26-01-2014, 12:50 PM
I don't disagree at the possibility Tracy, as I think the banking system is still incredibly fragile.
But there are other factors we might take into account too.
Not least, is the fact the daily cash withdrawals amount to a tiny gnat bite compared to the daily electronic withdrawals that take place, and there are no problems with the latter, so far as I can see.
The problem with cash is that it leaves the system and is harder to follow, and this is not liked. It is not impossible to follow, as bank note numbers are recorded when they leave the system and when they go back into it. But it is more labour intensive. And not all of it goes back into the system directly, but indirectly - via third parties (or fourth and fifth parties) making the trail a lot harder to follow.
This has as much to do with the government abhorring the black market in services (money laundering being a convenient excuse), where tradesmen still ask to be paid in cash as they don't want to create a tax liability for themselves.
But British banks have been required to follow the money laundering regulations for years. You cannot transfer a penny to a non UK bank without being asked what it is for. If you don't give them an answer, they're not allowed to make the payment. Small cash amounts withdrawn are not a problem, but large cash withdrawals fall foul of these regulations, and you are asked what the money is for.
(my bolding)
Note that none of them say outright that it is the money laundering laws that are invoked. It's one of those things that are not spoken about. I suppose because this lame excuse would be quickly seen through as the sheer nonsense it is.
So, for me the real question remains why HSBC decided to try to impose the idea that customers needed to evidence why they wanted their cash. That was an ominous move, I think. It was also an own goal. Yet, I think this could have been anticipated in advance. They've retracted that requirement now, following the media getting involved. But is it the thin edge of the wedge? We will see it again in another few years? I think we probably will.
I hope this provides a clearer understanding of where I was coming from. A problem I have is that I respond to posts in a sort of chopped-off short-hand, because I don't always have the time to go into more detail about my reasoning.
Of course, HSBC could go belly up tomorrow, and then I'll be looking like a complete tart won't I. ::doh::
But there are other factors we might take into account too.
Not least, is the fact the daily cash withdrawals amount to a tiny gnat bite compared to the daily electronic withdrawals that take place, and there are no problems with the latter, so far as I can see.
The problem with cash is that it leaves the system and is harder to follow, and this is not liked. It is not impossible to follow, as bank note numbers are recorded when they leave the system and when they go back into it. But it is more labour intensive. And not all of it goes back into the system directly, but indirectly - via third parties (or fourth and fifth parties) making the trail a lot harder to follow.
This has as much to do with the government abhorring the black market in services (money laundering being a convenient excuse), where tradesmen still ask to be paid in cash as they don't want to create a tax liability for themselves.
But British banks have been required to follow the money laundering regulations for years. You cannot transfer a penny to a non UK bank without being asked what it is for. If you don't give them an answer, they're not allowed to make the payment. Small cash amounts withdrawn are not a problem, but large cash withdrawals fall foul of these regulations, and you are asked what the money is for.
Quote:Douglas CarswellMP for Clacton
Money Box asked other banks what their policy is on large cash withdrawals.
They all said they reserved the right to ask questions about large cash withdrawals.
But none of them said they would require evidence of what the money was being used for before paying out.
Douglas Carswell, the Conservative MP for Clacton, is alarmed by the new HSBC policy: "All these regulations which have been imposed on banks allow enormous interpretation.
(my bolding)
Note that none of them say outright that it is the money laundering laws that are invoked. It's one of those things that are not spoken about. I suppose because this lame excuse would be quickly seen through as the sheer nonsense it is.
So, for me the real question remains why HSBC decided to try to impose the idea that customers needed to evidence why they wanted their cash. That was an ominous move, I think. It was also an own goal. Yet, I think this could have been anticipated in advance. They've retracted that requirement now, following the media getting involved. But is it the thin edge of the wedge? We will see it again in another few years? I think we probably will.
I hope this provides a clearer understanding of where I was coming from. A problem I have is that I respond to posts in a sort of chopped-off short-hand, because I don't always have the time to go into more detail about my reasoning.
Of course, HSBC could go belly up tomorrow, and then I'll be looking like a complete tart won't I. ::doh::
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14