Revolut...Problems?

[The Phantom]

On 7/5/2023 at 9:41 AM, Zarley said:

Like him or loathe him, (and I'm of the latter opinion) what's been done to him - and he's not the only one - is very frightening. 

If a bank can get away with denying people bank accounts because the bank doesn't like someone's opinion, then we're all vulnerable. Banks should only be permitted to deny service when a person (or company) has been proven to be guilty of financial illegalities. Even then, in today's increasingly cashless society, there needs to be some banking provision for a person to be able to pay for necessities like food and rent/mortgage. 

As much as I dislike Farrage, I don't feel any schadenfreud in this instance. Not one bit.

It's starting to feel like we're heading towards a social credit system like they have in China and it's frightening. 

It's a price of any political involvement though.  Just pray you are never deemed to be a PEP. 

I have a friend whose father was a significant politician.  He had an absolute nightmare with any kind of banking.  He'd be deemed a PEP himself as he is a family member of a politician.  Most banks and financial institutions knocked him back and the ones that did play, wanted to charge him £1000s due to 'all the reporting and monitoring they now need to do'. 

The irony is that you actually need to be wealthy to be a politician (or related to one) just so you can afford the fees you'll be lumbered with. 

[Zarley]

It's not only happening to PEPs though. More and more ordinary people are having their bank accounts taken away from them, often GC people, because, Stonewall. I'll try to remember to find the article I read the other day so I can link to it, but I'm on a flying visit and can't spare the time just now. 

[Declan]

I thought Farage's account was closed because he didn't have enough money for Coutt's requirements?

Is he really a PEP? He's not in a position of power - not a minister, not even an MP and never has been. 

[Declan]

42 minutes ago, Zarley said:

GC people

What are GC people?

[The Phantom]

1 hour ago, Declan said:

I thought Farage's account was closed because he didn't have enough money for Coutt's requirements?

Is he really a PEP? He's not in a position of power - not a minister, not even an MP and never has been. 

That's what he's claiming.  Coutts need a few mill cash at least to open an account, less if they're lending to you, you're using their investment team or you've got other illiquid assets.  I've done some stuff with them for clients before.  They'll more than likely increase that threshold if you're a PEP.  Even if they didn't say it's the case, it would certainly be a contributing factor.  PEPs are just too much admin and I guarantee he's been flagged.  He may not actually be a politician, but he's certainly political.  The key is Politically Exposed Person, not necessarily a Politician themselves.  As I've said, a politician's son who I'm friends with got PEP'd and I've had clients who have been PEP'd who are basically just good friends with politicians, one got PEP'd when the current PM of a certain country wrote the Foreward/Intro for their autobiography (seemed like a good idea at the time)!  The irony being that many HNWs who are industry moguls will often have to be 'exposed' to Politicians just to keep their businesses going. 

[The Phantom]

Another one.  Although, like Farage, Hunt is also a bit of a twat. Twats or PEPs, you decide. 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/09/jeremy-hunt-reveals-he-was-refused-monzo-account

 

[Declan]

So I would argue that Hunt is a more PEP than Farage. The point, I've always assumed, was because public officials were more likely to be exposed to bribe attempts and have more opportunities for grift. The risk level for the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to be higher than a talk show host. Unless they factor in reputational risk. 

I'm a bit conflicted on the whole issue. Businesses should be free to decide who they do business with and set their own appetite for risk. 

But banks are so fundamental to the way the economy works that denying access to the banking system would be a distinctiveness to people entering mainstream politics if all PEPs are denied by all banks. And if the desire not to be associated with certain views means those groups can't use the banking system, then that risks driving the further into the shadows. 

[The Phantom]

32 minutes ago, Declan said:

So I would argue that Hunt is a more PEP than Farage. The point, I've always assumed, was because public officials were more likely to be exposed to bribe attempts and have more opportunities for grift. The risk level for the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to be higher than a talk show host. Unless they factor in reputational risk. 

I'm a bit conflicted on the whole issue. Businesses should be free to decide who they do business with and set their own appetite for risk. 

But banks are so fundamental to the way the economy works that denying access to the banking system would be a distinctiveness to people entering mainstream politics if all PEPs are denied by all banks. And if the desire not to be associated with certain views means those groups can't use the banking system, then that risks driving the further into the shadows. 

Hunt is definitely a PEP, he is an actual Politician with a significant position within Govt.  Farage is just Politically Exposed.  If you read that article, Hunt was denied even before becoming Chancellor. 

Some banks deny.  But in my experience dealing with them a lot, they will use the most spurious reasons to designate someone a PEP.  Then charge them a minimum of £5K per year for the pleasure of banking with them. 

