While it's true that digital transactions are slowly taking over traditional payment methods, many still prefer using tangible money for their everyday needs.

It's also common knowledge that banks are under pressure to monitor customers and watch for illegal transactions. But one outspoken bank critic has accused Westpac of going too far and 'punishing' bank customers for using cash.

Crispin Rovere, who works as an author, recently shared a troubling experience involving his bank, Westpac. He attempted to withdraw $2,000 from his accounts but was met with a freeze on his transactions.

The bank demanded an explanation for the withdrawal before allowing it to proceed.

Westpac customer calls out bank after claiming they are 'punishing' him for using cash. Credit: Shutterstock.

To resolve the situation, Rovere resorted to displaying on his phone the social media attention his previous clash with Westpac had garnered. This display seemed to unsettle the branch manager, who hastily approved his access to his funds.

However, Mr Rovere still had to endure a 45-minute delay before the branch manager officially confirmed that his accounts were no longer frozen.

Mr Rovere expressed frustration, suggesting no logical justification for his prolonged inconvenience. He interpreted this incident as an attempt by the bank to 'punish' him for opting to use cash.

A little over a year ago, Westpac froze Mr Rovere's accounts after he attempted to deposit a significant amount of cash, which fell below the $10,000 reporting threshold set by banks for federal government notifications.

It was then that the bank's 'anti-fraud team' insisted on knowing the purpose of the money. When Mr Rovere declined to disclose the intended use, the fraud team informed him that they would not unfreeze his accounts without this information.

Their response was curt: 'If you are not willing to disclose what you want the money for, we will not unfreeze your accounts. Thank you for contacting us. Goodbye.'

This prompted Mr Rovere to involve the branch manager. Although he has filed another internal complaint regarding this incident, he has yet to receive a response from Westpac.

In a previous incident, Westpac had attributed the freeze to a deposit made from a different state than the one where the account was opened. However, Mr Rovere contested this: 'The freezing occurred when I was physically standing in a branch in the same state as the account was opened.'

'Westpac are straight liars. There was no “online activity”; I was literally standing in the branch in person,' he added.

In response to the incident, a spokesperson for Westpac said: 'Due to confidentiality obligations, we are unable to comment on individual customer matters.'

'In response to the high number of scams and fraud cases, we apply extra care to ensure the safety and security of customers. This might include temporarily blocking an account when unusual activity is observed so relevant checks can be carried out.'

​

It appears that this incident is not an isolated case. Recently, TV personality Prue MacSween shared a similar experience with a news outlet. She recounted how her 100-year-old mother was refused a significant withdrawal from her account unless she could provide answers about how she intended to use the money.

'It's just disgusting. It's your money, and they are using it to make these huge profits, and you have to justify why you are spending your money,' she said.

'I am offended we are all treated like we are money launderers for the simple act of wanting to take money out.'

Key Takeaways

• Crispin Rovere recalled that Westpac froze his account when he attempted to withdraw $2,000 until he explained what the funds were intended for.
• Mr Rovere claimed that he could access his money only after he showed the bank manager the media coverage of his previous issues with Westpac.
• This isn't the first instance of this happening, with his accounts previously frozen after he attempted to make a significant cash deposit, significantly less than the $10,000 threshold banks are required to report to the federal government.
• Westpac responded that they could not comment on individual customer matters due to 'confidentiality obligations'. However, they assured that they apply additional care to ensure customer safety and security in response to high numbers of scams and fraud cases.

We value banks' efforts to safeguard our money from scams and frauds. However, there might be instances where these protective measures become excessive, hindering our access to our hard-earned savings.

Could it be possible that these measures are part of a larger strategy to discourage cash transactions? We're interested in hearing your opinions on this matter, members. Please share your thoughts with us in the comments below!

 

[johno cpfc]

I'm glad I bank at Bendigo Bank. No matter which branch I enter the staff everywhere are always helpful and friendly. So I suggest that poor gentleman move all his accounts to Bendigo Bank (and NO I am not employed by them!!!) I'm simply a very long term satisfied customer. Good luck!

How local is your local branch ? i too am a customer of Bendigo Bank but i have no local branch since they closed my nearest branch now i have travel some 15-20 kilometres to even get to one. I do not believe this is good business .

