TSB to join Starling blocking Crypto due to Fraud Concerns

In other crypto news, Starling rejected my complaint. Going to file it with FoS along with my Revolut complaint tonight (and going to launch a complaint with sainsburys; somehow they didn’t receive two sets of documents I sent them back and a) won’t send me a prepaid tracked letter and b) have no email)

Whilst there isn’t regulation there is a requirement that “firms carrying out specific cryptoasset activities in the UK will need to comply with the amended Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLRs) and register with the FCA

The FCA is then “responsible for registering, supervising and enforcing, for anti-money laundering and counter terrorist financing purposes”.

https://register.fca.org.uk/s/search?predefined=CA

I don’t know what ‘specific’ means in the first quote and I don’t know what the consequences (if any) will be for firms that don’t comply. But I wouldn’t be against banks blocking transfers to firms not on the register whilst allowing transfers to those which are registered.

12 posts were split to a new topic: The Subject of Privacy

You might be conflating mass surveillance with mass data collection? The two are different issues. I’m not aware of any program where mass surveillance is carried out on individuals without a warrant in the UK

Should the privacy discussion be split out into its separate discussion? It’s interesting to read, but not sure we’re on topic anymore @Graham

1 Like

Yep. I’ve watched with interest the topic develop and I was checking in with the other mods this morning on the basis that this thread has long since moved away from TSB and even crypto.

I’ll take a run at the split, creating a (probably huge) thread on Privacy :slightly_smiling_face:

4 Likes

A post was merged into an existing topic: The Subject of Privacy

Nearly every sort of scam related to bank transfers results in the funds being exited via crypto at some point.

The most common sort of scams we see at the moment are still safe account scams. A lot start with the “you’ve got a parcel waiting, but there’s a fee to pay” emails or text messages, which encourage people to share enough details to allow the scammer to convince them that they’re the bank calling.

As a rough ball park we’re talking into the hundred of thousands, per day. A lot of these we stop, but not all.

I think the thing to remember here is that most of us on this sort of forum are pretty savvy and unlikely to fall for this sort of scam. Until I started working in the industry I had no idea how bad it was.

5 Likes

Thanks, Dan! :blush:

I don’t outright oppose targeted restrictions in place, for the time being at least, against crypto currencies if it’s for the sole purpose of protecting especially vulnerable individuals, but what annoys me is the ignorance (and I don’t mean that to sound as harsh as it does) of some customers meaning we all lose that freedom. What if the banks that chose to block crypto due to ‘scams’ required their customers to complete a simple in-app or online questionnaire on crypto and APP scams and how to identify them in order to have the block lifted on their individual accounts. This would mean that only well informed users (the ‘savvy’ ones, as you put it Dan :wink:) with the knowledge to recognise a scam would have access to this feature and the associated risks.

2 Likes

Barclays has joined the party, but only against Binance and citing FCA regulatory compliance as the reason instead of scam-mitigation…

A Barclays spokesperson said: “With effect from today, Barclays intends to stop credit and debit card payments to Binance.
"This action does not impact on the ability for customers to withdraw funds from Binance.
“The decision has been taken following the FCA warning to consumers, to help keep our customers’ money safe."

Especially curious since the FCA ban didn’t include simply buying and selling crypto through Binance.com’s exchange… :thinking:

2 Likes

Binance is having troubles everywhere right now. And I fully agree in distancing themselves from places that are avoiding regulation when they have the funds to comply

For instance, crypto firms are now meant to be registering with the FCA; Binance withdrew their application (presumably because they didn’t intend to comply and want to draw out to last minute)

1 Like

Interesting… I’d love to know more details on this. I thought the idea behind Binance Markets Limited was to create a fully regulated, separate UK entity for use by British customers? That sounded well intentioned and reassuring for UK-customers.

1 Like

I don’t know, whole world needs to revamp to make it attractive for businesses to expand everywhere. Compliance is too expensive.

VAT MOSS being a prime example, I can’t find a single place to file VAT returns for across the entirety of the EU for less than 2000€ a month

Decided I’m just going to launch in U.K./Japan and let EU users use for free, maybe lose 10% of revenue from EU to Patreon just to increase cash flow (since they handle VAT remittance)

Edit: in hindsight that rant wasn’t necessary, binance have enough money to fund U.K. compliance

Well, this is where I think it gets complicated. It’s often seen as a challenger to the status quo --by that I’m talking about the currency element rather than the core technology, but as a technology it very much depends on the system that it is setting out to overthrow. Without big tech, there’s no crypto. Without ASIC miners, Nvidia, AMD, Intel etc, or software companies like Microsoft, Redhat, Canonical etc, there’s no crypto. Without Google and Apple allowing custodial wallets onto their app stores, there’s no safe way to store crypto. Without TSMC there are no chips to run the devices we would rely on to send, receive and store crypto.

Whilst there is some accountability in government --you can (usually) vote politicians out, technology firms apparently answer to nobody and are largely centralised on a small number of providers.

So whilst there are privacy benefits to cryptocurrencies, you can’t use it without a device that knows how many times a day you wash your hands or sneeze.

But most of us are using American devices that route nearly everything through a server in the US, where it is collected, as a Mr E Snowden can attest.

Erm, huh?

Very much not true, actually, custodial wallets are the least secure ways of storing crypto…

TSMC, Nvidia etc aren’t trouble points for crypto so I don’t understand why you’d bring this up

Big tech doesn’t care what their stuff is used for so long as you’re paying

Microsoft, RedHat I don’t even know what stake they have in crypto

But really what you’re saying can be applied to anything: if TSMC wasn’t making chips then your bank wouldn’t have chips for their servers to run on and if RedHat and Canonical wasn’t developing software their server backbone wouldn’t exist

1 Like

Yes, that did make me chuckle a little bit! I use a non-custodial, but nevertheless ‘hot’, wallet. Not as safe as cold storage, but a hell of a lot better than a custodial option. Not your keys….!

1 Like

Not your crypto :laughing:

1 Like

Well yes, without chips then banking as we know it today wouldn’t exist and money, whether we are talking about fiat or crypto would become very simple indeed. If the system, largely denominated in US dollars was to fall, then pretty much everything that enables crypto to exist would also fall.

The thrust of so many crypto documentaries I’ve watched is how the fiat money system is doomed, but if the fiat money system fails, crypto is also likely doomed.

If a nation was to fall, chances are it would be subsumed by another, adopting their currency in the process. If all nations were to fall then physical items would likely become currency, be that precious metals, seeds or livestock. Dollars may not exist, but then nor would crypto.

So, rather than being a challenger to the status quo, which was the point I was originally reacting to, crypto relies heavily on the status quo in order to exist.

Sorry, meant non-custodial.

2 Likes