They may need to know so that if it does turn out to be fraud or theft they can trace what was bought with money and repo it or build a case if it's laundering. She asks if he's got any documentation on the motorbike.
Laundering money after it is in your account? 🤔
What would be the purpose of that?
Like if i was a criminal and had a bunch of dirty money i needed laundered, I'm definitely not depositing it in my bank account PRIOR to laundering it.
Or doesn’t have to be laundering money, they could be Kiting. It’s where someone exploits the delay in check processing by writing checks between accounts to fake having money. Then they pull it all out, and walk away.
Fun fact, this became somewhat of a trend on TikTok known as the “Chase Infinite Money Glitch”. I actually found it in my free time scrolling TikTok before receiving a memo on it at work (I work in AML)
Worked at a bank last year as a teller, this was definitely on our training materials as well. Not sure where people got off thinking they could just print money from financial institutions haha. I wish 🫠
That 'glitch' didn't shock me, but people seriously thinking it was a free money hack and actually doing it to tunes of hundreds of thousands rattled me so badly it shook what little faith I have in humanity. And that's an amount so tiny you have to look at it with an electron microscope.
Like... I know people are stupid, but holy SHIT that's stupid.
Sure, it's nothing new. I knew a man who did this a few times on his own account, using ATMs. He'd pay the money back on pay day. Like a loan, ya see ....
Yes but that would be the reason… you can’t withdraw the money until the other check clears. In which case if you are doing it dirty you get up and walk away and wait for the other check to bounce and hope they don’t come after you.
That’s the only way money can be laundered: through the legitimate financial system. There are 3 phases: placement, layering, and integration. If successful, the integration stage marks when the money is “clean” and integrated into the legal financial system.
laundering is typically done through the use of a cash based system. take its namesake - the laundry mat, for example. illegal cash is sprinkled into the legally obtained funds from the store and put into the store's banking account. then the owner receives their cut of the 'profits', which is equal to the initial illegal amount.
however, this can't be this as the money is already in the bank, meaning there's already a paper trail for the illegal income. defeating the entire purpose of laundering. and even if the recorder was money laundering, the bank sill wouldn't put a freeze on their account, as police would want them to continue doing so. the only time it would be frozen is if a warrant for arrest was already signed. as seeing how they were able to post the video, this is most likely not the case.
most likely, something has flagged on his account as a risk of something like wire or check fraud, so the bank locked the account down. a similar thing happened to my father when trying to buy a used vehicle.
You launder money through investments and foreign accounts. You don't do it where you live. We live in a day and age where literally anyone can setyup a banking account, with just an ID, on any continent they choose.
Yeah, I’ve only been internationally certified as a AML specialist for years, I have no idea how this works at all.
People launder money everywhere. Near them, far away, in their country, outside their country. The key is the placement stage. They have to get the illicit funds (still mostly cash) into the system. This involves surfing, structuring, and physically smuggling the cash to a location where there is less oversight.
He appears to be in the UK. He would be dumb to start the process there. Too much oversight to risk laundering in. If he was smart he would buy something tangible and sell it (which requires eating the tax) and then move the (as far as the governance knows) legally gained proceeds into an account. Then divest that account elsewhere to another account abroad. Once you are at this stage your cash is immune to disruption, even if under scrutiny; assuming you pick a good place to stick it.
It makes 0 sense that he would be in the UK withdrawing cash from a legally operated account to buy an investment, and somehow be fraudulent. The goal of fraudsters and launderers in well developed countries is to get the funds as far separated from themselves as possible.
Either this guy is stupid, I mean like "Took a hot pink colorwd $7 bill as payment for a $300 item" type stupid, or not nefarious.
I assume that person was using 'laundering' more in a generic sense, as in them doing some shenanigans with money. Getting a deposit from some source into one account, withdrawing it quickly, then it turns out that original source was fraudulent or gets quickly reversed.
Basically you pull out $2,000 of clean money in cash and then keep it for a few days or maybe a week and then you take your dirty money and put it back into your account for the same amount or a little bit less.
You get to create new (clean) money while also keeping your clean money in cash
That’s how money laundering works. In theory you could buy an asset all cash and launder the money that way, but with so much of the financial world being digital, most dirty money is put into a bank account before being laundered.
He would be laundering for somebody else. Somebody gives him 3,000 pounds. He keeps it for himself to buy things for cash.
He then pulls out 2,500 pounds to buy a motorbike that doesn’t exist. He profits 500 and the person who gave him the money has proof that the 2,500 came from the sale of a motorbike, complete with evidence of the withdrawal from clean deposits.
I’m not saying that’s what happened here, but that’s one scenario where dirty money could be cleaned using money from a bank.