[Declan]

8 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

Hunt is definitely a PEP, he is an actual Politician with a significant position within Govt.  Farage is just Politically Exposed.  If you read that article, Hunt was denied even before becoming Chancellor. 

Some banks deny.  But in my experience dealing with them a lot, they will use the most spurious reasons to designate someone a PEP.  Then charge them a minimum of £5K per year for the pleasure of banking with them. 

MPs would probably claim that back through expenses!

Hunt would still have been a PEP before CofE - sitting MP, ex-minister, chair of Parliamentary Committee. 

[Zarley]

On 7/6/2023 at 2:40 PM, Zarley said:

It's not only happening to PEPs though. More and more ordinary people are having their bank accounts taken away from them, often GC people, because, Stonewall. I'll try to remember to find the article I read the other day so I can link to it, but I'm on a flying visit and can't spare the time just now. 

Found the article: 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/03/most-high-street-banks-signed-up-stonewall-diversity/

[Zarley]

On 7/6/2023 at 3:23 PM, Declan said:

What are GC people?

Gender critical. They are people who believe there are only two sexes in the human species, a belief that is protected in law. (Google the Maya Forstater ruling for details) 

[AcousticallyChallenged]

On 7/5/2023 at 9:41 AM, Zarley said:

Like him or loathe him, (and I'm of the latter opinion) what's been done to him - and he's not the only one - is very frightening. 

If a bank can get away with denying people bank accounts because the bank doesn't like someone's opinion, then we're all vulnerable. Banks should only be permitted to deny service when a person (or company) has been proven to be guilty of financial illegalities. Even then, in today's increasingly cashless society, there needs to be some banking provision for a person to be able to pay for necessities like food and rent/mortgage. 

As much as I dislike Farrage, I don't feel any schadenfreud in this instance. Not one bit.

It's starting to feel like we're heading towards a social credit system like they have in China and it's frightening. 

Banks can close your account because they don’t like who you send money to, or the industry you work in. You might even just have a name that sets off their alarm bells for a match with someone dodgy.

They are required to act on and report any reasonable suspicion. 

They aren’t allowed to tell you of their suspicions either, only that they can’t deal with you and can’t explain further. 

It has been the case for a very long time. 

In terms of closing accounts? Sometimes it’s a business decision, other times a risk decision. It may even be that the cost of someone to manually intervene would well outweigh any profits you bring them. 

A private business is well within their rights to choose their clients. 

[Albert Tatlock]

7 hours ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

A private business is well within their rights to choose their clients. 

Within the law (discrimination etc.).

[Zarley]

9 hours ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

Banks can close your account because they don’t like who you send money to, or the industry you work in. You might even just have a name that sets off their alarm bells for a match with someone dodgy.

They are required to act on and report any reasonable suspicion. 

They aren’t allowed to tell you of their suspicions either, only that they can’t deal with you and can’t explain further. 

It has been the case for a very long time. 

In terms of closing accounts? Sometimes it’s a business decision, other times a risk decision. It may even be that the cost of someone to manually intervene would well outweigh any profits you bring them. 

A private business is well within their rights to choose their clients. 

Having a bank account today is a necessity in order to be able to function in the world. Most, if not all, income streams rely on a bank account as "cash-in-hand" jobs are a thing of the past. Many bills can no longer be paid in cash, particularly if what's owed is a large amount. 

If a person is conducting financial crimes through their bank account, then yes they should face penalties. People who are savvy enough to play the financial crime game know what they risk. I've no sympathy for them.

However when people who have committed no crime have their bank accounts - and therefore their ability to function in the world - taken away from them for nothing other than a difference of opinion or belief, we're getting into very dangerous territory. 

This isn't remotely like a private business refusing to bake someone a cake. 

Social mores are ever changing. What's politically correct today may not be next week. If banks are permitted to disallow certain people bank accounts on the basis of a perceived wrong opinion or belief, it sets a dangerous precedent. Surely this is patently obvious. 

If you tolerate this, then you may well be next to fall foul of what amounts to being the thought police for whatever thoughts happen to be fashionable at any given time.

Do you want this to be a possibility? 

[The Phantom]

10 hours ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

Banks can close your account because they don’t like who you send money to, or the industry you work in. You might even just have a name that sets off their alarm bells for a match with someone dodgy.

At work (and banks) we have software that runs an online search every few days, to check if there are any reports of crime associated with clients' names.  More than once I've had to call clients to check they are not in jail, as they've had the same name as some unsavoury character that has been busted for something.