This is an interesting little test here.
Barclays’ decision to ignore the pleas of Olympic gold medallist Mo Farah and cease trading with 100 money transfer firms has taken a fresh twist after one of them took legal action against the bank.
So, there are rules in place to make sure that banks don’t facilitate money laundering etc.
Of course, such rules are bureaucratic and expensive, especially when the bank’s customer is an FX booth or a money remittance service. The whole damn point of the latter being that you turn up with cash at a both in one country and then someone else can walk away with cash from a booth in another. This is the point and purpose of the systems.
But the bank’s liable here. No, not specifically or just because someone might be money laundering. But because they’ve got to be able to prove that no one is (this is what got HSBC that American fine of billions. Not that anyone proved they’d been moving drug money, but HSBC could not prove that it had the paperwork showing that it had followed the bureaucratic rules).
So what is it that the campaigners want? That the banks break the law by not monitoring these transfers sufficiently?