2. How did they go ballistic over just a name match and a thousand quid?
3. Should my friend get upset over the implied allegations that her
business is involved in international sanctions evasion?
Can bona fide businesses become guilty by unwitting association with
people involved in international sanctions laws?
On 27/12/2024 in message <vkm3cc$3j1dg$1@dont-email.me> J Newman wrote:
2. How did they go ballistic over just a name match and a thousand quid?
3. Should my friend get upset over the implied allegations that her
business is involved in international sanctions evasion?
Whatever a bank may tell you its only interest is protecting itself. I
don't know what the penalty is for sanction busting but this bank clearly
has no plans to find out.
How did they go ballistic over just a name match and a thousand quid?The potential penalty is sufficient to get their attention?
A friend of mine who does various business/web development & marketing
gigs for online clients (usually varying in quantity from £10 - £1000)
got this message from her bank.
"We've suspended transfer 1234567890 reference "XYZ REMITTANCE" for a sanctions review as it may potentially violate international sanctions
laws."
They asked for more details about who XYZ is, where they are located and
what the transfer is for.
At first she ignored the message because it sounded like a phishing
attempt, but upon further scrutiny she saw that it did indeed come from
her bank, and the client who was paying her said they had already done
so. So she answered their questions.
It seems like the client's name XYZ matched a red flagged entity and the
sum of a few thousand quid is clearly up there in sums involved for international sanctions evaders to buy their ICBMs.
I had a number of questions:
1. Surely my friend's bank could have seen where the money came from and
that the origin financial institution & country also complies with
sanctions laws?
2. How did they go ballistic over just a name match and a thousand quid?
3. Should my friend get upset over the implied allegations that her
business is involved in international sanctions evasion?
4. It didn't cause damage because delays in receiving a thousand quid
for a self-employed person isn't so bad. But if it is an established
company with payrolls and other time-critical obligations, could someone whose transactions were blocked sue the financial institution for
damages? Or would the bank just claim that it was due diligence
processes that needed to run their course?
5. There is only so much due diligence my friend can do on potential
clients. Can bona fide businesses become guilty by unwitting association
with people involved in international sanctions laws?
On 27 Dec 2024 at 14:00:57 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 27/12/2024 in message <vkm3cc$3j1dg$1@dont-email.me> J Newman
wrote:
2. How did they go ballistic over just a name match and a thousand
quid?
3. Should my friend get upset over the implied allegations that her
business is involved in international sanctions evasion?
Whatever a bank may tell you its only interest is protecting itself.
I don't know what the penalty is for sanction busting but this bank
clearly has no plans to find out.
Didn't the US fine Barclays several billion pounds for allegedly
breaking sanctions? Mind you they may be simply using these fines to
reduce competition against their banks, but you can't blame the banks
for being careful.
No way, that customer in question needed help setting up a website for online counseling sessions including a payment portal. Hardly "interesting" stuff.
On 28/12/2024 14:18, billy bookcase wrote:
"J Newman" <jenniferkatenewman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vko5ep$695j$1@dont-email.me...
Whereas ne'er do wells, of whatever pursuasion, might not also be in need of >> some "online counselling" ?
No way, that customer in question needed help setting up a website for online
counseling sessions including a payment portal. Hardly "interesting" stuff. >>
bb
Surely you cannot be suggesting that someone who sets up an e-commerce website for a
counselor is responsible for the clients they counsel?
On 28/12/2024 14:18, billy bookcase wrote:
"J Newman" <jenniferkatenewman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vko5ep$695j$1@dont-email.me...
No way, that customer in question needed help setting up a website
for online counseling sessions including a payment portal. Hardly
"interesting" stuff.
Whereas ne'er do wells, of whatever pursuasion, might not also be in
need of some "online counselling" ?
Surely you cannot be suggesting that someone who sets up an e-commerce website for a counselor is responsible for the clients they counsel?
On 2024-12-28, J Newman <jenniferkatenewman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 28/12/2024 14:18, billy bookcase wrote:
"J Newman" <jenniferkatenewman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vko5ep$695j$1@dont-email.me...
No way, that customer in question needed help setting up a website
for online counseling sessions including a payment portal. Hardly
"interesting" stuff.
Whereas ne'er do wells, of whatever pursuasion, might not also be in
need of some "online counselling" ?
Surely you cannot be suggesting that someone who sets up an e-commerce
website for a counselor is responsible for the clients they counsel?
I wouldn't be surprised if terrorism legislation in theory makes
a counsellor potentially legally criminally liable if it turns out
one of their clients was a terrorist, regardless of whether they
knew or even could have known that they were.
On 2024-12-28, J Newman <jenniferkatenewman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 28/12/2024 14:18, billy bookcase wrote:
"J Newman" <jenniferkatenewman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vko5ep$695j$1@dont-email.me...
No way, that customer in question needed help setting up a website
for online counseling sessions including a payment portal. Hardly
"interesting" stuff.
Whereas ne'er do wells, of whatever pursuasion, might not also be in
need of some "online counselling" ?
Surely you cannot be suggesting that someone who sets up an e-commerce
website for a counselor is responsible for the clients they counsel?
I wouldn't be surprised if terrorism legislation in theory makes a
counsellor potentially legally criminally liable if it turns out one of
their clients was a terrorist, regardless of whether they knew or even
could have known that they were.
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:32:47 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-28, J Newman <jenniferkatenewman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 28/12/2024 14:18, billy bookcase wrote:
"J Newman" <jenniferkatenewman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vko5ep$695j$1@dont-email.me...
No way, that customer in question needed help setting up a website
for online counseling sessions including a payment portal. Hardly
"interesting" stuff.
Whereas ne'er do wells, of whatever pursuasion, might not also be in
need of some "online counselling" ?
Surely you cannot be suggesting that someone who sets up an e-commerce
website for a counselor is responsible for the clients they counsel?
I wouldn't be surprised if terrorism legislation in theory makes a
counsellor potentially legally criminally liable if it turns out one of
their clients was a terrorist, regardless of whether they knew or even
could have known that they were.
Isn't there already an obligation on counsellors, therapists and all the other potential recipients of inside knowledge to report anything *they regard as credible* to "the authorities" ? Certainly there is no real
concept of privileged communication in English law. No matter what people think should happen we know that judges rarely exclude unlawful evidence.
For some reason the US case around Samuel Mudd springs to mind. (I could
bask in the fact that knowing that makes me sound like a devout student
of historical legal cases. The reality is I saw a TV movie in the 80s
about it ...)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 38:32:36 |
| Calls: | 9,798 |
| Files: | 13,751 |
| Messages: | 6,189,398 |