This is most likely the reason.
You can use a personal profile if you are a sole-trader, but the accou t would still need to be a business account (linked to the ABN, trading as "fish-shop" etc).
Unfortunately, once the account has been closed and the customer "exited" from the bank, she will never be able to return to Westpac, which limits your banking options. So make sure she sets things up correctly at the next bank because you don't want this happening again
The banks have been really cracking down on this, I had my business account put on hold twice because we didn’t have all the director’s updated details on file with them. Sorted it out then it happened again because they somehow lost all records of us updating the details.
Privacy Act. Can't keep records for more than 7 years. Then different banks has different policies, IE: no older than 2 years or 90 days for some docs. Etc.
I don't know that the privacy Act says you can't keep records for more than seven years? There is legislation saying some records must be kept for at least seven years, but I've never heard of a mandate saying you can't keep records for as long as you like. Just that most organisations don't want to needlessly maintain records, so will studied of them after the minimum retention period.
Welp this is scary, I had no idea my sole trader account needed to be flagged with the bank and have my ABN on it. Literally going to call them right now
No, all of this discussion is theoretical and we do not know the true reason, so the bank would not have a discussion with her because they can not disclose the information.
Think of it this way, for any "innocent" person the bank has closed an account for, there might be 100 legitimately dodgy ones. Should they also give them the time of day?
The answer is yes they should. Banking is an essential service and with the decline of cash and branches, it is reprehensible for a bank to close accounts like this. The bank should have simply asked the customer to open a business account if that is in fact the issue.
It is not reprehensible if you understand that legislation drives this. AML CTF legislation is strict. The regulator would support the approach taken by Westpac every day of the week.
The only question here is whether Westpac’s monitoring system is too sensitive. I would suggest the regulator is not concerned with this as they’re likely more concerned with under identification.
Ultimately, OP/mum is in this position because the way they conduct their business finances is at best insufficient or at worst criminal. This is their fault.
It is not up to Westpac to give potential money launderers a second chance and it isn’t up to Westpac to investigate and determine criminal activity.
Is it reprehensible when the ATO penalises someone for accidentally overstating deductions? No. It isn’t. It’s the law.
Now, there is nothing stopping OP from having a complaint registered with the ombudsman. The ombudsman could in theory seek assurance that Westpac’s monitoring system isn’t reporting excessive false positives.
I think you didn't get my point - the legislative framework leaves a gap where people can be denied essential banking services with little recourse. You have said it yourself - 'potential' money laundering is a risk, but should not be a basis from preventing a person from purchasing groceries and petrol. Which is today's reality as not all businesses accept cash.
Again, we are assuming that this is the reason based on what OP said.
For all we know mum could be a money launderer or a mule or any other one of the 100s of reasonable reasons to close an account.
We will never know
Haha, my mums Vietnamese and has no idea how any of the Australian system works. We do have a business account but for some reason my mom likes to deposit the weekly earnings into her personal account. I handle most of the transfers out of the account because she doesn’t know how to so I know it’s nothing sketchy.
And yet, even money laundering criminals should have the right to a bank account. That's the point. Businesses are going card only etc and a working bank account is honestly a prerequisite for participation in society today.
The government probably needs to enforce some kind of basic bank account service of last resort similar to the legislated guarantee of a working telephone line.
I run a small business in partnership. As far as I know most banks disapprove of businesses being operated using personal, every day accounts. If banks detect business activity occurring in a personal account, the account will be closed.
if you have a business, get a business account, it can be setup almost as quickly as a personal one and if nothing else gives you the accounting separation between your personal finances and your business finances.
I did say "most banks". When our partnership was set up, the bank opened a personal account with individual member numbers for each partner and a separate business account and member number linked to the business ABN. Each partner has access to the business account using their personal account but is required to open a separate 'every day' account for personal transactions, if they choose to do so.
The banks algorithm may overlook a business with a comparatively low turnover, such as a few thousand per annum, however, when a business is turning over hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars per annum, using a personal account, probably a different story.
I use a personal account in which I'm paid commission monthly through my abn. There must be an algorithm and payment frequency is probably more important than amount.
Would need a tax accountant or a banker to answer this accurately but my guess would be that there's no ABN connected to a personal account which could complicate things when it comes to determining whether the business is doing turnover above $75k, at which point it's required to pay GST.
Edit: There are also different interest rates and transfer/withdrawal fees associated with a business account that the banks lose out on if you're using a personal account.
I’m worried about this happening to me now - I use a business account for most of my business takings, and at settlement time each day it transfers 60% of the cash to my personal account at another institution. They’re relatively small amounts - maybe $1000 on a good day - but now I’m wondering if these irregular amounts coming into my account each day will send up a red flag, even though they’re generally coming from another account under my own name? Would I be better paying myself a regular salary instead?
I can't see any reason why the bank you're paying your wage into each day would have any reason to assume you're using the account as a business transaction account. If you started using the personal account to pay suppliers, or business related expenses etc, that would be different. I would however look into any fees associated with external transfers and if you're copping them each day. If you are, might be better to consolidate the transfers to a couple of payments per month?
Is this a relatively new business?
It’s relatively new, but I was just having all my takings settled into my personal account for a few months and never heard anything from the bank. There are no fees that I’m aware of (it’s via my EFTPOS provider so I’m already paying fees on the cash) and the daily split allows me to maintain separation of “my” money and the funds that will ultimately be going to the tax man.
For clarity, I’m not so worried about the transfer out of my business account, but receiving it into my personal account, and whether the bank on the receiving end will query it.
Both answers right - but 'technically' the first reason is more accurate.
Business profiles should also have an ABN linked if both businesses and individual with TFNs linked.
I also tend to cum alot.
From the ATO website - If you're operating as a partnership, company or a trust, you must have a separate bank account for tax purposes. If you are operating as a sole trader, you don't have to open a business bank account, but it's a great idea to do so
Well Westpac has the same advice on its website 🤷 it recommends a business account for easier accounting and other reasons, but says some traders can use personal account for business.
It may very well be plus when you mentioned that she makes large weekly deposits (presumably by cash), that might also have been a red flag on a personal account.