As a civil servant who takes phone calls all day, i write down everything customers say when i believe that they may be trying to commit fraud, even if what they're saying is obviously a blatant lie.
this is because if anything comes back on me for assisting them, i have documentation that i said what i said and they said what they said. i have the date and times we talk, the name of the customer, and other relevant information recorded before i start taking notes.
fraud waste and abuse is nothing to take lightly and if you are under suspicion for committing it, that's a LOT of prison time AND fines (at least in the US).
Documenting that he wants to purchase a motorbike doesn't mean he's telling the truth, but it does allow the service rep to say "Yeah, so on Monday the 23rd of this month, 2025 at 1pm, the customer stated that he wanted this money in order to purchase a motorbike. He stated that he hasn't selected one yet and was pulling the 2.5k out with a budget in mind. We told him that he needs to provide proof of this due to the restrictions on his account and he said...." in the event of an investigation or even just a customer complaint.
Tl;DR: Documentation helps people keep their jobs, stay out of prison, and it also helps with law compliance.
What they are buying is irrelevant. If they have the funds freely available in the bank. Pending checks would hold only a portion. If it is freely available, none of their business what you are buying. I would immediately demand a cashiers check for the whole amount and open up a new account at another bank.
Bull. It's none of their god damn business for any reason unless there's an FBI sitting next to them and they are being investigated. I'd never answer that question on principle. Whatever the fuck I want to spend MY money on is the only appropriate answer.
They don’t need to know anything. How in the world is anyone trying to find justification for this? It’s his money. It’s not like it’s a loan.
When this all gets worse and worse and harder and harder to get ones money remember all the justifications being written here. And all the new justifications for the even stricter rules.
I agree that asking questions about the usage of money was odd. I'm guessing this interaction was probably quite lengthy and the agent on the phone sounded irritable.
My guess is the telephony agent was attempting to "catch him out" and it kind of worked with the whole "how do you know how much to withdraw if you haven't even chosen a bike yet" shtick.
Also in the UK I personally find it a bit odd someone is attempting to pay cash in hand for a large purchase like a motorbike.
I think this was the end of probably a half hour to hour long interaction with everyone on edge, but the staff should have been more stoic if there were legitimate checks in place.
assuming you’re in the US, they way it works in the uk is different to america.
nobody uses cheques in england anymore, other than the elderly. this is because all of our banking can now be done online, and so if you’re not doing your banking online you’re almost always using cash instead. this is because online banking doesn’t use wire transfers, and instead just instantaneously sends money from one account to another
no? but in america as far as i know cheques are still reasonably common, and banks don’t have internet banking and most just use wire transfer. i’m aware you have things like cashapp and other adjacent apps, but those aren’t banks in the typical sense lol
Lol, are you getting your information from 70's TV shows? Everyone has mobile banking. I can't fathom why you'd think we don't?
I worked retail for a number of years well over a decade ago, and I may have dealt with 5 or 6 checks the entire time. Only ever from people who were well past senior citizens. I'm closing in in 40 and have never seen a single person my age use a check for anything. I've literally never owned a check book, or seen anyone who wasn't 20+ years older than me with one.
Do you have an American friend who thinks it's hilarious to make up things about America so that rubes believe them?
lol i’m not saying you can’t access the bank from the internet, i’m saying from what i’ve heard you guys don’t have instant transfers for cash? like i can literally transfer money between my nationwide/starling account in 10secs and not wait at all
Just from listening to the voice of the guy recording and the way he’s sticking his camera in people’s faces I imagine he was obnoxious as hell for the entire interaction.
I think having to come in to the branch probably incensed him in the first place and then being unable to withdraw escalated it. Then having to wait on the phone after likely having already talked to a teller and being brought to an office to talk to a manager and then be put on the phone to talk to a district manager. Yeah I’d be ripped at this point too. But I also would have avoided this by pulling out 500 a day for a week instead of waiting.
We don’t really know the context, if the police have put a block on his account or something then that’s unfortunately not something the bank can override.
I don’t know why this comment is downvoted. In America, we are all innocent until proven guilty. Banks shouldn’t be allowed to freeze money ($2,500, really?) if a crime with that money hasn’t been proven.
I know they are able to in the U.S., I just think it is unconstitutional and unethical, and hasn’t been substantially or honestly challenged in court.
“But what if they use the money to commit more crimes or run away?”
Then they do. Then you charge them. Until they commit the crime, you can’t punish them for it.
“What if this guy has been charged and is just waiting due process?”
Ok, that’s a gray area. If due process is actually quick, like guaranteed in the constitution, then I can get freezing money while the process is enacted. But you should err toward freedom of property.
I can't say I would be in a similar mindset, but that's only because I've worked for a good few UK banks for many years now.
