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!

 

[IAN3005]

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!

To start with the biggest mistake is to dealing with WESTPACK, secondly, I would close my account forthwith when the bank was filled with customers and creates a ruckus second to none so that every customer in the bank knew why I was closing my account.
I had a run-in with the bank 40 years ago over $0.25 and have never set for in the place since, and never will.

 

[Rosscoesmiff]

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.

My last transaction with a bank (which bank) was to pay out my home loan. I had won a large amount in a lottery and I was given the 3rd interrogation on where this money came from, fortunately I had a letter from lottery to shove into their faces, apparently you aren’t allowed to staple it to their foreheads. The bank argued with myself and my wife not to pay out the loan. I, too, went to a Credit Union for another home loan which had a cheaper interest rate and bent over backwards to help all the way. CU has now turned into a bank and has the same if not better customer service.

 

[Marj53]

I always have to show my licence for any transactions at my bank. Doesn't worry me. My bank is not one of the big 4's either.

 

[Jest]

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 guess if the boot was on the other foot he may have felt differently. I would rather a bank be careful then frivolent.

 

[Jest]

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

well said.

 

[Staffordshire Whippet]

I wonder how the Bankwanker would have reacted if the customer had said "Oh, just the usual hookers and coke!"?

 

[Shane/#]

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!

Sounds like the banks want to control your money well I'd be moving to another bank or another industry that won't be in control this sounds like big brother tactics that need to know the in and outs of a DUCK'S ARSE it's your bloody money nobody else's CASH IS KING STICK THE INSTITUTIONS

 

[CruzAndy]

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!

Although a different problem, but as it is Westpac who now the have influence over St George Bank.
I am being punished for using a defective system at St George Bank known as PBay.

When I attempt to use it, I get no response. So St George promply blocked access to my accounts it now has been some months without access.

Bills are paid my pension gets deposited, but i have no control. Connot transfer between accounts, and cannot activate my credit card.

As i am hard at hearing I have sent emails to the person who fixed my previous problem but there has been no response. I have had experiences when ring 13 33 30 I have had my call abruptly ended

So I am just riding it out as I doubt I'll be around much longer.

As far as St George is concerned, It has not been a customer friendly organisation since its takeover By Westpac.

Banks these days are treating everyone as a potential criminal.

CruzAndy







.

 

[Andrew]

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!

It's not just the banks wanting to know your business and scrutinising your money. Some time ago l got a sizable inheritance from my mother. Centre Link wanted to know all about it. I was getting a part pension at the time. I told them where it came from, and what l intended to do with it. My wife and l decided to build a new house. Then Centre Link why l was withdrawing large sums of money and where it was going. A classic example of "Bid Brother" watching you!.

 

[gordon1940]

The Government introduced AUSTRAC many years ago. The Law stated that Banks must report all Cash transactions in excess of $10k in addition to any unusual or suspect transaction. It would appear that that Bank concerned was acting in accordance with the Law.

 

[Rob.]

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!

 

[Macarj]

I have never been asked what the money I am drawing out is for and I have drawn out large sums I just call the day before I want the cash so that they have it there

 

[Tervueren]

Put your cash under the mattress! Or buy GOLD or SILVER coins or bars and save yourself the worry.

 

[mark godwin]

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 S

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!

Seems anytime i do an internet payment for first time transfer i get blocked . i always use fraud selection rather than opt to talk to service . it,s way faster though you still have to prove myself innocent . hate banks

 

[Eneri]

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!

Change banks

 

[MariaG]

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 can see it would be frustrating for folk on the front line. Having to deal with poor reactions can be a real issue when confronted by people who become aggressive.
Perhaps there needs to be a formal spiel put in writing so that people who are being asked, know why they are being asked. The way you put it makes sense. But, when someone is confronted with a demand to explain yourself and not feel it is anyone's business but theirs, I imagine some people would be nasty.
One for the suggestion box I think.

 

[MariaG]

Some years ago, back in the time when money laundering made news headlines, I was sent a $1,000 cheque from a well known company, made out in my name. That was before online transfers were an every day normal.
My husband said he would bank it for me, into my account. He phoned me from the bank saying that he had to explain where the money came from.
I told him to leave it and I would be down there shortly to teach them how to read a cheque and train them on procedures concerning clearance of cheques before they can be drawn on. I could not believe they asked about a cheque. But they did.
When I arrived, they said they had to ask because of the money laundering stuff going on. So, they asked again, and I held up the cheque, without saying a word and pointed to the details printed on the cheque.
The manager was called in. Again, I answered by pointing to the details on the cheque. He did the Um sound, face went red, turned to the teller and said, it's a cheque. It was processed.
I get that the question was asked without proper guidelines being put into place, and, I didn't go off my bean. Actually, I found it amusing given the circumstances. At the time, there were a lot of new rules brought in to deal with the money laundering, but perhaps, the training at the branch was a bit lacking.
Sometimes, panic buttons are pushed and team members being read the riot act without being provided proper information. I guess it is the same in any industry.

 

[Ladyjay]

Close the **********Account

 

[MaccaMan]

To protect people from being scammed, the bank has to take measures to protect the customer, there is no win win situation.

Sad to hear that you think like this. Banks demanding reasoning behind anything to do with your account is nothing but power and control. It has nothing to do with protection of your account.
The big 4 are losing business fast - people are moving in droves to local credit unions or smaller institutions

 

[Leenie]

I always have to show my licence for any transactions at my bank. Doesn't worry me. My bank is not one of the big 4's either.

Our bank has our license and photo ID on our account For security .