HSBC imposes restrictions on large cash withdrawals

[Team Sergeant]

Wow! And now a communist bank! I'd walk back in with a gun if this happened to me........





HSBC imposes restrictions on large cash withdrawals By Bob Howard

Reporter, Money Box

Some HSBC customers have been prevented from withdrawing large amounts of cash because they could not provide evidence of why they wanted it, the BBC has learnt.
Listeners have told Radio 4's Money Box they were stopped from withdrawing amounts ranging from £5,000 to £10,000.

HSBC admitted it has not informed customers of the change in policy, which was implemented in November.

The bank says it has now changed its guidance to staff.

New rules

Stephen Cotton went to his local HSBC branch this month to withdraw £7,000 from his instant access savings account to pay back a loan from his mother.

A year before, he had withdrawn a larger sum in cash from HSBC without a problem.

But this time it was different, as he told Money Box: "When we presented them with the withdrawal slip, they declined to give us the money because we could not provide them with a satisfactory explanation for what the money was for. They wanted a letter from the person involved."

Mr Cotton says the staff refused to tell him how much he could have: "So I wrote out a few slips. I said, 'Can I have £5,000?' They said no. I said, 'Can I have £4,000?' They said no. And then I wrote one out for £3,000 and they said, 'OK, we'll give you that.' "

He asked if he could return later that day to withdraw another £3,000, but he was told he could not do the same thing twice in one day.

He wrote to complain to HSBC about the new rules and also that he had not been informed of any change.

The bank said it did not have to tell him. "As this was not a change to the Terms and Conditions of your bank account, we had no need to pre-notify customers of the change," HSBC wrote.

Frustrated customers

Mr Cotton cannot understand HSBC's attitude: "I've been banking in that bank for 28 years. They all know me in there. You shouldn't have to explain to your bank why you want that money. It's not theirs, it's yours."

Peter from Wiltshire, who wanted his surname withheld, had a similar experience.

He wanted to take out £10 000 cash from HSBC, some to pay to his sons and some to fund his long-haul travel plans.

Peter phoned up the day before to give HSBC notice and everything seemed to be fine.

The next day he got a call from his local branch asking him to pay his sons via a bank payment and to provide booking receipts for his holidays. Peter did not have any booking receipts to show.

The following day he spoke to HSBC again and this time, having examined his account, it said he could withdraw the £10,000.

Belinda Bell is another customer who was initially denied her cash, in her case to pay her builder. She told Money Box she had to provide the builder's quote.

cont:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25861717

[cbtengr]

The last time I had a bank mess with me on some trivial matter I took all my money out and moved it to another bank. By my standards it was not a little sum of money . They seemed shocked that after 25 years of banking with them I would close my accounts. This guy needs to start shopping for someone who really wants his business. With what banks pay us in interest these days who really needs them?

[SF_BHT]

The last time I had a bank mess with me on some trivial matter I took all my money out and moved it to another bank. By my standards it was not a little sum of money . They seemed shocked that after 25 years of banking with them I would close my accounts. This guy needs to start shopping for someone who really wants his business. With what banks pay us in interest these days who really needs them?

I did the same thing a while back. Had an account with a bank for 38 yrs and an idiot on the phone would not take care of something simple during the holidays while on leave from South America. Drove to the bank, walked in and sat down with the manager who I had know for 20+ yrs and closed 3 accounts. She was trying to do everything she could but it was the 3rd time and I was in the states this time. Took out 6 figures and she was not happy.

I am allowing the to use my money and they have no right to question me what I do with it as long as it is not illegal.

[Remington Raidr]

are hitting this institution not because of what happened to this one guy, but all the others with boatloads of money in the bank or its subsidiaries. Some of the super-rich are morons, but a lot are gonna say anywhere but HSBC. Should be fun to watch the company value plummet, UNLESS this is driven by gubmint behind the scenes, which I think is a real possibility. As I am one of the 99 percent, this does not affect me.:munchin

[Stiletto11]

If you can't see it and touch it nowadays, it ain't yours, just ask the people in Cypress. History will repeat itself.

[Peregrino]

If you can't see it and touch it nowadays, it ain't yours, just ask the people in Cypress. History will repeat itself.

Truer words were never spoken. :mad:

[GratefulCitizen]

If you can't see it and touch it nowadays, it ain't yours, just ask the people in Cypress. History will repeat itself.

March 9, 1933.

