HSBC restricting cash withdrawals in UK

[BreathOfZen]

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

Refusing to give customers the cash unless they provide an adequate reason.  People suitably unimpressed at having less control of their money in a bank than they thought.

Is the answer of "I will keep the money in a safe because I don't trust banks that impose such a low withdrawal limit." A good answer, or a bad one?

[delphic]

So legally you don't own the money you have in a bank. Is that what you are saying? Show me a law saying that.

You certainly don't own the money used to purchase any GICs you hold with your bank, and you don't really even own the money in your checking account--you just have an agreement with the bank that you are guaranteed cash on "demand" provided you give the bank sufficient time to prepare any large withdrawals you may request.

When you deposit money at the bank, the asset side of the bank's balance sheet increases by an amount equal to the cash you turned over, while the liability side of their balance sheet increases by the same amount, reflecting the bank's obligation to you.  

If the bank goes bust, you just become an unsecured creditor in the bankruptcy proceedings (albeit insured against loss to some extent by the FDIC, but that's really a separate issue).  Our fractional reserve system can only function if the money you deposit legally becomes the bank's asset, so that the bank has the right to lend it out and accept the risk of loss should the loans go sour.

Also, if it was your money, you'd have to pay the banks to take care of it.  

Correct.

But the trick the banks in the UK also pull is to charge you for them taking care of the money you gave them.

[fluidjax]

Legally... Legally... None of this is legal, there is no case law, there is little statute. even if sued, banks rarely go to court they get very good lawyers and tie you up in knots and possibly, much later, offer a settlement.

Ownership doesnt change when you put money in a bank, 'posession' changes.
All you armchair lawyers make me laugh.

Like everything now its just safest to stay under the radar, withdraw amonts below trigger values and behave yourself... Just like they want you to do.

[hilariousandco]

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

Refusing to give customers the cash unless they provide an adequate reason.  People suitably unimpressed at having less control of their money in a bank than they thought.

Banks are funny. They don't get the concept of it being our money not theirs ..... another good reason to eliminate them, especially HSBC.

Let me break it to you it's not your money it's their money and if they want they will take it and not give it to you!

Of course it's your money, you just willingly lend it to them so they can do what they like with it.

[GigaCoin]

Disgusting, all the more reason people should own their money (crypto) rather than rely on banks.

[runam0k]

Fuck that, I would immediately close the account and move the funds elsewhere.

[hilariousandco]

Fuck that, I would immediately close the account and move the funds elsewhere.

People should've done that already when this happened: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jul/03/hsbc-money-laundering-settlement-approved

[FlappySocks]

Another story here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/experts/article-2540445/What-maximum-money-I-withdraw-HSBC.html#ixzz2rFfQsBGm

[guybrushthreepwood]

What do you even need cash to pay for? I have never had to withdraw a large amount of cash.. ever...

You know, stuff and things. Stuff and things cost money.

[tabnloz]

This comes on the back of news that an Asian report that said HSBC has a massive black hole on their books, assets worth tens of billions less than they were. The report advised stock holders to sell shares

[Peter R]

Ownership doesnt change when you put money in a bank, 'posession' changes.
All you armchair lawyers make me laugh.

So if I walk into a bank and deposit $1,000 into a GIC, I still own that cash?  Of course not, this is why it's called "buying a GIC."  You give them cash now in exchange for a promise to get cash + interest at some point in the future.

It is less clear when we're talking about chequing accounts, but I'd still argue that what you "own" is a promise that the bank will give you cash on demand, and not the actual cash.  

The problem is that the word "money" is ambiguous.

[Carlton Banks]

Ownership doesnt change when you put money in a bank, 'posession' changes.
All you armchair lawyers make me laugh.

So if I walk into a bank and deposit $1,000 into a GIC, I still own that cash?  Of course not, this is why it's called "buying a GIC."  You give them cash now in exchange for a promise to get cash + interest at some point in the future.

It is less clear when we're talking about chequing accounts, but I'd still argue that what you "own" is a promise that the bank will give you cash on demand, and not the actual cash.  

The problem is that the word "money" is ambiguous.

It looks like "demand" has become ambiguous too, conditional upon proof of the purpose. And if they don't like the proof, or the purpose, you can't have the money ("the money" now seems more correct than "your money"). It makes the word "promise"  start to look a little ambiguous too.

[sgbett]

Banks in the UK have had cash withdrawal policies like this for years. Getting out anything over £500 is a pain.

nah i've took around £2k a few times not even a flinch, I do anticipate there to be a 'red flag' value but I just haven't hit it yet.

in answer to the "who needs that much money" poster, if you have to get money from A to B in one day then cash is king...

