consulting for a bank, we were constantly reminded that there are EU regulations stating that any transaction above 10.000 euros is to be automatically flagged and reported, and if such a transaction is "unusual" (yes that's what the government rule says), it is to be blocked, along with all other transactions on the account, until evidence is provided that the transaction was (a) legitimate (b) not made with the purpose of evading tax. Note that the owner of the blocked account needs to prove the tax department has no issues (for instance a letter stating no outstanding debts). If Barclays is anything like my local banks, it sucks, but chances are they're not doing this just to spite their customers. Since that job I carry 1000 euros in cash in my wallet, and never again shall I have a single bank account again. I managed to have a third account in a separate country last year under a not-identical name (if you're married in the EU chances are you have the right to use any combination of yours and your spouses names, including both of them with or without a dash in between).

Silhouette 10y ago
If the purpose behind is is to get the government to force banks to responsibly handle money ... you forget it's the government that requires these rules in the first place. But the government rules do not require the bank to continue to lock up the money even after evidence of legitimacy is provided or to make further errors that prevent the customer from demonstrating the legitimacy in the required way even if they want to. Both of those things appear to have happened here.
informatimago 10y ago
Notice that 10,000 euros is nothing; as a free lance consultant, you can invoice easily much more than that monthly. So basically they're tracking everybody.
- kuschku 10y ago
  Something like 60% of the people only do transfers over 10'000 Euro once a year or less. Most people earn far less, and only ever transfer such large amounts when they buy a car.