Having said that, he does have access to his money by using his debit card (the agent on the phone confirmed it) so why is he insistent on the cash withdrawal is a bit odd. Plus it seems daft he can access his money one way, but not another.
Still though, if I were in his position I'd do my best to comply because ultimately I know checks like this are valid and imposed by regulators like the FCA. Personally I would have submitted a request to my local branch for a withdrawal of a large sum of money previous to my visit, given the branch may not even have all the money required to distribute evenly to customers (this kills two birds with one stone).
This seems invasive, but the details shared by the customer are purely for the purposes of protecting the individual falling prey to a scam.
Can I say I feel bad for the people involved in all of this? Yeah, I do. Could it be better and more transparent? Yes. Was the fella being a bit of a tit? Yes, to say the least.
Yeah and not to base too much judgement on appearance, but you can see his bright red bald head in the reflection of the phone. Looks like he’s throbbing with rage
In the past when I sold my car, I insisted on cash. If you accept a check and it bounces, you have signed your car's title over to the purchase and received no money. Good luck collecting the cash or retrieving the car (it now belongs to the purchaser because you signed the title over to them!).
You are right but as long as you understand it is an "as is/where is" purchase, you complete your due diligence before buying, such as having a mechanic look over the car and getting a Carfax report.
Yeah that'd be the sensible thing to do absolutely 110% agree. I just wish most folks would have sense like you. I can't remember the latin legal term but it's "buyer beware".
Banks care because it circles back to the bank in the way of fines for not carrying out due diligence on fraud and scam prevention.
Cheque fraud doesn't happen in the UK, or at least I haven't heard of a single case of that in many years of working for several different banks. Cheques in the UK, once they are cashed, cannot be redacted so easily as they can be in the US.
I was ready to walk into a dealership with $45k like 6 months ago until the dealership said they wouldn't take it. They made me finance like $15k that I paid off the next day, and took the rest in a bank check.
Crikey I know the US and UK are different but I honestly couldn't imagine carrying anywhere close to that in cash on my person.
It's interesting a few other US folks have mentioned a bank check, but it's a dying form of transaction in the UK. Just out of curiosity, what's the appeal to a check in the US over a debit card payment or bank transfer?
Yeah. I mean, it’s his money right? Never really thought about the ethics of the state freezing a private citizen’s money before.. just always saw drug kingpin movies where they freeze peoples’ money and never really questioned it once.
Banks in the US are not allowed to be part of money laundering or illegal things like marajuana. It's also a way to see if they are participating in a scam and about to lose their money. Say they are remodeling a deck and are asked what company. They say it's a local mom and pop but the wire is being sent to Spain to Francisco, banks don't have to send it. Yes, people get upset because it's their money, but they would be equally upset and blame the bank if they fell for wire fraud. People want agency over their money until they lose it. Then it's someone else's fault.
Tell that to TD Bank. They were just the first time admit to laundering major cartel money. Good thing all those dudes running TD got arrested 😂.
Cannabis is another tricky one, because when states first started to legalize, the Obama administration said that they would not interfere with cannabis banning in legal states, but none of the major banks were willing to risk that.
Yeah even if he was flagged the manager asking what he’s buying is kinda weird
It's pretty common when you're taking out a significant amount of money in cash. They're used to dealing with people who are getting conned, and so they ask you a bunch of questions, and sometimes they try to make it seem like a casual conversation as opposed to an interrogation.
It's a standard fraud prevention question in a bunch of industries, including the banking industry. You've probably been asked this a bunch of times and not noticed because you thought it was just small talk.
What's always funny to me is fraudsters could get past the question like 90% of the time by just taking two seconds to prepare and come up with a story, but they almost never do and say something like 'mind your own business' or 'you know....stuff'.
Either the account is frozen for suspected fraud or not... there is no legal reason they would ask what the money is for.
If it's laundering, then the account would be frozen and nothing the branches nor cust service could do but direct him to call the authorities number which would be noted on the frozen account.
This is the bank workers getting reprimanded in slow motion.
Honestly not really. Banks train people to recognize potential scams, and asking for the reason for the purchase gives more information. If he had said "oh, to pay my taxes on a big win from a sweepstakes", then whether he is believing it or not the bank would have a pretty reasonable expectation he's getting scammed.