 

[Aussie all the Way]

I kinda think this was more to do with the outspoken person than anything else. I bank with WestPac and I have withdrawn all sorts of amounts and have been asked in a very friendly manner what it was for, because of Fraud etc, never have I had my account frozen. My bank knows me well and now they don't ask. You can catch more bees with honey than vinegar.

 

[Trudi]

I am a teller and I personally don't care what you do with your money but I see several times everyday where asking a person what the withdrawal is for and having a scam conversation has prompted a rethink and many times over the year the client has come back and thanked me. The car ended up being stolen, the guy doing the repair was unlicensed. This question of what the cash is for comes from a place of care. We read the scam warnings everyday in this newsletter. Giving a staff member a hard time and being sarcastic is inexcusable. My main goal for going to work each day is to serve and help customers not to upset them and be the victim of bank bashing

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

It appears that banks are at fault if they do and if they don't. In today's newsletter there is a story about an older couple losing their lifesavings to a scam and the general view of members was that their bank should be held responsible for their loss. On the other hand, in this story about banks inquiring about the use of the cash to be withdrawn, the general view is that the bank is in the wrong for asking.

We can't have it both ways!

If I am in a situation of needing a large amount of cash (can't imagine what for as I do not pay anyone in cash for repairs or respond to a demand to hand over cash to any Tom, Dick or Harry), I would have no problem to simply explain why I need the cash.

The same applies to large deposits. I vaguely remember hearing about someone recently who had been used to deposit large amounts of money into their account by criminals. The banks have a duty of care to be vigilant when it comes to the possibility of money laundering!

 

[youngies]

While it's true that digital transactions are slowly taking over traditional payment methods, many still prefer using tangible money for their everyday needs.

It's also common knowledge that banks are under pressure to monitor customers and watch for illegal transactions. But one outspoken bank critic has accused Westpac of going too far and 'punishing' bank customers for using cash.

Crispin Rovere, who works as an author, recently shared a troubling experience involving his bank, Westpac. He attempted to withdraw $2,000 from his accounts but was met with a freeze on his transactions.

The bank demanded an explanation for the withdrawal before allowing it to proceed.

View attachment 27638

Westpac customer calls out bank after claiming they are 'punishing' him for using cash. Credit: Shutterstock.

To resolve the situation, Rovere resorted to displaying on his phone the social media attention his previous clash with Westpac had garnered. This display seemed to unsettle the branch manager, who hastily approved his access to his funds.

However, Mr Rovere still had to endure a 45-minute delay before the branch manager officially confirmed that his accounts were no longer frozen.

Mr Rovere expressed frustration, suggesting no logical justification for his prolonged inconvenience. He interpreted this incident as an attempt by the bank to 'punish' him for opting to use cash.

A little over a year ago, Westpac froze Mr Rovere's accounts after he attempted to deposit a significant amount of cash, which fell below the $10,000 reporting threshold set by banks for federal government notifications.

It was then that the bank's 'anti-fraud team' insisted on knowing the purpose of the money. When Mr Rovere declined to disclose the intended use, the fraud team informed him that they would not unfreeze his accounts without this information.

Their response was curt: 'If you are not willing to disclose what you want the money for, we will not unfreeze your accounts. Thank you for contacting us. Goodbye.'

This prompted Mr Rovere to involve the branch manager. Although he has filed another internal complaint regarding this incident, he has yet to receive a response from Westpac.

In a previous incident, Westpac had attributed the freeze to a deposit made from a different state than the one where the account was opened. However, Mr Rovere contested this: 'The freezing occurred when I was physically standing in a branch in the same state as the account was opened.'

'Westpac are straight liars. There was no “online activity”; I was literally standing in the branch in person,' he added.

In response to the incident, a spokesperson for Westpac said: 'Due to confidentiality obligations, we are unable to comment on individual customer matters.'

'In response to the high number of scams and fraud cases, we apply extra care to ensure the safety and security of customers. This might include temporarily blocking an account when unusual activity is observed so relevant checks can be carried out.'




It appears that this incident is not an isolated case. Recently, TV personality Prue MacSween shared a similar experience with a news outlet. She recounted how her 100-year-old mother was refused a significant withdrawal from her account unless she could provide answers about how she intended to use the money.

'It's just disgusting. It's your money, and they are using it to make these huge profits, and you have to justify why you are spending your money,' she said.

'I am offended we are all treated like we are money launderers for the simple act of wanting to take money out.'