[marcus_of_augustus]

... the cash notes technically are not owned by you either, even if you have them in your hand legitimately.

Take a look on the front, it says right there on it that it is debt belonging to the Bank of England.

... the rabbit hole of the monetary deception is very deep once you choose to go down it. The whole system is one layer of debt built on top of another. Get this in your head, they let YOU OWN NOTHING.

[francisp]

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

Refusing to give customers the cash unless they provide an adequate reason.  People suitably unimpressed at having less control of their money in a bank than they thought.

Is the answer of "I will keep the money in a safe because I don't trust banks that impose such a low withdrawal limit." A good answer, or a bad one?

Considering that interest rates are basically (and artificially) zero now, the only reason to have money in a bank is convenience. So you have to decide if that convenience is greater than the inconvenience that the money is no longer in your possession.

[thaaanos]

Sounds familiar with some bitcoin exchanges here and there? Just saying...

[countryfree]

It's even more difficult in France, Italy or Sweden. Banks make less and less cash transactions, and advise all their customers to use credit cards and wire payments. It's part of the game against money laundering and tax evasion. I think in Italy it's illegal to make a payment of more than 1,000 € in cash.

[qbits]

So legally you don't own the money you have in a bank. Is that what you are saying? Show me a law saying that.

I will explain: Obligatory Law which is with us since Roman times in more or less the same form, defines this kind of relationship in simple terms:
1 Upon deposit you hand over money to the bank. The bank owns that money. It's banks money.
2 At the same time bank hand over a "promissory note" to you which roughly reads as: bank promises to hand over (deposited) money to depositor at his/her request at any time. This note may be a simple bank statement.

So money belongs to the bank and you have their obligation to return it at your request. You don't own that money anymore. You own an obligation.

Whether or not they deliver on their promise/obligation or not remains to be seen when you actually request to have your money back. Of course if they do not (they reneg) then you have a legal recourse to have a court force them.

However if a bank fails / goes bankrupt, then your claims become void as the obligation ceased to exist when bank = (legal) person "died" that is bankruptcy procedure ended.

Most countries force commercial banks to insure their depositors up to certain amount for just such an event thus allowing depositors to feel secure about their deposits and making bank runs less likely.

[knightcoin]

So legally you don't own the money you have in a bank. Is that what you are saying? Show me a law saying that.

I will explain: Obligatory Law which is with us since Roman times in more or less the same form, defines this kind of relationship in simple terms:
1 Upon deposit you hand over money to the bank. The bank owns that money. It's banks money.
2 At the same time bank hand over a "promissory note" to you which roughly reads as: bank promises to hand over (deposited) money to depositor at his/her request at any time. This note may be a simple bank statement.

So money belongs to the bank and you have their obligation to return it at your request. You don't own that money anymore. You own an obligation.

Whether or not they deliver on their promise/obligation or not remains to be seen when you actually request to have your money back. Of course if they do not (they reneg) then you have a legal recourse to have a court force them.

However if a bank fails / goes bankrupt, then your claims become void as the obligation ceased to exist when bank = (legal) person "died" that is bankruptcy procedure ended.

Most countries force commercial banks to insure their depositors up to certain amount for just such an event thus allowing depositors to feel secure about their deposits and making bank runs less likely.

the money in account record belongs to the owner ...

[knightcoin]

So legally you don't own the money you have in a bank. Is that what you are saying? Show me a law saying that.

I will explain: Obligatory Law which is with us since Roman times in more or less the same form, defines this kind of relationship in simple terms:
1 Upon deposit you hand over money to the bank. The bank owns that money. It's banks money.
2 At the same time bank hand over a "promissory note" to you which roughly reads as: bank promises to hand over (deposited) money to depositor at his/her request at any time. This note may be a simple bank statement.

So money belongs to the bank and you have their obligation to return it at your request. You don't own that money anymore. You own an obligation.

Whether or not they deliver on their promise/obligation or not remains to be seen when you actually request to have your money back. Of course if they do not (they reneg) then you have a legal recourse to have a court force them.

However if a bank fails / goes bankrupt, then your claims become void as the obligation ceased to exist when bank = (legal) person "died" that is bankruptcy procedure ended.

Most countries force commercial banks to insure their depositors up to certain amount for just such an event thus allowing depositors to feel secure about their deposits and making bank runs less likely.


the money in account record belongs to the owner ...

if you not agree .. F**k .. does not matter if you are Islamic bank or not