LMAO: Santander UK bank puts limits to buy bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Banco Santander is a big Spanish bank that

first entered the United Kingdom in 1988 with a fifteen-year alliance with The Royal Bank Scotland. In 2004, it began its direct commercial activity with the acquisition of Abbey National. The Bank continued  to grow through acquisitions, including Bradford & Bingley and Alliance & Leicester in 2008 and 2009.

https://www.santander.co.uk/about-santander/our-history

Now it turns out that it is imposing restrictions on its customers if they want to move their money to acquire bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. The reason: they say it is to protect them, but it is clear to me that they are not telling the whole truth.

In recent months we've seen a large increase in UK customers become victims of cryptocurrency fraud.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has  warned consumers about the risks of investing in crypto assets as money held in customers’ crypto wallets is unlikely to be protected by the Financial Ombudsman Service and Financial Services Compensation Scheme if something goes wrong.

We want to do everything we can to protect our customers and we feel that limiting payments to cryptocurrency exchanges is the best way to make sure your money stays safe.

Limit on cryptocurrency payments

From 15th November 2022 where we identify payments to cryptocurrency exchanges using Mobile and Online Banking, we’ll limit the amount that you can send. These limits are applied per account.

You’ll be restricted to:

a £1,000 limit per transaction,
a total limit of £3,000 in any rolling 30-day period.

While there may be some reasonable justification for this, as there are indeed people falling victim to scams in the world of cryptocurrencies, I think the bold highlighting is the crux of the matter. People who get scammed are not usually scammed for having their cryptocurrencies in their hardware wallet, on the contrary. What really happens is they are very upset that people can keep large amounts of digital currency in their own wallets and avoid the bank.

Some people call it the Satander Bank.

[1714889078]

1714889078

[1714889078]

1714889078

[1714889078]

1714889078

[1714889078]

1714889078

[1714889078]

1714889078

[1714889078]

1714889078

[Bttzed03]

~ What really happens is they are very upset that people can keep large amounts of digital currency in their own wallets and avoid the bank.

Yeah, there's no other logical reason why they decided to take matters into their own hand. It appears there was no request from their users to protect them from what these Financial Institutions call high-risk investments.

They don't want fiat going into crypto exchanges but they welcome money coming from these platforms:

~ You can still get payments from cryptocurrency exchanges into your account.

[so98nn]

This won't be a problem. This is actually another good reason to keep my bitcoins into my wallets only and not send a penny worth of it for fiat. Unless and until there is emergency situation one can easily cop up with the situation with 3000 GBP. That is still good amount of money one could need at any given time.

If not then there is always p2p option open for us. I mean direct contact with friends and family members so that we can avoid the KYCed platforms.

This makes better sense because we can directly send the funds to their wallet and they can directly send us cash or wire transfer for personal reasons. Everybody stays happy.

Believe me, one day peeps gonna start to follow such methodologies if banks gone too far with the restrictions. They talk like they own the money deposited by us.

[mk4]

Thankfully it's just a single bank (at least for now). Easy loophole for people with multiple banks is to just transfer funds from Santander to another, then move the money to an exchange.

..or maybe people should be using P2P.

[mindrust]

They are mad man. They are mad because we are driving cars and flying jets. If everyone leaves legacy banking and move to crypto then these banksters will lose their jobs. That’s another reason why they are mad at us. UK is pretty friendly against crypto anyway. Santander is a Spanish bank and everybody that read the history knows how the Spanish empire ruined itself when they decided to mess up with people’s money before.

I don’t trust banks mostly but I am damn sure that I don’t trust any Spanish banks.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Some people call it the Satander Bank.

All banks should have some sort of reference to The Dark One in their name if you ask me.  And if I'm not mistaken, Santander may be a Spanish bank, but they have branches in the US all over the place.  I've seen them and never realized they were global.

I'm not buying the "it's for your protection" argument here, as people get scammed with fiat constantly through all sorts of methods, whether it's the old Nigerian prince kind or pretty much any other scheme you can think of.  My guess is that Santander didn't decide this on their own, but rather had it suggested to them by some government agency that hasn't officially regulated cryptocurrency yet.  Banks and government have always been in bed together, so that wouldn't surprise me in the least.

[sunsilk]

This would drive the other bank to reason out the same thing and copy their move. But it's going to be easy since most transactions these days are digital, Santander depositors and bitcoin investors can easily take the cash and use it elsewhere for purchasing crypto.

There will be no attachment on it when they hold the fiat and uses other channels for that purchase. However, the hassle is there and it won't be as easy as it goes when you can directly connect to your bank account and use it for the purchase.