Key Takeaways

• Crispin Rovere recalled that Westpac froze his account when he attempted to withdraw $2,000 until he explained what the funds were intended for.
• Mr Rovere claimed that he could access his money only after he showed the bank manager the media coverage of his previous issues with Westpac.
• This isn't the first instance of this happening, with his accounts previously frozen after he attempted to make a significant cash deposit, significantly less than the $10,000 threshold banks are required to report to the federal government.
• Westpac responded that they could not comment on individual customer matters due to 'confidentiality obligations'. However, they assured that they apply additional care to ensure customer safety and security in response to high numbers of scams and fraud cases.

We value banks' efforts to safeguard our money from scams and frauds. However, there might be instances where these protective measures become excessive, hindering our access to our hard-earned savings.

Could it be possible that these measures are part of a larger strategy to discourage cash transactions? We're interested in hearing your opinions on this matter, members. Please share your thoughts with us in the comments below!

I have

 

[Tipsy]

While it's true that digital transactions are slowly taking over traditional payment methods, many still prefer using tangible money for their everyday needs.

It's also common knowledge that banks are under pressure to monitor customers and watch for illegal transactions. But one outspoken bank critic has accused Westpac of going too far and 'punishing' bank customers for using cash.

Crispin Rovere, who works as an author, recently shared a troubling experience involving his bank, Westpac. He attempted to withdraw $2,000 from his accounts but was met with a freeze on his transactions.

The bank demanded an explanation for the withdrawal before allowing it to proceed.

View attachment 27638

Westpac customer calls out bank after claiming they are 'punishing' him for using cash. Credit: Shutterstock.

To resolve the situation, Rovere resorted to displaying on his phone the social media attention his previous clash with Westpac had garnered. This display seemed to unsettle the branch manager, who hastily approved his access to his funds.

However, Mr Rovere still had to endure a 45-minute delay before the branch manager officially confirmed that his accounts were no longer frozen.

Mr Rovere expressed frustration, suggesting no logical justification for his prolonged inconvenience. He interpreted this incident as an attempt by the bank to 'punish' him for opting to use cash.

A little over a year ago, Westpac froze Mr Rovere's accounts after he attempted to deposit a significant amount of cash, which fell below the $10,000 reporting threshold set by banks for federal government notifications.

It was then that the bank's 'anti-fraud team' insisted on knowing the purpose of the money. When Mr Rovere declined to disclose the intended use, the fraud team informed him that they would not unfreeze his accounts without this information.

Their response was curt: 'If you are not willing to disclose what you want the money for, we will not unfreeze your accounts. Thank you for contacting us. Goodbye.'

This prompted Mr Rovere to involve the branch manager. Although he has filed another internal complaint regarding this incident, he has yet to receive a response from Westpac.

In a previous incident, Westpac had attributed the freeze to a deposit made from a different state than the one where the account was opened. However, Mr Rovere contested this: 'The freezing occurred when I was physically standing in a branch in the same state as the account was opened.'

'Westpac are straight liars. There was no “online activity”; I was literally standing in the branch in person,' he added.

In response to the incident, a spokesperson for Westpac said: 'Due to confidentiality obligations, we are unable to comment on individual customer matters.'

'In response to the high number of scams and fraud cases, we apply extra care to ensure the safety and security of customers. This might include temporarily blocking an account when unusual activity is observed so relevant checks can be carried out.'




It appears that this incident is not an isolated case. Recently, TV personality Prue MacSween shared a similar experience with a news outlet. She recounted how her 100-year-old mother was refused a significant withdrawal from her account unless she could provide answers about how she intended to use the money.

'It's just disgusting. It's your money, and they are using it to make these huge profits, and you have to justify why you are spending your money,' she said.

'I am offended we are all treated like we are money launderers for the simple act of wanting to take money out.'

Key Takeaways

• Crispin Rovere recalled that Westpac froze his account when he attempted to withdraw $2,000 until he explained what the funds were intended for.
• Mr Rovere claimed that he could access his money only after he showed the bank manager the media coverage of his previous issues with Westpac.
• This isn't the first instance of this happening, with his accounts previously frozen after he attempted to make a significant cash deposit, significantly less than the $10,000 threshold banks are required to report to the federal government.
• Westpac responded that they could not comment on individual customer matters due to 'confidentiality obligations'. However, they assured that they apply additional care to ensure customer safety and security in response to high numbers of scams and fraud cases.

