The truth is at the end of the article. Banks are refusing because he has additional costs attached to himself. This is his ego coming back to bite him. Farage said that this could make him leave the UK. He also said that he would leave if BREXIT was a disaster.
Now you have two reasons Farage, are you gone yet?
Well, well, well… if it isn't the consequences of my own actions.
If this is true. Then Farage has no reason to keep the name of the bank secret.
In that situation, they closed his accounts. So he has evidence. The worst they can do is give a valid reason. So he either knows the reason. Or has other reasons to presume the banks will sue him if he names them.
Apparently he knows what the reason is. At the end it states because he has extra costs associated with himself.
So yes, his actions have left him as a bad investment for these banking groups. And he is openly lying about not knowing the reason. In an attempt to make some political gain. And knows full well that if he names the banking group. He will be sued into oblivion for libel or slander (depending on if he wrote it himself or just claimed it to a journalist).
It's just basically more lies to make him seem relevant as a political force. When even Brexit supporters have little reason to pay him attention now. He is desperately trying to make himself (and other small right wing parties) seem like a threat to the main parties. By indicating there is some conspiracy to remove his political effectiveness.
He has every reason, because he's under investigation. The banks (neither the one that closed his accounts nor the 7 others that refused to open for him) almost certainly can't give details for legal reasons.
An MP accused him of accepting £550,000 from RT, so it likely has something to do with that, or perhaps something else they've uncovered.
Basically, watch this space, criminal charges may well follow.
If this is really true then it very likely happened because of financial malfeasance by Farage. So him screeching about persecution is just another lie.
If an account is under investigation. Would it not be frozen, so no changes may occur. Rather than closed.
Seems to me, closing an account would have very much the opposite effect of hiding evidence in an investigation. And most investigations would not even freeze it. They would just seek the historical data. Frozen would only happen if they had evidence that the money was going somewhere illegal. Or coming from. Because freezing or closing someone's account is an event that affects the person. So, a punishment before proof of a crime. Not an event done in an investigation.
And you are correct. Refusing to open an account because you are suspected of but not convicted of a crime. Would def be illegal. So the banks would not tell him that. Meaning, he has no reason not to declare bank a refused me an account without reason. As the bank cannot then say. No, we told you, you can't have an account because you are too poor. And sue him.
Also, a person being under investigation. Is not something the legal system is allowed to keep secret from the person. They need warrants etc to gain rights to see your bank details. You legally have a right to know that. So while a bank may not be able to tell the world why your bank is frozen. They sure as hell can tell you. And sue you if you claim they refused to inform you why.
Our legal system has generally evolved to prevent organizations not giving reasons for fiscal choices. Because back in the past, it was used to enforce racism and other prejudice. It's still far from perfect.
But a bank is def required to follow its own guidelines. And document those guidelines. Before closing people's accounts or making fiscal decisions about them.
While I was in the US when I worked as a bank software engineer. So the rules are a little different. The UK def has similar rules. Innn fact more limitations, as people a legal right to get the information used to make choices about them.
TL;DR an MP accused him of accepting £550,000 from Russian state news organisation RT.
The banks probably can't say anything for legal reasons. However the fact that it's happening, and the fact that 7 banks have rejected him from opening a new account, strongly suggest it's true.
A bank wouldn't close a persons account due to political allegiance. It's more likely they've been doing dodgy shit.
Farage refused to name the prestigious banking group
The term "prestigious banking group" tends to give it away. These types of banks expect account owners to prove they are a viable investment. So while you are correct, they will not close for political reasons. They will definitely close accounts because he has been unable to gain the political investment he has in the past.
These banks tend to give extra privileges that cost them. But more using accounts like this they are known for their customer evaluation methods. So other rich people know your rough status when you use them.
I remember hearing loads of reports about expensive gifts and use of property from Brexit backing millionaires not long after 2016. So that funding would be enough to support accounts at banks like Coutts. One of the smaller ones. Who are rumoured to drive members to a fancy event. To prove they have £1m in flexible assets every few years.
“Farage expresses concern that without a bank account, he feels like a non-person and may struggle to exist and function in modern-day Britain, suggesting that life in the country is becoming unlivable for him.”
He is finally feeling the consequences of brexit. This is exactly how a hateful nationalist should feel. Like a non person.
Fuck around? Its fine out time.