[Max_Tab]

http://www.businessinsider.com/implications-of-the-cyprus-bailout-2013-3

As expected, Cyprus and the EU reached a new late-night bailout deal last night that will reduce the chance that Cyprus's financial system and economy will completely implode.
The new deal is better than the last deal in one key respect:
Deposits under 100,000 euros will be protected
That's very important. Those deposits were ostensibly "insured." To seize them, the way the last bailout deal would have, would have been grossly unfair and would have set a truly alarming precedent.
Now, small depositors in European banks can breathe more easily. At least in this case of gross malpractice on the part of reckless bank managers, their life savings have been preserved.
Alas, the good news ends there.
Although deposits under 100,000 euros will be spared, deposits over 100,000 euros will be seized and subjected to an as-yet undetermined haircut--with the confiscated money going to bail out the gambling losses of the aforementioned reckless idiots who run some of Cyprus's banks.
This seizure, needless to say, will dampen the enthusiasm of rich depositors for keeping money in banks that get themselves into financial trouble.
And because many, many banks in Europe have gotten themselves into financial trouble, this will create a general state of unease among rich depositors throughout the Eurozone.
And it should wig out some bank lenders, as well.
After all, never before in the history of this global financial crisis has a major banking system allowed depositors to lose money, no matter how reckless and stupid and greedy their bank managers have been. And only rarely have bank lenders--those who hold bank bonds--been asked to pony up.
In this case, however, the depositors will lose money. Perhaps a lot of money. And if there had been big bank debtholders in Cyprus, they probably would have been socked with losses, too.
It's possible that everyone will just laugh off Cyprus, viewing it as an exceptional one-off. After all, the Cyprus banking system was notorious for being the offshore money-laundering arm of many Russian oligarchs, so many folks will likely view this asset seizure as a case of "just desserts."
But this optimistic view of the Cyprus horrorshow overlooks one key fact:
The main reason that Cyprus depositors will lose their cash is because it has become politically difficult (impossible?) for leaders in Germany and other rich European countries to bail out their brethren in the "periphery" without taking many pounds of flesh.
And it is that precedent, in addition to the fate of big depositors in Cyprus, that should spook Europe's big bank depositors and lenders.
If Germany is done bailing out countries and banks without having those countries and banks cover some of the cost, it's not clear why Germany will relent next time Spain, Italy, Greece, and other countries in near-desperately bad financial shape come rushing to the EU with their hands out.
Unlike Cyprus, the banking systems in these countries do have bondholders that can get haircut before the depositors get haircut, but the effect will be the same.
For the first time since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, those who lend their money to banks or keep their money in banks are at risk.
Because the neighborhood loan shark (Germany) is now extracting much more onerous terms.
That's a sobering precedent.
And it will likely cause many people to wonder and worry about where their money is.


Could it happen here? You bet, look what Roosevelt did with the gold, made it illegal for you to have it, them once the govt had it all, the increased the value of it.

[rubberneck]

I don't see how that is legal. It is your money, they can not prevent you from accessing it that is called theft, extortion etc.

The story mentions a cash limit. From what I gather there is nothing keeping you from wire transferring your balance to a new account at a different bank. Most banks are cagey about how much cash they have in a branch at any given time. I wonder if they had a couple recent withdrawals that exceeded that amount and they want to avoid a panic. Stupid move on their part.

[Stiletto11]

The system had been faltering for a decade, but the bench mark date of the collapse is put at August 15, 1971. On this date, President Nixon reversed US international monetary policy by officially declaring the non-convertibility of the US dollar (FRN) into gold (see Public Law 94-564, Legislative history, pg 5937 etc.). Here’s a good one. Even the judges knew of the fraud and a Complaint Petition filed in the US Court of Claims, Docket No. 41-76, on February 11, 1976 by 44 Federal Judges, Akins et el. Vs. US. Atkins et el complained that “As a result of inflation, the compensation of federal judges has been substantially diminished each year since 1969, causing direct and continuing monetary harm to plaintiffs…. The real value of the dollar decreased by approximately 34.5 percent from March 15, 1969 to October 1, 1975. As a result, plaintiffs have suffered an unconstitutional deprivation of earnings”, and in the prayer for relief claimed “damages for the constitutional violations enurmered above, measured as the diminuation of his earnings for the entire period since March 9, 1969.” It appears to me that the persons holding and enjoying Offices of Public Trust, Honor and/or profit knew of the emergency emergent problems and sought protection for themselves while the rest of us were holding the bag with no remedy.
On October 28, 1977 the passage of Public Law 95-147, 91 Stat. 1227 declared most banking institutions, including State banks, to be under direction and control of the corporate “Governor” of the IMF (See Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pp 5942, United states Government Manual 1990/1991, pgs. 480-481). The Act further declared that:
“(2) Section 10(a) of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 (31 USC 822a (b) is amended by striking out the
phrase “stabilizing the exchange value of the dollar”…….
(c) The joint resolution entitled “joint resolution to assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States”, approved June 5, 1933 (31 USC 463) shall not apply to obligations issued on or after the date of enactment of this section.”
The international Organizations, Corporations and Associations, had refused to pay their debts and could not pay their debts, and determined that they could pass the loss of their non-redeemable, non-current motes, bond and evidences of debt off on others, and thereby crown their fraud with success (see Letter, October 26, 1989, from Department of Treasury Russell L. Munk, assistant General Counsel (international Affairs)

I have it if you want to read it).

[Stiletto11]

Sorry for the double post, I tried to delete it.

[Paslode]

If you can't see it and touch it nowadays, it ain't yours, just ask the people in Cypress. History will repeat itself.


