Deposit and withdrawal methods: Santander puts account on hold - help please (Page 9)

Chriiiis wrote on 22.08.2024 at 19:36: Yes, I noticed it now too, I could have asked chatgpt.... I'm just overwhelmed to the max and would love to jump off the bridge, which of course I don't do,. but that's really my current feeling unfortunately.


Everyone says something different, some say I should look for a lawyer, others say no way, then they say I should tell the truth, then the other says I should never mention the casino, yes again, what should I mention where the money comes from? I have to be honest and transparent.

This post has been translated automatically

This post has been translated automatically

Chriiiis wrote on 26.08.2024 at 13:24: What does that have to do with my problem with the account?^^

This post has been translated automatically

Chriiiis wrote on 26.08.2024 at 23:56: Nothing new, no info so far...

This post has been translated automatically

frapi07 wrote on 27.08.2024 at 09:02:

For the info mind you... it may be a while before you have access to the money again, which is why some (including me) have advised you to get a restraining order.

This post has been translated automatically

This post has been translated automatically

Falke wrote on 28.08.2024 at 01:41: What kind of a barrel is being opened here?

Call your bank or go there yourself and tell them to make the money available to you immediately because it's YOUR money. Threaten them with a lawsuit and coercion. Not handing over your money means private problems for you and that's the bank's fault. And don't leave there until you can withdraw the money.

If there is suspicion of money laundering because of a few thousand.... dollars, then that is so grotesque. Money laundering is only done by someone who moves completely different sums of money back and forth.

What can you see on your Binance statements? You see a crypto address and that's it. Could have been sent to you by a friend.

If they think you've been laundering money, they should call in the authorities if they absolutely think so. But if not, they should give you the money immediately. This Stasi spying on the German state and its compliant helpers, the banks, really annoys me. You have a Federal Chancellor who is suspected of having embezzled billions, but the smallest citizen is treated like a felon because of a few thousand euros.

So, if I were you, I would be a bit more self-confident when dealing with the bank and only give them the bare minimum of information. How cheeky is that, please, to block someone's account, then give no reason whatsoever, then only after repeated inquiries to blurt out something about suspicion of money laundering. On what basis? If you make such a serious accusation, then there must be clear evidence. And these certainly cannot be based on a few transfers from a crypto site.

I know you can't afford it, but I would have sent my lawyer over there a long time ago and exhausted everything, but really everything that would be possible and would also sue the bank.
See if you can find something like a people's lawyer or other places where you can get a lawyer for free. There are a few places like that. Stupid banks. Even the most immoral and probably the most criminal, but then harass the normal citizens.

• Unusual transactions: A transaction or business relationship appears unusual and deviates from the norm.


• Unclear origin of funds: There are doubts about the origin of funds.


• Doubts about the information provided by the customer: The customer provides contradictory or incomplete information.


• Politically exposed persons (PEP): The transactions of politically exposed persons, who are exposed to a higher Risk of money laundering, must be examined particularly carefully.

This post has been translated automatically

gamble1 wrote on 28.08.2024 at 03:06:

Well Falke the problem with it is unfortunately the money laundering law and there is clearly spoken of suspicious moments where banks are obliged to initiate an examination first, including the following



Banks must always check a suspicion of money laundering if:

• Unusual transactions: A transaction or business relationship appears unusual and deviates from the norm.


• Unclear origin of funds: There are doubts about the origin of funds.


• Doubts about the information provided by the customer: The customer provides contradictory or incomplete information.


• Politically exposed persons (PEP): The transactions of politically exposed persons, who are exposed to a higher Risk of money laundering, must be examined particularly carefully.

So if the TE only ever has small amounts in the account and suddenly there is a discrepancy, this is sufficient for such a check and accordingly the blocking of your account until everything is clarified

Do you think that's ok? No ! Is that the law? Yes !

This post has been translated automatically

Falke wrote on 08/28/2024 03:30:
And that's exactly what I criticized in my post. That these laws no longer have anything to do with a liberal democracy, but with an authoritarian surveillance state. And that the banks are playing the role of compliant helpers.


It is also extremely discriminatory. While a businessman can move millions around, a poor wretch is immediately suspected of money laundering because "unusually" a few bills, rather than a few cents, end up in his account.
The accusation of money laundering is just too blatantly ridiculous for such amounts. Money laundering means that you want to launder illegal transactions. And that's normally done with bogus companies, etc. But certainly not by getting money into a bank account.

Logically, therefore, there should be no suspicion of money laundering for any normal citizen; by definition, money laundering is something completely different.

Not so long ago there was something like banking secrecy and look where we've got to now? And once again, such laws are only used to monitor and harass the stupid citizen and restrict his freedom more and more. Certainly not to catch the real criminals and money launderers. They are in the very positions of power where these laws are passed.

This post has been translated automatically

frapi07 wrote on 28.08.2024 at 09:22:

The banks are unfortunately allowed to do this and you can criticize it, that's our right too, but he can't do anything at the moment unless he gets a restraining order. Then he can do something with it, but with threats etc. he won't get far, possibly only that he is escorted out of the branch.

He's not the first and he won't be the last and I don't think that everyone likes to bend over backwards and put up with everything. I believe that the FIU was involved with the TE because it's just unusual for them not to release any information for a week. If your account is seized or something like that, you're notified immediately, so you have to assume the worst.

This post has been translated automatically