We value banks' efforts to safeguard our money from scams and frauds. However, there might be instances where these protective measures become excessive, hindering our access to our hard-earned savings.

Could it be possible that these measures are part of a larger strategy to discourage cash transactions? We're interested in hearing your opinions on this matter, members. Please share your thoughts with us in the comments below!

The big 4 banks are the money launderers so people need to change Banks, Now not that I will ever have a chance of making or withdrawing large amounts of cash as I dont get that sort of money, But I have always found that the Heritage Bank to be better than any other place that offers this sort of service

 

[Judibing]

If it was to pay a scammer this person would have had reason to scream. These days it is probably prudent to forewarn the bank the day before of the need for a large withdrawal.

For a large sum, I probably concur, but these days $2000 cannot be called a large sum.

 

[Aussiecris]

This is an outrage! It’s your money, not the banks and you can do with it whatever you damned well please! How dare the bank refuse to handover YOUR money. Here they are making Billions of dollars in profit out of OUR money then they have the Gaul to refuse to give it back?
Yes, close your account down now, go to another bank and you tell them what YOUR policy will be when it comes to withdrawing your own money!

And don't forget to tell them that YOU don't want them to get YOUR money back when YOU get scammed and YOU waive all rights for money back when YOUR card gets compromised..can't have it both ways

 

[Veggiepatch]

Not a fan of Bendigo Bank due to their charging of a $2.00 withdrawal fee for non-Bendigo customers, unlike those decrepit Big 4. At least there's one thing in their favour.

 

[Aussiecris]

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

It appears that banks are at fault if they do and if they don't. In today's newsletter there is a story about an older couple losing their lifesavings to a scam and the general view of members was that their bank should be held responsible for their loss. On the other hand, in this story about banks inquiring about the use of the cash to be withdrawn, the general view is that the bank is in the wrong for asking.

We can't have it both ways!

If I am in a situation of needing a large amount of cash (can't imagine what for as I do not pay anyone in cash for repairs or respond to a demand to hand over cash to any Tom, Dick or Harry), I would have no problem to simply explain why I need the cash.

The same applies to large deposits. I vaguely remember hearing about someone recently who had been used to deposit large amounts of money into their account by criminals. The banks have a duty of care to be vigilant when it comes to the possibility of money laundering!

This is exactly what happens. The amount of money laudering being done by unsuspecting vulnerable people is very sad. If anyone asks me for cash payment my reply is "I pay my taxes...why shouldn't you"

 

[Leenie]

The big 4 banks are the money launderers so people need to change Banks, Now not that I will ever have a chance of making or withdrawing large amounts of cash as I dont get that sort of money, But I have always found that the Heritage Bank to be better than any other place that offers this sort of service

For a large sum, I probably concur, but these days $2000 cannot be called a large sum.

Nah that’s peanuts if I have to pay out a large sum I use bpay no hassle.

 

[Veggiepatch]

For a large sum, I probably concur, but these days $2000 cannot be called a large sum.

Can you lend me $50?

Just kidding!

 

[Sharon55]

Everytime we withdraw a substantial amount we always get asked what we are planning to do with it.

 

[Squizzy1]

While it's true that digital transactions are slowly taking over traditional payment methods, many still prefer using tangible money for their everyday needs.

It's also common knowledge that banks are under pressure to monitor customers and watch for illegal transactions. But one outspoken bank critic has accused Westpac of going too far and 'punishing' bank customers for using cash.

Crispin Rovere, who works as an author, recently shared a troubling experience involving his bank, Westpac. He attempted to withdraw $2,000 from his accounts but was met with a freeze on his transactions.

The bank demanded an explanation for the withdrawal before allowing it to proceed.

View attachment 27638

Westpac customer calls out bank after claiming they are 'punishing' him for using cash. Credit: Shutterstock.

To resolve the situation, Rovere resorted to displaying on his phone the social media attention his previous clash with Westpac had garnered. This display seemed to unsettle the branch manager, who hastily approved his access to his funds.

However, Mr Rovere still had to endure a 45-minute delay before the branch manager officially confirmed that his accounts were no longer frozen.

Mr Rovere expressed frustration, suggesting no logical justification for his prolonged inconvenience. He interpreted this incident as an attempt by the bank to 'punish' him for opting to use cash.

A little over a year ago, Westpac froze Mr Rovere's accounts after he attempted to deposit a significant amount of cash, which fell below the $10,000 reporting threshold set by banks for federal government notifications.