Or MF Global.


IN addition to HSBC, China is halting Bank Cash Transfers

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2014/01/26/china-halts-bank-cash-transfers-2/

[Roguish Lawyer]

This is completely driven by the government, guys.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/11/hsbc-failure-control-money-laundering

[Richard]

So it goes...

Richard

HSBC Apologizes After Cash Withdrawal Issue in Britain
NYT, 26 jAN 2014

The British bank HSBC has apologized after reports that some customers were prevented from withdrawing large sums of cash from their accounts.

HSBC said that, as part of a policy change put into effect in November, it began asking customers in some instances to show evidence of what they planned to do with large cash withdrawals.

“It is not mandatory for customers to provide documentary evidence for large cash withdrawals, and on its own, failure to show evidence is not a reason to refuse a withdrawal,” the bank said in a statement. “We apologize to any customer who has been given incorrect information and inconvenienced.”

The British Broadcasting Corporation’s Radio 4 reported on its “Money Box” program on Saturday that some customers were not allowed to withdraw amounts above 5,000 pounds in cash, or about $8,253.

The policy change was part of the bank’s efforts to comply with regulations to fight money laundering, which require banks to report suspicious behavior, such as withdrawing large amounts of cash.

For example, banks operating in the United States are required to report cash transactions above $10,000 to the government, as well as transactions that occur under dubious circumstances.

“Cash presents more risk, and in particular financial crime risk, than other payment methods. It also leaves customers with very little protection if things go wrong,” the bank said.

“Therefore, we need to monitor particularly closely movements of cash in and out of the banking system. This is why we ask our customers about the purpose of large cash withdrawals when they are unusual and out of keeping with the normal running of their account.”

Two years ago, HSBC agreed to pay a record $1.9 billion to settle charges by authorities in the United States that the bank had lax controls against money laundering and allowed hundred of millions of dollars of suspicious transactions by customers in Mexico and other nations, including drug proceeds.

As part of the settlement, the bank pleaded guilty to violating several laws in the United States, including the Bank Secrecy Act, but avoided criminal prosecution.

“Asking the right questions, protecting our customers and reducing the risk of money laundering, fraud and other crimes, means we are doing the right thing and fulfilling our responsibilities as a bank and to society at large,” the bank said.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/hsbc-apologizes-after-cash-withdrawal-issue-in-britain/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1&

[Paslode]

Amazing! Forbes produced Tinfoil, so they must be part of the Blogosphere! :D

A financial BLOG gives quite a bit of insight to the story...

Earlier today, Forbes managed to spook readers with a bombastic report that China's commercial banks had been instructed by the PBOC to halt cash transfers - something which would have dire implications on China's banking system ahead of its new year holiday, and send the banking system into a tailspin just as China is desperate to avoid all turbulence ahead of a potential shadow banking default.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-26/no-there-no-stoppage-cash-transfers-china

Related:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-27/forbes-pulls-down-china-hoax-story-dennis-gartman-completely-fooled


The leading cOnSpIrAcY web portal is leaning towards a Bank Run


China Cash Transfer ‘Hoax’ Plays Into Bank Run Fears

A false story published by Forbes yesterday which claimed that China’s commercial banks had been instructed to suspend cash transfers played into very real fears about bank runs and capital controls that are sending chills through the market.

http://www.infowars.com/china-cash-transfer-hoax-plays-into-bank-run-fears/


Matt Drudge sez:

Have an exit plan...

[Stiletto11]

This is completely driven by the government, guys.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/11/hsbc-failure-control-money-laundering

HSBC was involved in the LIBOR scandal so I don't think they really care about ethics.

[Team Sergeant]

This is completely driven by the government, guys.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/11/hsbc-failure-control-money-laundering

Funny how HSBC will attempt to stop a withdrawal but not a deposit........


I'm waiting to see the article where HSBC stops a large cash deposit........:munchin

[Joker]

So it goes...

Richard

HSBC Apologizes After Cash Withdrawal Issue in Britain
NYT, 26 jAN 2014


...Two years ago, HSBC agreed to pay a record $1.9 billion to settle charges by authorities in the United States that the bank had lax controls against money laundering and allowed hundred of millions of dollars of suspicious transactions by customers in Mexico and other nations, including drug proceeds....

Yep, that's what happens to dirty banks. That was not their first fine for the same thing. They need to stop the deferred prosecutions (banks paying pittance fines) and through the guilty compliance officers in jail.

[Badger52]

When a financial institution goes for a policy like that, there is a bigger reason. [semi-pink font]Somewhere there may be a .UKguv financial version of Snowden, with some Powerpoints that laud the bank as one of "our partners."[/semi-pink]

They have to be completely oblivious and/or indifferent to the consequences of their actions outside their four walls. Wanna REALLY start a run? Let that word get out on the street so it ends up simply, "they wouldn't give me my money...", "they limited the amount I could have of my money...", they wanted to know what it's for..."

Stupid or complicit? Hmmm.
:cool:

[Go Devil]

I'm sure they did it for the children.