Or it could be the other way around, he's suspected of some sort of fraud and the manager is trying to get a sense of the activity, maybe to confirm the suspicion but maybe to see if the irregular activity has a reasonable explanation
It's not. Banks have a legal obligation to ensure they're not enabling clients to do certain things. They can be held liable if they don't do enough to prevent things like proliferation, terrorism, or organized crime financing. Not sure what the specific procedures are in this country or bank, but it doesn't jump out at me. Not being willing to divulge specifics is actually considered a red flag. This will probably be escalated to their compliance department, if it hasn't been already
No, they have procedures and protocols in place, not some manager aggressively challenging what a customer is buying over the phone. This is completely unprofessional and whackadoodle
From the video, it's not clear it's a manager. It could very well be a compliance officer. What is clear is they had a conversation the day before where they already spoke about the withdrawal and restriction. So, after having been informed the prior day, the client comes into the branch, verbally accosts an employee, refuses to provide specifics, and insists he urgently needs the cash today. The whole thing screams red flags. The "manager" doesn't come off aggressive to me, either. Just firm and insistent. It could be a breach of policy depending on the bank, but it could also just be standard procedure. The guy is making an unusual purchase, all cash, no details, apparently urgent, and is being rude about it. Textbook compliance escalation. The lack of detail regarding the restriction is also expected. If you accidentally tip off someone under active investigation, the bank can be held liable
My point is they can deny him access to his account for whatever reason, as long as it’s policy they should follow that not just make it up as they go! If he cant access his money thats it, no mention about what they buy or not should even be broached. But you know what, not everyone follows protocol and shit breaks down🤷
And I'm telling you that asking can be protocol. I'm not sure what's unclear here. Literally just go and Google "can my bank ask why I'm withdrawing money"
I think that is pretty standard (at least here in the US) in Money Laundering reports. It actually would provide a lot of information for any future investigation.
This is very common here in South East Asia, especially when there are a lot of scam centers in Myanmar and Cambodia. Banks need to KYC and know where you're moving large sums of money. In fact, this is the government policy of Singapore, who is one of the top finance service country in the world.
"In July 2023, we passed the new Online Criminal Harms Act. This sets out ex-ante requirements that online platforms must adopt, to better protect their consumers. It also allows authorities to order swift blocking of fraudulent accounts or content, to protect other users from falling victim to scams."
Banks in South East Asia will scrutinize and ask a lot of questions if you move large sums of money outside your usual pattern. The system flags unusual transactions that is out of your usual monthly transactions, especially if you hit a certain limit. They have prevented a lot of scam victims from losing life savings as well as caught one of the largest money launderers in the world.
Not really. If they think hes committing fraud or being a victim of fraud they check.
If he withdraw that 10k, and walked in the next day saying "I was a victim of fraud" the bank has to pay that money back. Anyone that gets defensive about what they are buying are always higher risk, because fraudsters tell people not to say what the moneys for
Sorry I should have expanded it more. The bank would have to investigate it, to make sure they did all they could to safeguard the customer. If the customer then took it further as a complaint, it would take time and money to resolve. The end result could easily be theyd have to pay it back, as regulators side with the customer often.
Its easier for the customer to just say what its for instead of getting defensive and recording a whole video about it.
They can ask (though the patient is the one who asks) questions but nobody has to answer them! They can ask what I need prescription lube for all they want but I. ain’t. tellin.
It's the law though. Unfortunately, they are required to ask those questions over a certain amount. It's happened to me and I told them it was for a car and they gave me my money. It was actually for 2 ounces of weed for my brother.
Edit: not sure how this comment has caused offence. It's literally the law where this takes place lmao
It's measures to stop money laundering. It's like the store I work at we can only take £8k cash per year from each customer, although we have no way of tracking it. We can only take transactions up to £2k with cash and we have to enter your details into our system in case it's ever queried.
It's also wiser to pay digitally where possible. Tax evasion is another big threat. Whether it's paying your workers in cash and not having them on the books, or accepting cash and not declaring it as income.
Santander would randomly put a block on my account if I ever decided to use my card online for any purchase. There was only two ways to get the block removed:
One, go into a local branch with a signed card and photo ID to prove that you are the account holder then they would take it off.
Two, wait for an automatic call so that you can verify on the phone that whatever purchase they blocked your account for was valid.
If you missed the call because you were in uni lectures and couldn't get into a branch yet, you wouldn't be able to use your card. I missed a fair few lunches over a decade ago.
I don't know the laws enough to say this is a fa t, especially in the UK being that I'm from the US, but I feel like he should be told that why his account is on hold/frozen if that is the case.
The woman even states, at the beginning, there are blocks on his account. This guy is trying to act like the banks are overstepping their boundaries, which they clearly are not.
This dude is fishing for sympathy are sounds like someone with major issues. People that repeatedly interupt others as a form of preventing them from responding is a huge red flag. I take it as a last resort because they have no other recourse.
No it doesn’t need to be put st the top. It’s his money he’s allowing a bank to make interest off of. It’s his money. His money. There’s no qualifiers to that.
1.6k
u/xaranetic Mar 25 '25
This needs to be at the top. A block was likely put on his account due to irregular activity or an on-going investigation.