[naira]

The Bank is only trying to find rational reasons, but as far as they know that banks don't really like cryptocurrencies for any reason, that's a fact that actually happened. In many countries, banks do almost the same thing and as in the UK, they have good reasons to justify their actions. Instead of limiting crypto users to manage their finances, the bank will still cut it from the roots.

[kryptqnick]

Well, they're not fully banning the transactions, and IMO £3,000 per month is quite a lot and probably is more than most users would move. The limitations can be annoying for big users, but surely those can find other banks and make their own deals. I don't think the justification over scam prevention is particularly reasonable, but if they set the same limitations and justified it as fighting financial crime, I'd probably think that it's fine.
Maybe the op is right that they simply don't want people to be the sole owners of their money, but then they could limit withdrawals to non-custodial wallets but allow centralized services.

[stompix]

Easy loophole for people with multiple banks is to just transfer funds from Santander to another, then move the money to an exchange.

I think that the loophole might be in the own system:

From 15th November 2022 where we identify payments to cryptocurrency exchanges using Mobile and Online Banking, we’ll limit the amount that you can send. These limits are applied per account.

so just go to your local branch, ask to make a wire,  sign it and it shouldn't get against the limits, that is if they still have physical offices and have not turned all their branches into kiosk payments only.
If that doesn't work, just have your wife split the funds, 72000 GBP a year would be enough for most families.

The problem will be when they change the limit from 3000 a month to zero a year, that is going to be ugly.

We’ll be making more changes to limit or prevent payments to crypto exchanges in the future, though we’ll always let you know before we make these changes.

This won't be a problem. This is actually another good reason to keep my bitcoins into my wallets only and not send a penny worth of it for fiat. Unless and until there is emergency situation one can easily cop up with the situation with 3000 GBP. That is still good amount of money one could need at any given time.

It's the other way around, the limit for 3000 is for buying not for selling, they don't care how much you pull out of an exchange.

[Fortify]

Banco Santander is a big Spanish bank that

first entered the United Kingdom in 1988 with a fifteen-year alliance with The Royal Bank Scotland. In 2004, it began its direct commercial activity with the acquisition of Abbey National. The Bank continued  to grow through acquisitions, including Bradford & Bingley and Alliance & Leicester in 2008 and 2009.

https://www.santander.co.uk/about-santander/our-history

Now it turns out that it is imposing restrictions on its customers if they want to move their money to acquire bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. The reason: they say it is to protect them, but it is clear to me that they are not telling the whole truth.

While there may be some reasonable justification for this, as there are indeed people falling victim to scams in the world of cryptocurrencies, I think the bold highlighting is the crux of the matter. People who get scammed are not usually scammed for having their cryptocurrencies in their hardware wallet, on the contrary. What really happens is they are very upset that people can keep large amounts of digital currency in their own wallets and avoid the bank.

Some people call it the Satander Bank.

It seems like quite a reasonable stance for them to take, as many people are currently being targeted by scammers in this way - maybe you should blame those "anonymous" people in certain countries picking up the phone to commit fraud against others rather than a bank trying to protect it's customers from a rather common fraud. It is unlikely that anyone will be heavily effected by this move except for maybe traders who would generally be using a business account if they've been doing it for a while. They're saying nothing about users who store bitcoin on a hardware wallet, so I don't understand why you felt the need to jam that in on an unrelated note?

[stepwilli]

The reason: they say it is to protect them, but it is clear to me that they are not telling the whole truth.

Yeah, obviously no banking or governmental entity will not unveil the whole truth. But we all know that. Yes, bitcoin will lead them to lose their power and control on financial world which is the reason that we are all witnessing governments and banks are always looking to regulate or even ban bitcoin and other cryptocurency adoption. But, nothing negatively will happen just because of their action against cryptocurencies in long run due to bitcoin's potentials and other revolutionary characteristics.

maybe people should be using P2P.

Every action against cryptocurrencies from banks or government authorities will lead people to exercise the true practices of decentralized environments. People will realize the importance of being not dependent on banks over the time when they encounter such restrictions. So, personally I also welcome when banks limits its customers on cryptocurrency related activities.

[bittraffic]

Keeping the money of the depositors in the guise of protecting them from the crypto scam. That's a nice gesture and people will fall for it too.
They limit £1,000 and by the time they keep their money in the bank for a long time, their purchasing power also goes down.

Crypto is such a threat to banks and they know it when people's money is handled by people on thier own without needing a bank.