It was then that the bank's 'anti-fraud team' insisted on knowing the purpose of the money. When Mr Rovere declined to disclose the intended use, the fraud team informed him that they would not unfreeze his accounts without this information.

Their response was curt: 'If you are not willing to disclose what you want the money for, we will not unfreeze your accounts. Thank you for contacting us. Goodbye.'

This prompted Mr Rovere to involve the branch manager. Although he has filed another internal complaint regarding this incident, he has yet to receive a response from Westpac.

In a previous incident, Westpac had attributed the freeze to a deposit made from a different state than the one where the account was opened. However, Mr Rovere contested this: 'The freezing occurred when I was physically standing in a branch in the same state as the account was opened.'

'Westpac are straight liars. There was no “online activity”; I was literally standing in the branch in person,' he added.

In response to the incident, a spokesperson for Westpac said: 'Due to confidentiality obligations, we are unable to comment on individual customer matters.'

'In response to the high number of scams and fraud cases, we apply extra care to ensure the safety and security of customers. This might include temporarily blocking an account when unusual activity is observed so relevant checks can be carried out.'




It appears that this incident is not an isolated case. Recently, TV personality Prue MacSween shared a similar experience with a news outlet. She recounted how her 100-year-old mother was refused a significant withdrawal from her account unless she could provide answers about how she intended to use the money.

'It's just disgusting. It's your money, and they are using it to make these huge profits, and you have to justify why you are spending your money,' she said.

'I am offended we are all treated like we are money launderers for the simple act of wanting to take money out.'

Key Takeaways

• Crispin Rovere recalled that Westpac froze his account when he attempted to withdraw $2,000 until he explained what the funds were intended for.
• Mr Rovere claimed that he could access his money only after he showed the bank manager the media coverage of his previous issues with Westpac.
• This isn't the first instance of this happening, with his accounts previously frozen after he attempted to make a significant cash deposit, significantly less than the $10,000 threshold banks are required to report to the federal government.
• Westpac responded that they could not comment on individual customer matters due to 'confidentiality obligations'. However, they assured that they apply additional care to ensure customer safety and security in response to high numbers of scams and fraud cases.

We value banks' efforts to safeguard our money from scams and frauds. However, there might be instances where these protective measures become excessive, hindering our access to our hard-earned savings.

Could it be possible that these measures are part of a larger strategy to discourage cash transactions? We're interested in hearing your opinions on this matter, members. Please share your thoughts with us in the comments below!

This has become a standard requirement from Banks which imo are a law unto themselves. On the plus side in the UK Banks will become liable for scams portrayed on customers, where a Bank is involved, so hopefully this will be adopted here in the near future too.

 

[JimmyFlatrock]

I doubt very much if this is an attempt, by the Bank, to put people off from dealing in cash.
It's more likely than not, linked to the previous internal freeze by his Bank on his account. There are circumstances under the Cash Transactions Act when a Bank might report to authorities if they have suspicions (previous activity) even if the amount is under the $10,000 mark. (hardly a $2000 transaction though). The Cash Transactions Act suggests the Bank should not advise or alert the suspect, just report the matter and let the authorities do the investigating.

One suggestion is to simply move Banks. Although he might be enjoying holding them to account.

 

[rehandra]

While it's true that digital transactions are slowly taking over traditional payment methods, many still prefer using tangible money for their everyday needs.

It's also common knowledge that banks are under pressure to monitor customers and watch for illegal transactions. But one outspoken bank critic has accused Westpac of going too far and 'punishing' bank customers for using cash.

Crispin Rovere, who works as an author, recently shared a troubling experience involving his bank, Westpac. He attempted to withdraw $2,000 from his accounts but was met with a freeze on his transactions.

The bank demanded an explanation for the withdrawal before allowing it to proceed.

View attachment 27638

Westpac customer calls out bank after claiming they are 'punishing' him for using cash. Credit: Shutterstock.

To resolve the situation, Rovere resorted to displaying on his phone the social media attention his previous clash with Westpac had garnered. This display seemed to unsettle the branch manager, who hastily approved his access to his funds.

However, Mr Rovere still had to endure a 45-minute delay before the branch manager officially confirmed that his accounts were no longer frozen.

Mr Rovere expressed frustration, suggesting no logical justification for his prolonged inconvenience. He interpreted this incident as an attempt by the bank to 'punish' him for opting to use cash.