Good riddance
Can he not open a bank account at a normal, “chain,” type bank in the UK? The equivalent would be a Bank of America or Chase in the U. S. - banks where branches are commonly found in nearly any city or state. If he’s only been disallowed from banking with a few “prestigious” banks, well, boohoo. Join a normal bank like the rest of us filthy poor, Nigel. Or, better yet, move to Russia and suck on Putin's evil, rotting teat.
He probably could, but that would stop him grifting. The rumour is that the bank who closed his account was Coutts, who are the most exclusive of the exclusive (they handle the Royal Family's bank accounts...)
Farage the Libertarian whining that the free market doesn't want to do business with him
Nothing to do with his Russian friends.. nothing at all
Couldn't have happened to a nicer dude!
He does rather like to paint himself as a victim, and very quick to blame conspiracy. A bit like Boris in that regard.
Oh-oh, that a sign that something is happening to good ol' Nigel. I expect some news to announce it soon.
Also anyone remembers when Nigel gave Assange a USB stick in the Ecuadorian embassy a couple years ago and got really angry/upset when people started asking him what was on that stick? I remember.
Sounds like he's trying to spin himself into a victim costume and wear it all the way to his new, European villa, somewhere abroad.
I keep hearing this more and more. Banks shouldn't be allowed to just shut down someone's bank account suddenly without warning or explination. You need a bank account. You can't opperate in the modern world without one. It's unpersoning someone.
If the account is being used for criminal activities, laundering or circumventing sanctions, among other things, then they are legally obligated to freeze activity on it.
Farage is doing his usual of bullshitting to create rage bait blaming the establishment of trying to stop him bringing the truth to people when the simple fact is he is part of the establishment and he is a filthy, lying grifter.
Banks don't just close accounts. They do so at direction of the police pending an investigation into criminal activity.
Farage's worse than dirt.
But you'd have to be completely insane to see this as a good thing.
Banks should not hold that much power, this is effectively a privately owned social credit system.
Banks are private entities and can choose who they wish to do business with. You have no inherent entitlement to use their services.
Banks have been doing this forever - you just care now a person on the right is complaining.
It’s almost the opposite. Banks used to be more than happy to do business with all kinds of crooks. Government regulations restrict them from being so blasé these days.
Yep, banks are liable for all kinds of AML restrictions, MPs/politicians are high risk individuals by default. He's tripped sufficient KYC flags and they've shitcanned him. Simple as that.
And Nigey is a libertarian
Suddenly upset at the free market in action.
No, they're a necessary part of modern life and they should not be able to arbitrarily refuse service. This should be done under government supervision.
The same way you are entitled to health care, groceries or public transportation.
And I complained the same way when Mastercard and Visa blocked payment to wikileaks.
It's about the principle of the thing, it has nothing to do with the person victim of the process.
No-one is stopping him opening a bank account. He could go and open the same proletariat bank account I have, that most people have, that you probably have. No background checks, no credit, no problem; just proof of address, sign here, here's your debit card.
He isn't being denied banking. He's being denied a secret channels where he is carrying our transactions so fucking nasty, so tainted, so illegal and so fucking repugnant that even the companies that prop up slave owners, terrorists and nazi gold hoarders are saying it's bad for business.
Knowing the guy it's entirely possible that he's lying, but he claimed that he tried seven different british banks and was denied each time.
I haven't found a definitive denial or confirmation of the story, except a few articles where the journalists contacted uk banks and received a "no comment".
I don't dismiss it, since it happens among other occurrences of banking institutions trying to act like a judicial power on their own. Namely the wikileaks donations block, and the surrealistic paypal 'disinformation fee'.
If he genuinely took money from the russian state, or purposedly tanked the pound sterling in order to short it on the forex market (I didn't make that one up), it stands firmly in the realm of criminal behaviour.
So by all means, investigate, jail him, fine him, cut him into pieces and shoot them into the sun for all I care.
But I think banks do this kind of stuff to pretend that they autoregulate, and avoid genuine government oversight.
Allowing this to happen, even to the most unlikeable person in Britain, sets a precedent which makes me uneasy.
Then again I might just be bullshit, what do I know, I couldn't find the info.
Farage blatantly has income sources that would fall foul of UK banking anti-money laundering and sanctions rules. They absolutely should have the power to not provide banking services to people funded by illegal dark money. More than that, they have anobligation not to
Again, I complain about due process, not about the decision itself.
fall foul of UK banking anti-money laundering and sanctions rules
it is those rules that mean they cant do buisness, those rules were written and passed to meet laws from parliament.
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.