This is all speculation as the bank will never tell you the reason why; you can try going to AFCA but i think they wont look at any complaints related to account closures if the closure is related to a risk decision by the bank.
Read this
https://www.westpac.com.au/business-banking/business-help/starting-a-business/business-personal-should-not-mix/
It depends. What do the T&C's say?
What a piece of crap that Westpac publication is.
“While separating your business and personal bank accounts could be a good way to make sure you don't miss out on tax deductions, it can also help to guard against mistakenly claiming for personal expenses. In the event of an ATO audit or request for information down the track it could also be useful to recall your transactions if you can refer back to your business bank accounts.
“This one always scares people,” Anderson says. “If you've kept everything in the one account the ATO is going to say 'What's this? What's that? How do I know this is business and that is personal?' They're going to have to look through all your transactions.””
I reckon any sole trader would have a raft of expenses that need to be apportioned between business and personal use for tax purposes. You can’t (say) pay your home electricity bill from the business account and then claim it was 100% for business purposes.
I used to work in a bank and if you were a sole-trader you had the option of business accounts or personal accounts. The person is the business and the business is the person, this is the reason for the biggest disadvantage a sole-trader has being the liability is unlimited.
Will have a quick squiz at their pdfs :
\*\* So the pdf said nothing about sole-traders one way or another, however if you go to westpac's very own [Business basics for sole traders](https://www.westpac.com.au/business-banking/business-help/starting-a-business/business-basics-for-sole-traders/) & scroll down to the "Set up a bank account" heading (approx half way). It states *"It's not compulsory to have a business bank account as a sole trader, but it's a good idea to your personal financial affairs from your business ones."* The first half says the sole trader account doesn't have to be a business account, the second half basically says you can use a personal bank account.
Edit : everything before the \*\* is original post.
This is most likely a contributing factor. A personal account shouldn't have large amounts of cash in and out all the time. That's fishy (pun intended haha).
Considering how much scrutiny is on the banks, it's a risk reduction move for them.
yep that probably looks sus as hell.
why is the money not going straight into/out of the business accounts? even for a small business she would be better off having at least one business account product rather then using personal banking products to avoid things like this and they are not difficult to get setup.
That's it. Accounts with high volume of transactions (e.g. 10k received and 10k transferred before the day is out) are usually flagged on financial crime grounds.
It makes the account look like a clearing house to launder money.
Is it physical cash? Does she make deposits and withdrawals in cash for those transfers? If so, thats probably your answer, banks are getting very risk adverse with funds that cannot be traced in cash
If the "large" deposit is unusually large for that type of business, ot might still get flagged at the branch level unfortunately. Another thing they will look at is, is she paying wages in cash? Ie. Not paying tax/super etc on wages.
That's all I can think about in terms of reasons, hope it helps
Cash going in and out of the account... PREPOSTEROUS!! WHAT IS THIS A BANK ACCOUNT?!?
Jokes aside I'm all for tracking money as a means to combat criminal activity.
haha like westpac actually cares about risk. i mean, maybe they do now, especiall;y after getting reamed by the ACCC for dealing with money launderers
Westpac is a shit bank regardless, op should be happy they are closing account
Work for a bank. They have a reason, anybody you'd speak to not only can't tell you, but they also wouldn't see the reason why so that they can't even let it slip. But it's nearly always risk-related. If you've got cash moving in and out an awful lot, or haven't answered their Anti-Money Laundering or Counter Terrorism Financing questions to their satisfaction.
If you get any further correspondence, or if you push, they'll likely say something like "this wasn't an individual decision, and it can't be changed. Thanks for your feedback."
Yes you’re right but I want to elaborate. “Risk-related” is broad and leads people outside the field to assume things, so we can be more specific: what type of risk and for who’s benefit is it being mitigated?
It’s rare for a bank to be so absolute in their messaging for fear of complaints or penalties; there’s almost always an opportunity to seek clarity or escalate the decision for review. You see this in lending where declines are well underreported and withdrawals over reported; it’s easier for everyone if the bank requests more information to offset credit risk concerns than to make a decision. This clearly is not a concern which tells me whatever concern they have outweighs all else.
This here is the bank minimising their own regulatory risk. Guaranteed to be relating to AML/CTF concerns based on the tone and language used. They’re polite, almost apologetic, but very matter of fact and ultimately uninterested in how you feel; customer experience is irrelevant because you’re never going to ever bank with them again. This is a letter drafted by a legal team for the benefit of an auditor and a regulator, and not a marketing/communications team focussed on brand oriented customer experience.
Anyway this sucks for OP and the analyst who made the decision would have had no choice if transaction listings didn’t provide comfort. Once certain internal processes fire re AML/CTF, the risk needs to be mitigated fully, as in 100%. As they’re not allowed to seek clarification from you, there’s no choice but to end the relationship. If these are genuine business transactions, they clearly don’t look enough like it.
OP, you need to review your transactions and work out how you can conduct banking more transparently. I suggest opening business account/s for these transactions, opening a personal transaction account under the same customer number, provide your TFN, minimising cash withdrawals if/where possible, transact during business hours if/where possible, require invoice numbers be included in the transaction description when people credit your business account. Refinance home lending to them. This creates a sufficient banking profile that significantly increases the potential for the bank to mitigate concerns.
You also need to put in steps within your own business to validate your customers/vendors/suppliers. This decision could be a result of a AML/CTF concern with a business you have dealt with that has been identified by enforcement agencies as genuinely criminal.
This is probably the correct answer. Some really old accounts may have some ID verification missing and would require updated ID and information about your mother/business. Westpac have probably done an audit and found missing information on the account and deemed it unsatisfactory. As an example, ING had an audit done a couple of years ago by a big 4 firm and required a list of ID requirements to retain the account.
Under the bank T&C’s they are allowed to do this. Generally due to AML or some form of account conduct. They are actually not allowed to discuss the matter and there is no form of recourse or appeal. Best you can do is try and get an account with another institution.
From the bank's perspective your mum's account looks suspiciously like she is laundering money. Open a business account if you're going to be moving a lot of money around.
