Serious issues regarding mismatched names, bank fraud flags and law enforcement

[rsot]

Originally Posted by gerald

I know you are just a pathetic spammer but try not to be an arsehole too.

Beat it - get lost from the forum with that attitude.

Your interpretation of me as "an arsehole" is loser talk hah - I was simply clarifying about the Revolut use.

[kirkland]

wow this thread got heated

[sam999]

Originally Posted by hello1212

I doubt it's a BS story.

What's probably happened here is a multiple of security / high risk flags that have caused this account review and further closure.

The direct debit inward payments from eBay wouldn't solely be the reason/causation of this to happen, there are many other factors at play I'm sure the account holder isn't disclosing.

I've operated with many banks in the UK using stealth accounts with names mismatching, never had an issue.

In 2026, if a bank doesn't like the way you use your account (e.g. spending your money a lot and receiving lots of payments, which I classify as using your money as you want, but they see it as risky behaviour) they will put your account on hold / close your account without question, as they do not want to have to lose $20m+ at court (such as Metro Bank in 2024) for non-regulatory compliance/negligence.

It's really got nothing to do with the banks, they want our money. It's the regulatory pressures from governing bodies that have now made it so restrictive to do much of anything without it being looked at as money laundering.

My final point about OP's "friend" would be that he isn't very cleaver forfeiting the funds. It would be quite straight forward to prove the sales were conducted by him, what goods were sold etc., and an excuse for the name being different could be that he shares an eBay account with a friend and could prove it through other means.

Remember it's all suspicion but it's not confirmation of any wrongdoing as many regular people face this issue, having their bank accounts / money frozen for regulatory checks.

Forfeiting the funds without a fight was self admission of wrongdoing, he should've hired a legal team or simply provided eBay sales invoices.

As far as CIFA's go in the UK, the CIFA system is absolutely flawed in every possible way. You could be a victim of financial crime (someone stole your credit card and purchased goods online) and you could receive a strike.

If you have a CIFA strike in the UK, all high street banks are out of the question as they check for it. His best bet would be mobile banks (e.g. Starling, Revolut etc.)

I once had my account under review, I supplied invoices and proofs of funds entitlement, which allowed me back access to my money but they closed my account without explanation, regardless, which leads me to believe it's the regulatory pressure as they saw something they didn't like (e.g. transactions looking like business transactions on a personal account or large amounts of money coming in and out of my account, despite being explained and evidenced).

To conclude, I feel OPs story is valid, but there is a lot of missing information here, especially if the police / NCA were involved.

Appreciate your detailed response here, just wanted to clarify for all that there is no other missing information. I mean imagine if you are a bank and when you review the account you see 15+ different direct debits on 15+ current accounts, all in different names. These accounts had all received 1000s over the past 12 months as well, it looks like the definition of money mule laundering. As another member pointed out Chase are awful to work with and this is exactly what happened to him. They stonewalled him refusing to give any info until a police letter arrived through the post. As an internet bank their threshold for fraud and actions are much more draconian than a high street bank.

I don't think the police are going to buy into the idea that someone would have the permission of 15+ different friends to operate under and certainly wouldn't have just taken his word for it. Police like details and lots when it concerns potential criminality, when you get into the details is when it falls apart fast. Another point I haven't mentioned is that some of his goods were counterfeit so the solicitor warned him that when the police likely discover this, they could refer him to trading standards and open another whole can of worms. There was too much risk.

You mentioned your account was under review, was this with mismatching names on direct debit payments? If so how did you explain this to the bank?

If anyone else has banking stories please contribute, this is an area not really touched upon on this forum so far.

[hello1212]

Originally Posted by sam999

Appreciate your detailed response here, just wanted to clarify for all that there is no other missing information. I mean imagine if you are a bank and when you review the account you see 15+ different direct debits on 15+ current accounts, all in different names. These accounts had all received 1000s over the past 12 months as well, it looks like the definition of money mule laundering. As another member pointed out Chase are awful to work with and this is exactly what happened to him. They stonewalled him refusing to give any info until a police letter arrived through the post. As an internet bank their threshold for fraud and actions are much more draconian than a high street bank.

I don't think the police are going to buy into the idea that someone would have the permission of 15+ different friends to operate under and certainly wouldn't have just taken his word for it. Police like details and lots when it concerns potential criminality, when you get into the details is when it falls apart fast. Another point I haven't mentioned is that some of his goods were counterfeit so the solicitor warned him that when the police likely discover this, they could refer him to trading standards and open another whole can of worms. There was too much risk.

You mentioned your account was under review, was this with mismatching names on direct debit payments? If so how did you explain this to the bank?

If anyone else has banking stories please contribute, this is an area not really touched upon on this forum so far.

Multiple names is definitely a red flag.

I feel like soon they will make it mandatory for DD's to match the account holders name, give it time. Just like they did international wires. But there's always a work around..

There we go, knew there was something more to this story.

Yeah so the multiple direct debits setup in 15 different names doesn't take a genius to think this is a bad idea (sorry for being patronising but I don't know what he was thinking), 2 selling illegal goods.

Was he selling them on eBay? How did he manage to sell thousands in counterfeit goods? Either way, he could've still argued his case that the goods weren't counterfeit as they were sold successfully with no issues, they wouldn't be able to prove otherwise.

He panicked and it cost him his funds. He should've remained calm in the situation and dealt with it step by step.

The bank wouldn't know about the counterfeit part I don't think, I would need more info on how these were sold etc., but in general, you can see how his account activity caused him to get flagged and his account closed, it's happened in way lesser circumstances so this was bound to happen.

Anyways, selling illegal goods and being investigated by the NCA tells me this fellow was up to no good anyways and should've been wiser than accepting payments into his personal bank account whilst engaging in criminal activities in 2026..

[ft16]

"some of his goods were counterfeit"

So it literally was money laundering and fraud then, just as the bank suspected.