A little over a year ago, Westpac froze Mr Rovere's accounts after he attempted to deposit a significant amount of cash, which fell below the $10,000 reporting threshold set by banks for federal government notifications.

It was then that the bank's 'anti-fraud team' insisted on knowing the purpose of the money. When Mr Rovere declined to disclose the intended use, the fraud team informed him that they would not unfreeze his accounts without this information.

Their response was curt: 'If you are not willing to disclose what you want the money for, we will not unfreeze your accounts. Thank you for contacting us. Goodbye.'

This prompted Mr Rovere to involve the branch manager. Although he has filed another internal complaint regarding this incident, he has yet to receive a response from Westpac.

In a previous incident, Westpac had attributed the freeze to a deposit made from a different state than the one where the account was opened. However, Mr Rovere contested this: 'The freezing occurred when I was physically standing in a branch in the same state as the account was opened.'

'Westpac are straight liars. There was no “online activity”; I was literally standing in the branch in person,' he added.

In response to the incident, a spokesperson for Westpac said: 'Due to confidentiality obligations, we are unable to comment on individual customer matters.'

'In response to the high number of scams and fraud cases, we apply extra care to ensure the safety and security of customers. This might include temporarily blocking an account when unusual activity is observed so relevant checks can be carried out.'




It appears that this incident is not an isolated case. Recently, TV personality Prue MacSween shared a similar experience with a news outlet. She recounted how her 100-year-old mother was refused a significant withdrawal from her account unless she could provide answers about how she intended to use the money.

'It's just disgusting. It's your money, and they are using it to make these huge profits, and you have to justify why you are spending your money,' she said.

'I am offended we are all treated like we are money launderers for the simple act of wanting to take money out.'

Key Takeaways

• Crispin Rovere recalled that Westpac froze his account when he attempted to withdraw $2,000 until he explained what the funds were intended for.
• Mr Rovere claimed that he could access his money only after he showed the bank manager the media coverage of his previous issues with Westpac.
• This isn't the first instance of this happening, with his accounts previously frozen after he attempted to make a significant cash deposit, significantly less than the $10,000 threshold banks are required to report to the federal government.
• Westpac responded that they could not comment on individual customer matters due to 'confidentiality obligations'. However, they assured that they apply additional care to ensure customer safety and security in response to high numbers of scams and fraud cases.

We value banks' efforts to safeguard our money from scams and frauds. However, there might be instances where these protective measures become excessive, hindering our access to our hard-earned savings.

Could it be possible that these measures are part of a larger strategy to discourage cash transactions? We're interested in hearing your opinions on this matter, members. Please share your thoughts with us in the comments below!

I can totally understand why the bank would be concerned with a 100 year old wanting to draw a large amount. So many have been scammed in the past and they were only protecting the lady. I am on the bank's side here!

 

[Piras Antonio]

While it's true that digital transactions are slowly taking over traditional payment methods, many still prefer using tangible money for their everyday needs.

It's also common knowledge that banks are under pressure to monitor customers and watch for illegal transactions. But one outspoken bank critic has accused Westpac of going too far and 'punishing' bank customers for using cash.

Crispin Rovere, who works as an author, recently shared a troubling experience involving his bank, Westpac. He attempted to withdraw $2,000 from his accounts but was met with a freeze on his transactions.

The bank demanded an explanation for the withdrawal before allowing it to proceed.

View attachment 27638

Westpac customer calls out bank after claiming they are 'punishing' him for using cash. Credit: Shutterstock.

To resolve the situation, Rovere resorted to displaying on his phone the social media attention his previous clash with Westpac had garnered. This display seemed to unsettle the branch manager, who hastily approved his access to his funds.

However, Mr Rovere still had to endure a 45-minute delay before the branch manager officially confirmed that his accounts were no longer frozen.

Mr Rovere expressed frustration, suggesting no logical justification for his prolonged inconvenience. He interpreted this incident as an attempt by the bank to 'punish' him for opting to use cash.

A little over a year ago, Westpac froze Mr Rovere's accounts after he attempted to deposit a significant amount of cash, which fell below the $10,000 reporting threshold set by banks for federal government notifications.

It was then that the bank's 'anti-fraud team' insisted on knowing the purpose of the money. When Mr Rovere declined to disclose the intended use, the fraud team informed him that they would not unfreeze his accounts without this information.

