• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bank blocking some customers from making large withdrawals without ‘evidence'

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,299
Reaction score
26,919
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yahoo!

If you bank at HSBC in England, don’t plan on making any large cash withdrawals. At least not without a good explanation. Or, maybe even a permission slip.

That’s because a previously unannounced change in banking policy is blocking some customers from making large withdrawals without “evidence” explaining why they need the money from their accounts .


The policy affects customers attempting withdrawals for amounts as little as £5,000 ($8,253).

Having bank accounts in different countries, I'm not shocked by banks having limits on how much can be withdrawn from ATMs. However, this is usually a thing that can be fixed by simply going to a teller, giving 2 pieces of ID, answering some security questions and asking for the same amount. I've never heard of banks refusing to give the money even after the customer has shown up in person to withdraw the money. I hope that the British people rightfully punish this HUGE property rights violation and run a train through HSBC's ass by taking their business elsewhere.
 
Yahoo!



Having bank accounts in different countries, I'm not shocked by banks having limits on how much can be withdrawn from ATMs. However, this is usually a thing that can be fixed by simply going to a teller, giving 2 pieces of ID, answering some security questions and asking for the same amount. I've never heard of banks refusing to give the money even after the customer has shown up in person to withdraw the money. I hope that the British people rightfully punish this HUGE property rights violation and run a train through HSBC's ass by taking their business elsewhere.

In the USA there also is a presumption that people who have cash are criminals - which is why increasing numbers of people hang on to their money in cahs.

All withdrawls over of $9700 or more in cash in the USA are required to be reported to the government.
 
In the USA there also is a presumption that people who have cash are criminals - which is why increasing numbers of people hang on to their money in cahs.

All withdrawls over of $9700 or more in cash in the USA are required to be reported to the government.

I'm not concerned with a requirement to report a withdrawal of money. Anybody who expects less than that in the 21st century is being naive. What I'm worried about is the notion that companies can tell customers how much money they can withdraw even at human tellers and for what reasons. No doubt we'll see some Libertarians argue that if you don't like it they can move elsewhere. What happens when all banks start doing this?
 
I'll be damned if a bank tells me I am unable to withdraw MY money from MY account. That will be the day I say, "I've changed my mind. I want to close my account instead."
 
You should not have to justify or provide a reason to anybody, as to why you want your money.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that's legal in this country.
 
I'll be damned if a bank tells me I am unable to withdraw MY money from MY account. That will be the day I say, "I've changed my mind. I want to close my account instead."

Indeed, i'd rather keep my money in a box under the mattress.
 
While the headline says bank-run, the article clearly quotes the reason as being for customer protection, not bank-run.

I would say the author misnamed his article.
I assume the headline refers to the beginning:

'Following research last week suggesting that HSBC has a major capital shortfall, the fact that several farmer's co-ops were unable to pay back depositors in China, and, of course, the liquidity crisis in China itself, news from The BBC that HSBC is imposing restrictions on large cash withdrawals raising a number of red flags.'
 
Having bank accounts in different countries, I'm not shocked by banks having limits on how much can be withdrawn from ATMs. However, this is usually a thing that can be fixed by simply going to a teller, giving 2 pieces of ID, answering some security questions and asking for the same amount. I've never heard of banks refusing to give the money even after the customer has shown up in person to withdraw the money. I hope that the British people rightfully punish this HUGE property rights violation and run a train through HSBC's ass by taking their business elsewhere.

I suspect the limit on ATM withdraws is mainly to keep someone from cleaning the machine out. I think my bank you can't take more than $400 out of the ATM in a day.

I don't tend to take large amounts of cash out of the bank but I have on a few rare occasions (I paid cash to have my roof redone and got a 3% discount). If I wanted to take cash out of my account and the bank told me no, I'd be finding a new bank ASAP.
 
Like I posted on the other thread on this subject, the same thing is happening in Mexico. It is to control money laundering, which I suspect is a similar reason for this in the UK.

If you withdraw a large sum to, for example, by a car, you must show proof that you bought that car, such as the paperwork.

You have to account for the money and where it goes or they think you are dirty. The government will visit you if they think you are dirty so it is best to play by the rules.

I don't get it when people say the Mexican government isn't doing anything to combat the cartels. Everybody know if you strangle the money flow, you strangle the cartel. It just makes it harder for honest people to do business.
 
I assume the headline refers to the beginning:

'Following research last week suggesting that HSBC has a major capital shortfall, the fact that several farmer's co-ops were unable to pay back depositors in China, and, of course, the liquidity crisis in China itself, news from The BBC that HSBC is imposing restrictions on large cash withdrawals raising a number of red flags.'
I might assume that also. But the rest does not add up to the title.
The reason was for customer protection as stated. Not for fear of a bank-run or anything shortfall. :shrug:
 
I might assume that also. But the rest does not add up to the title.
The reason was for customer protection as stated. Not for fear of a bank-run or anything shortfall. :shrug:

Just because the article says that is the reason, does not mean it is.

Why would a bank suddenly start questioning people's withdrawl's - knowing full well that such a move will irk customers and raise eyebrows. Obviously, they don't want people removing too much money. That, at the very least, has to hint at a reserve problem. Coupled with some liquidity worries in China, adds up to the potential of more then just a change in policy.

Time will tell.
 
Just because the article says that is the reason, does not mean it is.
That is the only reason provided.


