|
|
|
|
|
|
by dylan604
1538 days ago
|
|
|
>getting false positive <snip> delays in resolving them. There should be a penalty for this. When "innocent" users are denied access to their money, those actions are much more felt by the user than the bank. That user's money is a rounding error to a bank, but to the user it is everything. An incorrectly frozen account should come with some sort of "oops we're sorry" type of something that a bank can understand: monetary reward for the user. I would rather criminals get away with a laundering transaction than me not being able to buy/pay for something in my day to day because of some dumbass AI algo. |
|
|
There are, the FCA and Financial Ombudsman hold banks to an extremely high standard and hand out fines and compensation on a regular basis. Denying access to funds is a serious issue which banks and regulators take very seriously. However there’s an acknowledgment that AML systems have false positives.
> I would rather criminals get away with a laundering transaction
Easy to say when it’s not your money that’s been stolen. Most money being laundered through retail banks like Monzo isn’t drug money, or high stakes bank heists. It’s the millions stolen every year from normal people subjected to high pressure, complex, coercive and extremely effective social engineering scams.
We’re talking about peoples house deposits (because their solicitors emails got hacked), their life savings, their retirement funds.
Don’t assume you’re immune to these scams, or that you’re paying a cost for it. The scams trick even the most savvy individuals. Costs are borne by everyone with a bank account because victims are reimbursed, and I can assure you, no bank is sacrificing their profit margin to do that.