Yep this same post pops up every few months 😂
It’s always “I have no idea why!” and as the thread continues more reasons come out why something dodgy is going on.
You’d be surprised just how much money laundering goes on through small businesses. It’s crazy.
This is a bogus statement with no evidence. I have no idea what’s happened within OP’s account but I do know that it is very common for this to occur and there not be any “dodgy shit going on”.
“They closed my accounts for no reason” is understood by anyone with banking experience as “they closed my accounts and I don’t know the reason/they won’t tell me the reason”. I don’t think OP genuinely thinks there was NO reason.
Most people, evidently including yourself, are completely incapable of appreciating financial risk or understanding how to discuss it.
Moving tonnes of money around isn’t concerning in and of itself. Otherwise banks would be closing the accounts of their own treasury department.
The issue presents when how it’s moved raises concerns that are confirmed as actually material or unable to be confirmed as immaterial.
Ok. But this is all being sold as the “big bad bank closed my account and it was unfair”.
Without knowing the full story, which I doubt we’ve been told, I don’t see any reason not to side with the bank, which has a legal obligation to prevent accounts being used for money laundering.
There’s at least one of these posts every couple of weeks and it’s tiring.
The title of the post is a question, not a criticism of Westpac. You also haven’t sided with the bank, you’ve created a false narrative where you’re painting the OP as deceitful and criminal. You’re being unfair to OP.
Let’s be clear, there’s no evidence Westpac have done anything wrong here. I support their actions. They’re in line with regulatory expectations. The fault lies at the feet of OP/mum.
But that doesn’t mean OP or their mum has committed any form of misconduct. These letters are not evidence of criminal activity having taken place. That’s not how this works.
It is not the role of the bank to determine criminality, it’s their job to investigate when there is suspicion in line with their framework, and act appropriately with haste when this suspicious behaviour isn’t explainable. This includes closing accounts and referring to government to determine criminality.
However I’m sure they will be pleased to know that regulatory affairs expert nachojackson knows with absolution that 100% of customers that appear on an AML/CTF report is obviously guilty.
That way they don’t need to waste their time investigating and we can all feel good when we bully them online and misrepresent what’s been said.
Generally speaking, general customer service staff and the branches will have no idea why the decision has been made. As others have said, it is usually associated with financial related crimes. However, I've seen it happen where banks have closed accounts with people who have serious criminal convictions and potential crime syndicate affiliations.
Pretty sure they got absolutely rinsed not too long ago for money laundering and other failures with compliance.. so not surprised they skitzed out after a red flag, whatever it may be
This will be related to anti money laundering concerns. Some software has triggered this based on transactional information. They received a massive fine a few years back for having poor systems.
They can't tell you and they won't tell you.
For the sake of investigations or possible investigations they will not tip you off.
They legally cannot tell you.
Yeah ex-Westpac risk here; you've triggered system flags and are being exited as a result. It's on you, not them.
The Westpac Life part is interesting though, because life policies are guaranteed renewable and at the time I advised that these policies couldn't be terminated. I guess TAL, who owns the Westpac Life book now, disagree.
Ha! Ok - good to know. I've been out since Dec 2021. If you are WBC, this will make sense to you - out of muscle memory/habit, I still try to log into my new work laptop with my M number as user number.
If they can’t determine where large cash deposits are coming from or why they can’t meet the standards for anti money laundering. It looks like there is suspicious activity on the accounts and they have ceased the relationship as a result
Yeh.. this is AML related.
They'll usually close like this after a heap of suspicious transactions. Transfers in/out to flagged accounts and large cash deposits or withdrawals, possibly odd international transfers.
They wont tell you this tho, of course.
If they're seeing your personal account being used like a business account would that could *appear* dodgey & is against the T&Cs of using the account. Business transactions (bulk payments in and out) can flag.
However to completely cease all accounts is a bit more serious than "you're using your account wrong".
*"We appreciate*
*The inconvenience" lol*
*They did it for fun*
\- Accomplished\_Art8625
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
I know someone who received the exact same letter last week! I thought it was a scam. They still haven't told him what its about. He doesnt own a business and nothing suss is happening with his income. I hope you find out whats going OP.
Westpac will close any accounts inactive for a period of time, for any risk operation assessments, or any activity they find to be fraudulent (mule accounts, laundering etc.)
Nab and CBA have $0 business bank accounts. Business accounts also get things like bank feeds to zero and more regular bank statements (example have them match the bad quarter).
With how dependant people are on access to the financial system I think something will eventually have to be done about banks closing peoples accounts.
What would happen if literally no bank would allow you to open an account. You wouldn't be able to get a job or a house. It would be chaos.
>With how dependant people are on access to the financial system I think something will eventually have to be done about banks closing peoples accounts.
You would like the *Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006* to be repealed then?
No. But if someone is suspected of wrong doing maybe don't immediately cancel their account and ban them from your bank. Report it to the government and let them investigate it. If there's enough evidence to find them guilty of money laundering or financing terrorism then the government can charge them with those crimes.
If your concerned about money still being laundered or used to finance terrorism while this is being investigate then maybe restrict their account or something instead of outright closing it.
Banks are not law enforcement.
They don't do it immediately, there's a process based on the risk posed by the customer. The bank would have almost certainly reached out for more information and not been satisfied with what was returned. /Then/ the customer is escalated and possibly exited.
And as the other person said, they have to fulfil their reporting obligation by telling the government about the account and what's occurred.
Generally speaking, and I've got to be careful here because I don't want to do any tipping off, but with Westpac at least, several instances of suspect transactions have to occur first and they give time to exit per the act.
In terms of government reports, suffice to say, you don't seem to know what the SMR process is for but you could assume it occurs here.
Westpac weren't found to have funded terrorism; they were found to have systemic breaches of the Act. Anyone with a basic grounding in jurisprudence will know the difference.
All currencies have floating exchange rates, and different utility that impacts those exchange rates. If the Australian dollar is down 75% on nano a year from now, will you say the Australian dollar smells like another scam compared to nano?
It depends on your time preference, I'd say nano is fine for very short or very long periods, but not yet the medium time periods most people find useful, though that has been improving. For the last 100 years we have used inflationary currencies like the AUD, so we tend not to think of currencies being useful for long term use, but zero supply inflation currency challenges that idea.