[Lucius]

I'm not in favor of the rules that say "you can't do what you want with your money", but I think that in this case the banks are somehow trying to protect their clients from very irresponsible behavior when it comes to risky investments. How many times have we read that someone invested their entire savings in some cryptocurrency because they were influenced by some influencer? After the investment is not successful, everyone is to blame except the one who made the key decision.

People often act very impulsively and without thinking, especially when they are in the safety of their homes and using mobile banking. Maybe this measure looks a bit ugly, but as @stompix already wrote, there is a way to spend much more than that limit, which is quite high (at least from my perspective).

[Majestic-milf]

How interesting that a bank can show concern for it's customers. The thing is, such limit is imposed to ensure that they are still functional and peeps still have jobs to go to.
 They know that should clients withdraw more than that, gradually, they'd become insolvent. imagine the lengths these financial institutions could go just to have some measure of control.

 Although they have presented a logical and valid reason for their actions but who then would save depositors from scams like them?

[noorman0]

It seems like quite a reasonable stance for them to take, as many people are currently being targeted by scammers in this way

I think scammers are an unavoidable crime in the financial industry. So that's not the problem.
Maybe I will attribute this news as one of the concerns of the banks.

Given that Santander is the largest bank, the hardest thing will be to maintain that feat especially if financial flows are reduced as people have used the new uncontrollable deposit and payment machines that are available in every corner of the city.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

And if I'm not mistaken, Santander may be a Spanish bank, but they have branches in the US all over the place.  I've seen them and never realized they were global.

Well, it is the most important bank in Spain, and 'Santander' is a city in the north of Spain, where it was founded, but over time it has internationalised, and from what I see in the USA it is present mainly in the north-east.

I'm not buying the "it's for your protection" argument here, as people get scammed with fiat constantly through all sorts of methods, whether it's the old Nigerian prince kind or pretty much any other scheme you can think of. 

Me neither.

My guess is that Santander didn't decide this on their own, but rather had it suggested to them by some government agency that hasn't officially regulated cryptocurrency yet.  Banks and government have always been in bed together, so that wouldn't surprise me in the least.

The problem with that is that if you are right we will soon see other banks limiting customers to 'protect' them.

The problem will be when they change the limit from 3000 a month to zero a year, that is going to be ugly.

This is what worries me.

[Kakmakr]

No, OP.... there are no justification for their actions, because this is pure anti-competitive behavior and the protection of their monopoly. They do not want capital to be withdrawn from their corrupt service, because they use that capital to earn profits for their business. (They loan your deposits to other people at high interest and then they give you a VERY small percentage of that in interest)

That is why we encourage people to be their own Bank, because centralized service abuse their power with your money. (telling you what you can do with your money) 

[Betwrong]

~
I'm not buying the "it's for your protection" argument here, as people get scammed with fiat constantly through all sorts of methods, whether it's the old Nigerian prince kind or pretty much any other scheme you can think of.  My guess is that Santander didn't decide this on their own, but rather had it suggested to them by some government agency that hasn't officially regulated cryptocurrency yet.  Banks and government have always been in bed together, so that wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Almost all bad things in this world are done "for protection" of some groups of people. Some times they go so far as saying that it's "for protection of all people in the world". Well, f*ck that. We should know by now what that really means.

[stompix]

No, OP.... there are no justification for their actions, because this is pure anti-competitive behavior and the protection of their monopoly.

Anti-competitive against what?Fill a lawsuit and see how that will work as there is nothing about competition or monopoly here.

You don't realize how ridiculous it is, the chant here is always that bitcoin will kill banks, effectively creating a monopoly since there will be only bitcoin and nothing else but at the same time you go enraged when a bank decided who it wants to serve! The same age about CEX, there was no need for all of those in the first place at all, and in a true bitcoin economy there would be no need for it either, the whole thing of being your own bank, no third party, no nothing, but god forbid they would get closed as the pitchforks will be raised and lit.

I'm not in favor of the rules that say "you can't do what you want with your money", but I think that in this case the banks are somehow trying to protect their clients from very irresponsible behavior when it comes to risky investments. How many times have we read that someone invested their entire savings in some cryptocurrency because they were influenced by some influencer? After the investment is not successful, everyone is to blame except the one who made the key decision.

That thing with the refund is the pure example of zealotism I hate so much.

You buy some coins via a bank transfer you send them to a Ponzi scheme and your bank doesn't offer a refund? The evil bankers!!!
Bitcoin transactions are irreversible? That's how things should be!

Too many acts on impulses on the news and too many think with their wallets, not with their brain.