
100s of Monzo customers shut out of accounts in lockdown - samizdis
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/jun/06/monzo-customers-shut-out-of-accounts-in-lockdown
======
LatteLazy
It’s worth noting that if you think an account is being used fraudulently,
it’s literally illegal to reveal that to the customer. It’s called tipping
off. Not only can monzo be fined or lose their licenses but the human
responsible can personally face charges including prison time.

This is why banks are very reluctant to give holders of frozen accounts any
real information.

I’m sure there is plenty of crappy customer service and algorithms that’s are
not fit for purpose or can’t cope with coronavirus too.

[https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/proceeds-crime-
act-200...](https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/proceeds-crime-
act-2002-part-7-money-laundering-offences)

Section 333

~~~
hakfoo
To an extent, I never understood how this made sense.

I could see a case for "we'll throw a plausible-but-nonthreatening status code
on a flagged account." Tell the customer there was data loss and it's out of
commission until the SMR-drive RAID rebuilds. But when they start responding
with obvious no-answer answers and "system says no" alone, that chasnge in
response style in and of itself is leaking information.

I've seen plenty of people reporting over the years "I've been blacklisted,
nobody will say why" and not one of them ends with "I'm posting a followup
from a holding cell", so it's not like they're pulling the plug at the last
moment when the charges are filed and the police cruisers in motion. If it
happens enough that ordinary people outside banking have experienced it, then
I'm sure the cartels and terror cells know about it.

I feel like there's an opportunity for a sequence in a mob movie where one of
the characters' debit cards unexpected declined, and he immediately excuses
himself to tell his compatriates to shut it down.

------
CaptainZapp
"We will apologise to any legitimate customers who’ve been left out of pocket
for a period of time"

Monzo

This attitude is simply shocking. To rephrase it:

"We are sorry if you feel offended about the fact that you're not able to feed
your kids."

Not that I'm a potential customer, not living in the UK. But here's another
company for my eternal shitlist.

~~~
lol768
> This attitude is simply shocking

This comes up every time from people who don't understand the regulatory
landscape, as if it's the bank's fault that AML regulations and the legal
offence of "tipping-off" exist.

All banks in the UK will do this to varying degrees. See
[https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/hsbc-suddenly-blocked-bank-
ac...](https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/hsbc-suddenly-blocked-bank-
account-21327340)

Inevitably it always ends up with people complaining to the press, at which
point the bank is blamed.

The whole system is broken: [https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-
storage-11jsx...](https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-
storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2019/06/6.5569_LC_Anti-Money-
Laundering_Report_FINAL_WEB_120619.pdf)

> From regularly advising professionals and others in this sector, we are in
> no doubt that the high volume of lower-value reports is due to the
> imposition of personal criminal liability for failure to make a report where
> one is due combined with the low threshold for reporting. Reports must be
> made (absent special circumstances) if there is a possibility, which is more
> than fanciful, that funds are criminally derived even if the reporter
> believes them to be legitimate. The courts will back a reporter and absolve
> them of liability to their customer even if there were no reasonable grounds
> to make a report, provided the reporter held a genuine suspicion

Is it at all surprising that SARs are being filed when there's this real
threat of _personal_ liability if suspicious activity was _not_ reported?

~~~
CaptainZapp
> This comes up every time from people who don't understand the regulatory
> landscape

I work in finance, are obliged to complete a number of yearly trainings
regarding KYC and money laundring and understand the regulatory lanscape very
well, thank you very much.

Regulatory requirements do not mandate to treat your customers like shit.
Throw in algorithms that just decide that You! Are Banned! for wild and
wonderful reasons and a totally shitty customer support by design.

It's funny that as soon the press gets involved, or if it explodes on social
media that "this specific cae didn't live up to our high standards,
blablabla".

As the article states nicely: It takes a second to lock an account. But for
the guy on the receiving it's the difference between paying the rent (if she
can) and feeding the kids. Such callous behavior, iced by such statements by
the press drone is beyond the pale.

~~~
lol768
>Regulatory requirements do not mandate to treat your customers like shit.
Throw in algorithms that just decide that You! Are Banned! for wild and
wonderful reasons and a totally shitty customer support by design.

What _can_ they say other than "your account has been frozen" if there's
legislation that says "tipping off" is an offence offence that carries a
maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine?

They can't explain they've made a suspicious activity report. They can't
explain what has caused the account to be frozen. And there's no way for the
bank or other participants in the regulatory process to defend themselves or
explain why customer X was flagged. All we ever see are the customer's side of
the story.

And yes, there will be false positives. Yes, there will be consequences.
That's what happens when bank accounts get frozen.

Why is it surprising that this happens when there's personal liability,
though?

I agree it's far from ideal, but change here needs to take place way above the
individual banks.

~~~
hakfoo
>What can they say other than "your account has been frozen"

"Our system is absolute rubbish, we have absolutely no clue when it will be
deborked?"

It's accurate. It doesn't leak information about the subject being under
investigation, either directly, or by the lack of a normal excuse. It cleverly
straddles the border between a technology problem and a regulatory one. And it
provides plenty of opportunity to string along the account holder as long as
necessary so they don't panic and move to cover their asses.

------
geoffbp
As a Monzo customer this stuff is worrying, since all our money in the UK
flows through it. If our joint account and pot were locked we would be in
strife