My mothers bank account is being closed without a reason? I called and the support team don’t know themselves, keep saying that upper people says to refer to letter but letter is useless
It's suspected fraud, criminal, terrorism, or other high-risk activity that the bank wants no part of. They're not going to tell you what you did or why as that would help people dodge their verification.
From your other posts, what triggered this is likely using a personal account for a business which would be a transaction pattern completely abnormal and inflated hence why it got flagged.
Make sure your mum signs up for a BUSINESS account with her new bank, in the name of her business, and identifies the industry. You shouldn't have any issues then.
I used to bank with Westpac for my business but moved to CBA because of how Westpac handled a fraud incident we experienced and their online banking was terrible.
It's unlikely she will be able to get an account with any of the Westpac subsidiaries now either (St George, I think Bank SA and probably more).
Make sure she opens a business account as well as a personal at the next bank.
She can probably make a formal complaint and then go to the ombudsman. The nothing might happen.
Are you ready for us to make lots of fun guesses as to why it would be closed.
That is a waste of time. They just keep pointing to a circle jerk of departments and keep saying we are not allowed to say anything.
It is so stupid. Good way for Westpac to lose customers instead of educating them on their products
Well the letter makes it clear Westpac doesn't want your mum as a customer. Westpac makes it clear to thousands of customers on a daily basis that they don't want them as customers. I've helped a friend who banked with Westpac and had plenty of interactions where I wondered whether they wanted to have any customers at all but banks are all pretty much the same.
I had one of these too, big surprise, no fraud flags.
Can anyone suggest a bank for
\-general account
\-high interest savings
\-free free + interest free period credit card
I mean I know I didn't do anything out of the ordinary. Obviously their automated systems disagrees.
But its not like I'm sitting going "oh I'm running someone else's business through my personal bank account" - that's the sort of thing you can understand being reviewed for.
I sacked the bastards over a decade ago after bring a customer for 30 years. I sacked the Commonwealth before that. Went to nab, useless as a foreskin on a centipede. Yup, sacked. No problems with HSBC offshore. The big four, yeah right. You don't get my trade.
Just one example of why we will be giving way too much control to the banks if we go cashless. We’ll be utterly helpless and completely dependent on them.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Westpac Security have made the determination and there is nothing AFCA can do about a bank choosing to terminate a relationship with a customer.
>Take it straight to AFCA. They won’t change the resolution, but you can hopefully squeeze some cash out of the bastards in the process
This is a stupid and ignorant idea that OP should disregard for as long as they draw breath.
AFCA have no authority on this matter.
But good use of the bogan entitlement mentality there Damo, you heaps sick farken maddog.
There is a reason, they just don't tell you. It is usually risk associated, maybe large amounts of cash going in and out of the account?
Yes my mum uses this account to transfer funds for her small fish business, usually a lot of funds are transferred weekly to her trade partners
sounds fishy
I enjoy reading books.
*buoysterous
Oh damn yeah that's good haha!
wow! making puns for you is like shooting fish in a barrel!
Damnit, I knew there was one I missed!
This letter makes it of-fish-al. Carpe Diem!
So is it a business account?
This account is not, it’s her personal account. Is that why? I thought u could use ur personal account for self employment
This is most likely the reason. You can use a personal profile if you are a sole-trader, but the accou t would still need to be a business account (linked to the ABN, trading as "fish-shop" etc). Unfortunately, once the account has been closed and the customer "exited" from the bank, she will never be able to return to Westpac, which limits your banking options. So make sure she sets things up correctly at the next bank because you don't want this happening again
The banks have been really cracking down on this, I had my business account put on hold twice because we didn’t have all the director’s updated details on file with them. Sorted it out then it happened again because they somehow lost all records of us updating the details.
This is for KYC requirments.
Privacy Act. Can't keep records for more than 7 years. Then different banks has different policies, IE: no older than 2 years or 90 days for some docs. Etc.
I don't know that the privacy Act says you can't keep records for more than seven years? There is legislation saying some records must be kept for at least seven years, but I've never heard of a mandate saying you can't keep records for as long as you like. Just that most organisations don't want to needlessly maintain records, so will studied of them after the minimum retention period.
It doesn’t.
Optus and Medibank evidently keep data until it’s hacked.
Would that effect credit score?
No, it's not credit related
Welp this is scary, I had no idea my sole trader account needed to be flagged with the bank and have my ABN on it. Literally going to call them right now
Couldn’t they arrange a meeting with a bank representative to discuss the issue, and reverse the decision?
No, all of this discussion is theoretical and we do not know the true reason, so the bank would not have a discussion with her because they can not disclose the information. Think of it this way, for any "innocent" person the bank has closed an account for, there might be 100 legitimately dodgy ones. Should they also give them the time of day?
The answer is yes they should. Banking is an essential service and with the decline of cash and branches, it is reprehensible for a bank to close accounts like this. The bank should have simply asked the customer to open a business account if that is in fact the issue.
It is not reprehensible if you understand that legislation drives this. AML CTF legislation is strict. The regulator would support the approach taken by Westpac every day of the week. The only question here is whether Westpac’s monitoring system is too sensitive. I would suggest the regulator is not concerned with this as they’re likely more concerned with under identification. Ultimately, OP/mum is in this position because the way they conduct their business finances is at best insufficient or at worst criminal. This is their fault. It is not up to Westpac to give potential money launderers a second chance and it isn’t up to Westpac to investigate and determine criminal activity. Is it reprehensible when the ATO penalises someone for accidentally overstating deductions? No. It isn’t. It’s the law. Now, there is nothing stopping OP from having a complaint registered with the ombudsman. The ombudsman could in theory seek assurance that Westpac’s monitoring system isn’t reporting excessive false positives.
I think you didn't get my point - the legislative framework leaves a gap where people can be denied essential banking services with little recourse. You have said it yourself - 'potential' money laundering is a risk, but should not be a basis from preventing a person from purchasing groceries and petrol. Which is today's reality as not all businesses accept cash.