Their response was curt: 'If you are not willing to disclose what you want the money for, we will not unfreeze your accounts. Thank you for contacting us. Goodbye.'

This prompted Mr Rovere to involve the branch manager. Although he has filed another internal complaint regarding this incident, he has yet to receive a response from Westpac.

In a previous incident, Westpac had attributed the freeze to a deposit made from a different state than the one where the account was opened. However, Mr Rovere contested this: 'The freezing occurred when I was physically standing in a branch in the same state as the account was opened.'

'Westpac are straight liars. There was no “online activity”; I was literally standing in the branch in person,' he added.

In response to the incident, a spokesperson for Westpac said: 'Due to confidentiality obligations, we are unable to comment on individual customer matters.'

'In response to the high number of scams and fraud cases, we apply extra care to ensure the safety and security of customers. This might include temporarily blocking an account when unusual activity is observed so relevant checks can be carried out.'




It appears that this incident is not an isolated case. Recently, TV personality Prue MacSween shared a similar experience with a news outlet. She recounted how her 100-year-old mother was refused a significant withdrawal from her account unless she could provide answers about how she intended to use the money.

'It's just disgusting. It's your money, and they are using it to make these huge profits, and you have to justify why you are spending your money,' she said.

'I am offended we are all treated like we are money launderers for the simple act of wanting to take money out.'

Key Takeaways

• Crispin Rovere recalled that Westpac froze his account when he attempted to withdraw $2,000 until he explained what the funds were intended for.
• Mr Rovere claimed that he could access his money only after he showed the bank manager the media coverage of his previous issues with Westpac.
• This isn't the first instance of this happening, with his accounts previously frozen after he attempted to make a significant cash deposit, significantly less than the $10,000 threshold banks are required to report to the federal government.
• Westpac responded that they could not comment on individual customer matters due to 'confidentiality obligations'. However, they assured that they apply additional care to ensure customer safety and security in response to high numbers of scams and fraud cases.

We value banks' efforts to safeguard our money from scams and frauds. However, there might be instances where these protective measures become excessive, hindering our access to our hard-earned savings.

Could it be possible that these measures are part of a larger strategy to discourage cash transactions? We're interested in hearing your opinions on this matter, members. Please share your thoughts with us in the comments

Unfortunately No Bank is Safe or Caring to us ,, their payday!
Banks will give you an Umbrella on a Sunny day,,, but as soon as it Rains they want it BACK!¡! THEY are conditioned this way and why ?¿? Don't Banks make enough money as is ¿¿¿ Something must be done! Useful to Blame all on Scams (when it's got nothing to do with Scammers) appreciated that they go after Scammers ( only because when we lose money through Scams they lose a grain of Sand in a Desert) SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!¡!

 

[Squizzy1]

I am a teller and I personally don't care what you do with your money but I see several times everyday where asking a person what the withdrawal is for and having a scam conversation has prompted a rethink and many times over the year the client has come back and thanked me. The car ended up being stolen, the guy doing the repair was unlicensed. This question of what the cash is for comes from a place of care. We read the scam warnings everyday in this newsletter. Giving a staff member a hard time and being sarcastic is inexcusable. My main goal for going to work each day is to serve and help customers not to upset them and be the victim of bank bashing

There is a contradiction there, "I personally don't care" and "comes from a place of care". I believe, this stems from the Banks wanting to protect themselves from their involvement with couldbe scammers, with the pretence it's for customers benefit, and find that totally natural and responsible. Particularly given proposed new laws to making full restitution to victims where a Bank is involved, in fact the questions will probably become more invasive.

 

[Rob44]

It is always the big 4 banks that create these problems, they will do anything to protect there billion dollars yearly profits, I joined my bank 30 years ago when it was a Credit Union and have never had a problem with them, in fact on two occasions I asked for some help they were right on the ball, over the years they have activated with smaller banks and Credit Unions and built up to where they are now.

Westpac is just another bank I won't be lending my money to.

 

[Rob44]

I also bank at Bendigo Bank and yes they ask for a reason to withdraw any amount over $ 10K. When l asked why, i was told they had to ask as it is reported to the ATO. So l withdraw smaller amounts with no questions asked.

$99,999?

 

[Vinylted]

I bank with a former credit union, there is no branch within cooee of where I live, but I have always notified them of larger than normal withdrawals, and never had a problem. When I want cash I use an ATM or a supermarket.