Why would a bank suddenly start questioning people's withdrawl's - knowing full well that such a move will irk customers and raise eyebrows. Obviously, they don't want people removing too much money. That, at the very least, has to hint at a reserve problem. Coupled with some liquidity worries in China, adds up to the potential of more then just a change in policy.
And yet no actual evidence to suggest such a claim.
All he is doing is insinuating. And that just ain't right. Nothing more than piss poor reporting.
 
That is the only reason provided.


And yet no actual evidence to suggest such a claim.
All he is doing is insinuating. And that just ain't right. Nothing more than piss poor reporting.

Time will tell.
 
The same kind of thing happened in the U.S. during the 99% movement. When activists tried to drain their accounts with the Bank of America, they were denied.

The money I put into the bank is mine and not theirs. Banks exist to house our funds until such point we wish to remove them, which is our free-market right to do.

Bank corruption is never ending.
 
The same kind of thing happened in the U.S. during the 99% movement. When activists tried to drain their accounts with the Bank of America, they were denied.

The money I put into the bank is mine and not theirs. Banks exist to house our funds until such point we wish to remove them, which is our free-market right to do.

Bank corruption is never ending.

Yes, but don't forget though about fractional reserve banking. Every major U.S. bank (for example) only has to keep 10% of the money you deposited on hand. So, if everyone that has a deposit at your bank suddenly showed up to empty their account...the bank would not have nearly enough to quickly cover even half of the requests.

As I said above, if they are trying to limit people's withdrawl's, maybe they are concerned about a run on their reserves.

It maybe corruption. Or it maybe just bad bank managing. Or it might be something else.
 
The same kind of thing happened in the U.S. during the 99% movement. When activists tried to drain their accounts with the Bank of America, they were denied.

The money I put into the bank is mine and not theirs. Banks exist to house our funds until such point we wish to remove them, which is our free-market right to do.

Bank corruption is never ending.
You absolutely have a right to your funds.
But do you have a link confirming what you said, because I seem to remember that there was much more to it than that, and isn't exactly as you claim.
 
Yes, but don't forget though about fractional reserve banking. Every major U.S. bank (for example) only has to keep 10% of the money you deposited on hand. So, if everyone that has a deposit at your bank suddenly showed up to empty their account...the bank would not have nearly enough to quickly cover even half of the requests.

As I said above, if they are trying to limit people's withdrawl's, maybe they are concerned about a run on their reserves.

It maybe corruption. Or it maybe just bad bank managing. Or it might be something else.

Mass withdrawals of funds is an economic issue. When it happened in the 30's it was because the stock market was crashing, and even then most people couldn't get to their banks in time before they were totally shut down.

I understand that they are businesses trying to protect themselves, but they can't treat bank deposits like loans. Their duty is to be the holder of my cash because I don't want to have it just lying around, and I would like to withdraw it as needed. HSBC is basically saying it can't be trusted to relinquish your money. So if they don't approve of the purchases I want to make, they won't give me my damn money? That's wrong.

They are going to lose business over this anyway as people jump ship. This isn't government policy, it's a nanny bank.
 
Mass withdrawals of funds is an economic issue. When it happened in the 30's it was because the stock market was crashing, and even then most people couldn't get to their banks in time before they were totally shut down.

I understand that they are businesses trying to protect themselves, but they can't treat bank deposits like loans. Their duty is to be the holder of my cash because I don't want to have it just lying around, and I would like to withdraw it as needed. HSBC is basically saying it can't be trusted to relinquish your money. So if they don't approve of the purchases I want to make, they won't give me my damn money? That's wrong.

They are going to lose business over this anyway as people jump ship. This isn't government policy, it's a nanny bank.

I do not disagree with anything you typed...I am just pointing out a potential reason.

Personally, I don't believe it's corruption as much as simple incompetence...but I could be wrong.

Never underestimate how low a banker will sink.
 
They're "the world's local bank", and the biggest too, including North America. They use the letters in their name because they stand for Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, though nowadays they're based in London. All banks may reserve the right to question a large withdrawal if it's unusual. Where HSBC went too far was in asking what it was to be used for. They've changed their policy. (which seems to have been in place for three months, but customers have only just noticed?)
 
Some friends of ours learned this week after one of their parents died that the bank will take inventory on your safety deposit box after one spouse dies. There was 30k dollars in the box and now their father is having to be specific where it came from and why it is there.
 
I do not disagree with anything you typed...I am just pointing out a potential reason.

Personally, I don't believe it's corruption as much as simple incompetence...but I could be wrong.

Never underestimate how low a banker will sink.

Your point was valid. It could be an issue of HSBC being over-protective of its reserves during harder economic times. If that's the case, I can sort of sympathize. Many businesses are struggling to stay afloat and they are enacting all sorts of weird policies to protect themselves. But consumers still have rights too, and it's unethical to hold people's money unless they approve of how you plan to spend it. It's not a loan that I'm asking their permission for... it's money that is already MINE.
 
I'm not concerned with a requirement to report a withdrawal of money. Anybody who expects less than that in the 21st century is being naive. What I'm worried about is the notion that companies can tell customers how much money they can withdraw even at human tellers and for what reasons. No doubt we'll see some Libertarians argue that if you don't like it they can move elsewhere. What happens when all banks start doing this?


Then you have to start banking with Mattress Saving and Loans.
 
Back
Top Bottom