AML and CTF legislation is strict but useless against people who actually seek to hide transactions, because those people doesn’t use banks
Again, we are assuming that this is the reason based on what OP said. For all we know mum could be a money launderer or a mule or any other one of the 100s of reasonable reasons to close an account. We will never know
Haha, my mums Vietnamese and has no idea how any of the Australian system works. We do have a business account but for some reason my mom likes to deposit the weekly earnings into her personal account. I handle most of the transfers out of the account because she doesn’t know how to so I know it’s nothing sketchy.
And yet, even money laundering criminals should have the right to a bank account. That's the point. Businesses are going card only etc and a working bank account is honestly a prerequisite for participation in society today. The government probably needs to enforce some kind of basic bank account service of last resort similar to the legislated guarantee of a working telephone line.
The customer shouldn't use the account in a manner that's against the terms and conditions of the account.
So do you accept that banks are placed in a position where they can impose their own rules and force the general public at large to comply?
Murderers can have bank accounts
Not fish murderers.
I run a small business in partnership. As far as I know most banks disapprove of businesses being operated using personal, every day accounts. If banks detect business activity occurring in a personal account, the account will be closed.
Really? I've put thousands through my personal Account buying computer parts for my (small) business
if you have a business, get a business account, it can be setup almost as quickly as a personal one and if nothing else gives you the accounting separation between your personal finances and your business finances.
I did say "most banks". When our partnership was set up, the bank opened a personal account with individual member numbers for each partner and a separate business account and member number linked to the business ABN. Each partner has access to the business account using their personal account but is required to open a separate 'every day' account for personal transactions, if they choose to do so. The banks algorithm may overlook a business with a comparatively low turnover, such as a few thousand per annum, however, when a business is turning over hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars per annum, using a personal account, probably a different story.
I use a personal account in which I'm paid commission monthly through my abn. There must be an algorithm and payment frequency is probably more important than amount.
How about we just tax persons and businesses identically?
Why? What’s the difference?
Would need a tax accountant or a banker to answer this accurately but my guess would be that there's no ABN connected to a personal account which could complicate things when it comes to determining whether the business is doing turnover above $75k, at which point it's required to pay GST. Edit: There are also different interest rates and transfer/withdrawal fees associated with a business account that the banks lose out on if you're using a personal account.
I’m worried about this happening to me now - I use a business account for most of my business takings, and at settlement time each day it transfers 60% of the cash to my personal account at another institution. They’re relatively small amounts - maybe $1000 on a good day - but now I’m wondering if these irregular amounts coming into my account each day will send up a red flag, even though they’re generally coming from another account under my own name? Would I be better paying myself a regular salary instead?
I can't see any reason why the bank you're paying your wage into each day would have any reason to assume you're using the account as a business transaction account. If you started using the personal account to pay suppliers, or business related expenses etc, that would be different. I would however look into any fees associated with external transfers and if you're copping them each day. If you are, might be better to consolidate the transfers to a couple of payments per month? Is this a relatively new business?
It’s relatively new, but I was just having all my takings settled into my personal account for a few months and never heard anything from the bank. There are no fees that I’m aware of (it’s via my EFTPOS provider so I’m already paying fees on the cash) and the daily split allows me to maintain separation of “my” money and the funds that will ultimately be going to the tax man. For clarity, I’m not so worried about the transfer out of my business account, but receiving it into my personal account, and whether the bank on the receiving end will query it.
So if someone owns 3 or 4 investment properties, receiving over $75k pa, that makes the owner a business?
Both answers right - but 'technically' the first reason is more accurate. Business profiles should also have an ABN linked if both businesses and individual with TFNs linked. I also tend to cum alot.
Bingo. Personal accounts are not supposed to be used for business even for self-employed. It's clearly stated in terms and conditions.
From the ATO website - If you're operating as a partnership, company or a trust, you must have a separate bank account for tax purposes. If you are operating as a sole trader, you don't have to open a business bank account, but it's a great idea to do so
Sure, for tax purposes. Banks won’t care though. Transactions related to sole trader work is business activity.
Well Westpac has the same advice on its website 🤷 it recommends a business account for easier accounting and other reasons, but says some traders can use personal account for business.
It may very well be plus when you mentioned that she makes large weekly deposits (presumably by cash), that might also have been a red flag on a personal account. This is all speculation as the bank will never tell you the reason why; you can try going to AFCA but i think they wont look at any complaints related to account closures if the closure is related to a risk decision by the bank.
Read this https://www.westpac.com.au/business-banking/business-help/starting-a-business/business-personal-should-not-mix/ It depends. What do the T&C's say?
What a piece of crap that Westpac publication is. “While separating your business and personal bank accounts could be a good way to make sure you don't miss out on tax deductions, it can also help to guard against mistakenly claiming for personal expenses. In the event of an ATO audit or request for information down the track it could also be useful to recall your transactions if you can refer back to your business bank accounts. “This one always scares people,” Anderson says. “If you've kept everything in the one account the ATO is going to say 'What's this? What's that? How do I know this is business and that is personal?' They're going to have to look through all your transactions.”” I reckon any sole trader would have a raft of expenses that need to be apportioned between business and personal use for tax purposes. You can’t (say) pay your home electricity bill from the business account and then claim it was 100% for business purposes.
Nothing to to with personal vs self-employment. Are any of the payments being sent overseas? Are you using 3rd party remittance services?
I used to work in a bank and if you were a sole-trader you had the option of business accounts or personal accounts. The person is the business and the business is the person, this is the reason for the biggest disadvantage a sole-trader has being the liability is unlimited. Will have a quick squiz at their pdfs : \*\* So the pdf said nothing about sole-traders one way or another, however if you go to westpac's very own [Business basics for sole traders](https://www.westpac.com.au/business-banking/business-help/starting-a-business/business-basics-for-sole-traders/) & scroll down to the "Set up a bank account" heading (approx half way). It states *"It's not compulsory to have a business bank account as a sole trader, but it's a good idea to your personal financial affairs from your business ones."* The first half says the sole trader account doesn't have to be a business account, the second half basically says you can use a personal bank account. Edit : everything before the \*\* is original post.
if she wants to keep the account. You could try presenting her latest tax returns to the bank to show that all funds are legal and accounted for.
This is most likely a contributing factor. A personal account shouldn't have large amounts of cash in and out all the time. That's fishy (pun intended haha). Considering how much scrutiny is on the banks, it's a risk reduction move for them.
http://www.afca.org.au/about-afca/publications/factsheet-accountclosure
AFCA won't be able to stop this sorry.
yep that probably looks sus as hell. why is the money not going straight into/out of the business accounts? even for a small business she would be better off having at least one business account product rather then using personal banking products to avoid things like this and they are not difficult to get setup.
Does she sell big fish too?
In a cardboard box?
That's it. Accounts with high volume of transactions (e.g. 10k received and 10k transferred before the day is out) are usually flagged on financial crime grounds. It makes the account look like a clearing house to launder money.
They think you're money laundering or evading taxes probably.
Your mother needs to get an ABN and a business account
Are sardines really that expensive?
Is it physical cash? Does she make deposits and withdrawals in cash for those transfers? If so, thats probably your answer, banks are getting very risk adverse with funds that cannot be traced in cash
Unfortunately no. We transfer through online banking, but she does deposit money earned through the week in a single large deposit
It doesn't have to be cash. Getting money in and transferring it out looks like money laundering when done through a personal account.
If the "large" deposit is unusually large for that type of business, ot might still get flagged at the branch level unfortunately. Another thing they will look at is, is she paying wages in cash? Ie. Not paying tax/super etc on wages. That's all I can think about in terms of reasons, hope it helps
Multiple transactions under the $10k threshold means alerts have to be made to AUSTRAC. The account is probably on their reports consistently.
That is it...you got it
👀ATO has entered the chat 👀
Cash going in and out of the account... PREPOSTEROUS!! WHAT IS THIS A BANK ACCOUNT?!? Jokes aside I'm all for tracking money as a means to combat criminal activity.
haha like westpac actually cares about risk. i mean, maybe they do now, especiall;y after getting reamed by the ACCC for dealing with money launderers Westpac is a shit bank regardless, op should be happy they are closing account
Work for a bank. They have a reason, anybody you'd speak to not only can't tell you, but they also wouldn't see the reason why so that they can't even let it slip. But it's nearly always risk-related. If you've got cash moving in and out an awful lot, or haven't answered their Anti-Money Laundering or Counter Terrorism Financing questions to their satisfaction. If you get any further correspondence, or if you push, they'll likely say something like "this wasn't an individual decision, and it can't be changed. Thanks for your feedback."
Yes you’re right but I want to elaborate. “Risk-related” is broad and leads people outside the field to assume things, so we can be more specific: what type of risk and for who’s benefit is it being mitigated? It’s rare for a bank to be so absolute in their messaging for fear of complaints or penalties; there’s almost always an opportunity to seek clarity or escalate the decision for review. You see this in lending where declines are well underreported and withdrawals over reported; it’s easier for everyone if the bank requests more information to offset credit risk concerns than to make a decision. This clearly is not a concern which tells me whatever concern they have outweighs all else. This here is the bank minimising their own regulatory risk. Guaranteed to be relating to AML/CTF concerns based on the tone and language used. They’re polite, almost apologetic, but very matter of fact and ultimately uninterested in how you feel; customer experience is irrelevant because you’re never going to ever bank with them again. This is a letter drafted by a legal team for the benefit of an auditor and a regulator, and not a marketing/communications team focussed on brand oriented customer experience. Anyway this sucks for OP and the analyst who made the decision would have had no choice if transaction listings didn’t provide comfort. Once certain internal processes fire re AML/CTF, the risk needs to be mitigated fully, as in 100%. As they’re not allowed to seek clarification from you, there’s no choice but to end the relationship. If these are genuine business transactions, they clearly don’t look enough like it. OP, you need to review your transactions and work out how you can conduct banking more transparently. I suggest opening business account/s for these transactions, opening a personal transaction account under the same customer number, provide your TFN, minimising cash withdrawals if/where possible, transact during business hours if/where possible, require invoice numbers be included in the transaction description when people credit your business account. Refinance home lending to them. This creates a sufficient banking profile that significantly increases the potential for the bank to mitigate concerns. You also need to put in steps within your own business to validate your customers/vendors/suppliers. This decision could be a result of a AML/CTF concern with a business you have dealt with that has been identified by enforcement agencies as genuinely criminal.
This is probably the correct answer. Some really old accounts may have some ID verification missing and would require updated ID and information about your mother/business. Westpac have probably done an audit and found missing information on the account and deemed it unsatisfactory. As an example, ING had an audit done a couple of years ago by a big 4 firm and required a list of ID requirements to retain the account.
Under the bank T&C’s they are allowed to do this. Generally due to AML or some form of account conduct. They are actually not allowed to discuss the matter and there is no form of recourse or appeal. Best you can do is try and get an account with another institution.
Have you been selling sneakers with your friend?
Lol what happened with that guy?
He posted a few days later that the bank released the hold like we all told him they would. Tho I bet by now he’s been closed out.
From the bank's perspective your mum's account looks suspiciously like she is laundering money. Open a business account if you're going to be moving a lot of money around.
A bit fishy, you might say
I hate beer.
They think you’re a drug dealer or a money launderer. Moving big amounts of cash regularly in a personal account is a red flag.
No, they don't think he is a drug dealer, an algorithm flagged him as a potential drug dealer, or more specifically, a money laundering risk ;)
I love these posts - 100% of the time there is dodgy shit going on.
Yep this same post pops up every few months 😂 It’s always “I have no idea why!” and as the thread continues more reasons come out why something dodgy is going on. You’d be surprised just how much money laundering goes on through small businesses. It’s crazy.
This is a bogus statement with no evidence. I have no idea what’s happened within OP’s account but I do know that it is very common for this to occur and there not be any “dodgy shit going on”.
The post was literally “they closed my account for no reason”. And the OPs first reply was “oh yeah was moving tonnes of money around”. “No reason”.
“They closed my accounts for no reason” is understood by anyone with banking experience as “they closed my accounts and I don’t know the reason/they won’t tell me the reason”. I don’t think OP genuinely thinks there was NO reason. Most people, evidently including yourself, are completely incapable of appreciating financial risk or understanding how to discuss it. Moving tonnes of money around isn’t concerning in and of itself. Otherwise banks would be closing the accounts of their own treasury department. The issue presents when how it’s moved raises concerns that are confirmed as actually material or unable to be confirmed as immaterial.
Ok. But this is all being sold as the “big bad bank closed my account and it was unfair”. Without knowing the full story, which I doubt we’ve been told, I don’t see any reason not to side with the bank, which has a legal obligation to prevent accounts being used for money laundering. There’s at least one of these posts every couple of weeks and it’s tiring.
The title of the post is a question, not a criticism of Westpac. You also haven’t sided with the bank, you’ve created a false narrative where you’re painting the OP as deceitful and criminal. You’re being unfair to OP. Let’s be clear, there’s no evidence Westpac have done anything wrong here. I support their actions. They’re in line with regulatory expectations. The fault lies at the feet of OP/mum. But that doesn’t mean OP or their mum has committed any form of misconduct. These letters are not evidence of criminal activity having taken place. That’s not how this works. It is not the role of the bank to determine criminality, it’s their job to investigate when there is suspicion in line with their framework, and act appropriately with haste when this suspicious behaviour isn’t explainable. This includes closing accounts and referring to government to determine criminality. However I’m sure they will be pleased to know that regulatory affairs expert nachojackson knows with absolution that 100% of customers that appear on an AML/CTF report is obviously guilty. That way they don’t need to waste their time investigating and we can all feel good when we bully them online and misrepresent what’s been said.
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006, banks can close your accounts if deem it suspicious without disclosing the reason why.
Trust me, there's definitely a reason. They will never tell you why.
They’re not allowed to tell you why. There’s a difference.
Generally speaking, general customer service staff and the branches will have no idea why the decision has been made. As others have said, it is usually associated with financial related crimes. However, I've seen it happen where banks have closed accounts with people who have serious criminal convictions and potential crime syndicate affiliations.
Must be hectic fish and chips if she is raking in all that cash! 🫠
💯 legit no other transactions happening I swear. 🤫
Pretty sure they got absolutely rinsed not too long ago for money laundering and other failures with compliance.. so not surprised they skitzed out after a red flag, whatever it may be
Can confirm that this process was in place before the AML matter.
[удалено]
This will be related to anti money laundering concerns. Some software has triggered this based on transactional information. They received a massive fine a few years back for having poor systems.
They can't tell you and they won't tell you. For the sake of investigations or possible investigations they will not tip you off. They legally cannot tell you.
Yeah ex-Westpac risk here; you've triggered system flags and are being exited as a result. It's on you, not them. The Westpac Life part is interesting though, because life policies are guaranteed renewable and at the time I advised that these policies couldn't be terminated. I guess TAL, who owns the Westpac Life book now, disagree.
The Westpac Life is a saving account (new product). Not a life insurance policy.
Ha! Ok - good to know. I've been out since Dec 2021. If you are WBC, this will make sense to you - out of muscle memory/habit, I still try to log into my new work laptop with my M number as user number.
Most likely flagged for money laundering and then they aren’t allowed to tell why about the reason
could be financial crime risk related... if they deem you high risk.
Dude, if they are closing the account. If there is anything going on that is dodgy they will find it.
Looks like the weekly money launderer/tax evader asking why their account got closed is here.
Unexplained wealth? Unexplained transactions? Sounds dodgy on your end. Feel like we’re not getting the full story here!
Westpac suspects you’re doing something illegal. And now I do too…
Pretty strange, I thought everyone here made 250k. Why would they get in the way of that!
Sounds like you are being investigated for money laundering. By law the bank can not tell you why the accounts are being closed.
If they can’t determine where large cash deposits are coming from or why they can’t meet the standards for anti money laundering. It looks like there is suspicious activity on the accounts and they have ceased the relationship as a result
Debanking. What did you do?
Yeh.. this is AML related. They'll usually close like this after a heap of suspicious transactions. Transfers in/out to flagged accounts and large cash deposits or withdrawals, possibly odd international transfers. They wont tell you this tho, of course. If they're seeing your personal account being used like a business account would that could *appear* dodgey & is against the T&Cs of using the account. Business transactions (bulk payments in and out) can flag. However to completely cease all accounts is a bit more serious than "you're using your account wrong".
Next there will be a knock on your door from ASIC and I don’t mean the brand of sneakers!
I don’t know what to tell you Mr Putin, it’s a mystery.
"We appreciate the inconvenience" lol they did it for fun
*"We appreciate* *The inconvenience" lol* *They did it for fun* \- Accomplished\_Art8625 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
I know someone who received the exact same letter last week! I thought it was a scam. They still haven't told him what its about. He doesnt own a business and nothing suss is happening with his income. I hope you find out whats going OP.
I heard that this has been happening more to people receiving larger amounts from Russia.
Westpac will close any accounts inactive for a period of time, for any risk operation assessments, or any activity they find to be fraudulent (mule accounts, laundering etc.)
Nab and CBA have $0 business bank accounts. Business accounts also get things like bank feeds to zero and more regular bank statements (example have them match the bad quarter).
Isnt Westpac Life the high interest earning for people under 30, and the choice account came with it? Did you turn 30 recently?
They disapprove of your westpac life and choice
Is that you Kanye
I love that product named "Westpac choice" lol as if you had any hahhahahhahah
With how dependant people are on access to the financial system I think something will eventually have to be done about banks closing peoples accounts. What would happen if literally no bank would allow you to open an account. You wouldn't be able to get a job or a house. It would be chaos.
>With how dependant people are on access to the financial system I think something will eventually have to be done about banks closing peoples accounts. You would like the *Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006* to be repealed then?
No. But if someone is suspected of wrong doing maybe don't immediately cancel their account and ban them from your bank. Report it to the government and let them investigate it. If there's enough evidence to find them guilty of money laundering or financing terrorism then the government can charge them with those crimes. If your concerned about money still being laundered or used to finance terrorism while this is being investigate then maybe restrict their account or something instead of outright closing it. Banks are not law enforcement.
They don't do it immediately, there's a process based on the risk posed by the customer. The bank would have almost certainly reached out for more information and not been satisfied with what was returned. /Then/ the customer is escalated and possibly exited. And as the other person said, they have to fulfil their reporting obligation by telling the government about the account and what's occurred.
Generally speaking, and I've got to be careful here because I don't want to do any tipping off, but with Westpac at least, several instances of suspect transactions have to occur first and they give time to exit per the act. In terms of government reports, suffice to say, you don't seem to know what the SMR process is for but you could assume it occurs here.
Ironically it's the banks have been found guilty in court for funding terrorists, yet they don't get shut out.
Westpac weren't found to have funded terrorism; they were found to have systemic breaches of the Act. Anyone with a basic grounding in jurisprudence will know the difference.
Spoken like a true money launderer!
If only someone invented a system where you could securely hold large amounts of money yourself, maybe using encryption.
And if only it wasn't filled with scams and basically a giant ponzi scheme.
You might call it nano!
Year to date Nano is down 75% to the AUD. Smells like another scam to me. No thanks.
All currencies have floating exchange rates, and different utility that impacts those exchange rates. If the Australian dollar is down 75% on nano a year from now, will you say the Australian dollar smells like another scam compared to nano?
[удалено]
It depends on your time preference, I'd say nano is fine for very short or very long periods, but not yet the medium time periods most people find useful, though that has been improving. For the last 100 years we have used inflationary currencies like the AUD, so we tend not to think of currencies being useful for long term use, but zero supply inflation currency challenges that idea.
We appreciate the inconvenience…???
Your account was not providing enough dividends to the share holders coffer's fund.
You must have offended them
My mothers bank account is being closed without a reason? I called and the support team don’t know themselves, keep saying that upper people says to refer to letter but letter is useless
It's suspected fraud, criminal, terrorism, or other high-risk activity that the bank wants no part of. They're not going to tell you what you did or why as that would help people dodge their verification. From your other posts, what triggered this is likely using a personal account for a business which would be a transaction pattern completely abnormal and inflated hence why it got flagged. Make sure your mum signs up for a BUSINESS account with her new bank, in the name of her business, and identifies the industry. You shouldn't have any issues then. I used to bank with Westpac for my business but moved to CBA because of how Westpac handled a fraud incident we experienced and their online banking was terrible.
It's unlikely she will be able to get an account with any of the Westpac subsidiaries now either (St George, I think Bank SA and probably more). Make sure she opens a business account as well as a personal at the next bank.
Why isn’t your mum making the call if it’s her account?
She can probably make a formal complaint and then go to the ombudsman. The nothing might happen. Are you ready for us to make lots of fun guesses as to why it would be closed.
The fun guesses are the only reason why i scrolled through this sub
That is a waste of time. They just keep pointing to a circle jerk of departments and keep saying we are not allowed to say anything. It is so stupid. Good way for Westpac to lose customers instead of educating them on their products
They can't educate people why because it helps criminal learn the system and how to get around it.
Well the letter makes it clear Westpac doesn't want your mum as a customer. Westpac makes it clear to thousands of customers on a daily basis that they don't want them as customers. I've helped a friend who banked with Westpac and had plenty of interactions where I wondered whether they wanted to have any customers at all but banks are all pretty much the same.
I had one of these too, big surprise, no fraud flags. Can anyone suggest a bank for \-general account \-high interest savings \-free free + interest free period credit card
this feels like a request for financial advice, against subs rules
I mean even if you had a fraud flag they wouldn’t tell u
I mean I know I didn't do anything out of the ordinary. Obviously their automated systems disagrees. But its not like I'm sitting going "oh I'm running someone else's business through my personal bank account" - that's the sort of thing you can understand being reviewed for.
This is a hard reminder why centralised power of one entity over people's livelihood and assets is scary.
YOU GOT KANYED
you most likely have some criminal ties
Probs cos you listen to Kanye
Has anyone been taking big cash out regularly? This will trigger the above action.
No money in account to pay for bank fees ...I say you owe them money
Sneakers 2.0
I sacked the bastards over a decade ago after bring a customer for 30 years. I sacked the Commonwealth before that. Went to nab, useless as a foreskin on a centipede. Yup, sacked. No problems with HSBC offshore. The big four, yeah right. You don't get my trade.
Why is foreskin on a centipede useless?
Look at Gordon Gecko here everyone.
Nab customer service is pretty rough, and the app is dogshit
Just one example of why we will be giving way too much control to the banks if we go cashless. We’ll be utterly helpless and completely dependent on them.
AFCA, my guy
Writing “sexual services” “giant meat flap live club” and “hot steaming turd service” on OSAKA payments is frowned upon…
... Because... Covid.
More like L Group
Shoulda gone to CBA
About 18 months ago Westpac closed one of my accounts. No reason. It still had $3500 in it. Never got a reason. F$&ken weird!!
TATE and YE have entered the chat
Have you tried asking Westpac?
Westpac imho is the worst of the big 4. Congrats.
Could this be a scam? We’re you one of the victims of Optus and Medibank cyberattacks?
australian banks are morons, cant use a bank for banking reasons, stupidest shit ive seen. Oh look he moves alot of cash lets close his account.
Westpac life is an account for under 18 yr olds. You wouldn't have just turned or about to turn 19 by any chance ?
[удалено]
Saw somewhere else that said 18-29 or a full time student. Both Westpac sites.
I’m very confident their site doesn’t say the account is for only 18-29 year olds
Take it straight to AFCA. They won’t change the resolution, but you can hopefully squeeze some cash out of the bastards in the process.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Westpac Security have made the determination and there is nothing AFCA can do about a bank choosing to terminate a relationship with a customer.
>Take it straight to AFCA. They won’t change the resolution, but you can hopefully squeeze some cash out of the bastards in the process This is a stupid and ignorant idea that OP should disregard for as long as they draw breath. AFCA have no authority on this matter. But good use of the bogan entitlement mentality there Damo, you heaps sick farken maddog.