Nigel Farage cries persecution, nobody wants to be his banker after ties to Russia

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120786132#Comment_120786132

That's all Ifs and Buts. The truth is we don't know the reasons. And actually I do think it might POSSIBLY have been excessive but I can't say for sure when the reasons are unknown.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120786147#Comment_120786147

But this isn't an isolated incident.

There have been many candidates, both UKIP and Brexit Party MEPs, who had their accounts cancelled. They simply didn't have the voice that Farage has to raise the issue. It's been going on for a long time now, and it's almost exclusively accounts of conservative voices.

https://twitter.com/CJordanjb/status/1674561853622480896

Rawr

He mentioned maybe having to leave the UK because of this....

Could it be that he has already planned to leave the UK and wanted this out there as a pretex for his "exile"? Perhaps he feels that he needs some kind rebrand or re-imagining to keep himself relevant? He's a front-man for a TV Network that still relies on investor capital to keep the lights on, so he might need something more stable than that in the long run. He can't seem to get elected as an MP, and being an MEP is no longer an option for him.

Maybe in his mind, now is the time to be a "Talking-Head at large"? Maybe the plan is try to go to the States again and do talking engagements with the GOP/MAGA people? Or maybe if we pull at that RT thread from earlier, maybe he plans to actually go to Russia and become a 21st Century "Lord Haw-Haw"?

Or maybe none of the above...and this is just a way to gleen some attention.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120786132#Comment_120786132

You act like Deutsch Bank jumped out of its skin to tell the media one of its clients was shady.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-secret-ugly-breakup-with-deutsche-bank-revealed-2022-10

You act like if a Bank reported Farages accounts to the authorities for improprieties like it would automatically be public news and not a matter under seal.

At present there is not a shred of evidence supporting Farages spin on circumstances. Even any evidence confirming 1 or indeed 7 banks turned him down for banking.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120786305#Comment_120786305

The really troubling thing is that many people would covertly support Farage's bank accounts being closed, even if it was concretely established there was no wrongdoing whatsoever.

You can tell by the celebratory tone not only on this thread, but throughout social media generally.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120786225#Comment_120786225

I think if he was going to go to the states to grift off the MAGA marks, he'd just do it. Right now, he's not too far from libelling himself with this crap.

I'm not sure what he could bring to the states that they don't have. The American right pioneered fake news as we know it. There's no shortage of people looking to make a buck peddling Trump nonsense there.

THE_SHEEP

Very surprised by by some of the " cheerleaders " on this thread .........

( " Be careful what you wish for ..... " )

Rawr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120786336#Comment_120786336

Oh agreed. But I'm wondering if maybe he's got it in his head that he can be the next Tucker Carlson or something like that. It probably won't work, but maybe he fancies himself to be up for that mantel? (If it really is his plan to leave the UK).

Hangdogroad

Couldn't happen to a nicer fella.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120786360#Comment_120786360

I get where you're coming from but the little cold sore has always stayed just on the right side of the line to avoid perjuring himself. He could just as easily just announce he's going to the US because of alleged cancel culture and the marks would lap it up.

Penn

Presumably the bank had the legal and regulatory authority to cancle his bank accounts. They wouldn't have done so otherwise as it could leave them open to legal action.

Farage obviously isn't going to admit to there being any valid reason, nor can the bank release such info/evidence due to confidentiality. So I don't know what evidence people expect us (the general public on the internet) to have.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120786331#Comment_120786331

Partisan feeling seems to be the key to destroying freedom. As people come to identify with one side of an issue so strongly and so bitterly they think their 'team' is winning when large powerful forces can act to destroy a person ('the other side').

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120786390#Comment_120786390

I agree. It's a very juvenile attitude, amplified through the echochambers of social media.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120786385#Comment_120786385

'They wouldn't have done so otherwise as it could leave them open to legal action.'

That is a non sequitur. Institutions and people sometimes do things that leave them open to legal action.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120786415#Comment_120786415

What I'm saying is that banks have legal and regulatory practices they have to follow. They can't just close someone's account on a whim. They would need to have a reason, as per legal, regulatory and T&Cs requirements, which led them to the decision to close those accounts.

Farage no doubt can appeal or challenge that decision by the bank, and if the bank is found to be wrong they may have to reverse the decision and possibly even have to compensate Farage. That's all part of the process.

My point was, the bank likely would have had a reason to close the account, one that was legally justified. But we don't have that information, nor could we. The bank cannot publicly reveal the evidence which led them to that decision due to confidentiality. Farage has likely either been given the reasons, or could request the information in order to appeal the decision. Though that doesn't mean Farage would publicly reveal the information either, particularly if it paints him in a bad light.

So we can only surmise that the bank had a justifiable and legally sound reason to close the account, because if they didn't it would leave them legally liable, and given that Farage is a public figure with a public platform and would no doubt talk about it publicly, I would think it's something the bank made sure they were correct on.

Yes, institutions and people sometimes do things that leave them open to legal action, but that's not a statement which negates all actions taken by institutions and people. Either the bank made their decision ensuring it was in line with their legal and regulatory obligations and requirements, or they closed his account just because f*ck Nigel Farage, leaving themselves open to legal action being taken against them, bearing in mind there have been no public incidents or scandals involving Farage recently which may warranted them taking action now and instead seemingly making this decision apropos of nothing. I know which I'd put money on.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120786490#Comment_120786490

They would need to have a reason, as per legal, regulatory and T&Cs requirements, which led them to the decision to close those accounts.

As Anne Widdecombe said, banks should be required to provide the specific reason to the customer, and that reason should be legally contestible. Not just for Farage, but for anyone with a bank account.

The current system is shoddy and open to abuse.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120786132#Comment_120786132

And you know they haven't done so because?

Just because Farage isn't aware he is a target of a criminal investigation? Does not mean he isn't.

Banks are not obliged to provide any customer with anything more than basic banking services. The reasons for restricting a customer's access to further services and business banking need not ever be disclosed to a customer. It can also be for multiple reasons, regulatory, legislative as well as professional & reputational.

A customer will be informed of the refusal to provide those services, but has no right nor is the bank legally obliged to provide that additional detail.

Now my own experience of banking isn't as extensive as Jim's 35yrs. I do however have quite a bit a bit of regulatory compliance experience upto and including drafting legislation on the subject, liaising with Depts of Finance & Communication on industry issues with proposed legislation.

No bank or financial institution takes the step to exclude a PEP from additional service provision lightly. It is not always a measure of criminality, it could well be that the bank have made a decision that the cost of continuing compliance measures for a PEP, in the form of additional checks and potential audit measures outweigh the value of continuing a business relationship with said PEP. It could be that the bank feels reputational harm from being associated with the PEP is a risk to the brand. Even before the bar of criminality is met, banks much like Bakeries have a degree of agency over whom they offer services to.

In the free market of financial services? No doubt there is a bank out there who would love to have Farage's business as stick in the eye to those lefty liberals at Coutts/RBS?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120786597#Comment_120786597

I'm well aware of all of that, and I already addressed it earlier:

As Anne Widdecombe said, banks should be required to provide the specific reason to the customer, and that reason should be legally contestible. Not just for Farage, but for anyone with a bank account.

The status quo that you have described is improper, open to abuse, and anti-customer.

If that requires a change in legislation, then let that legislation be passed.

Banks shouldn't have an a la carte approach about who they can cancel, behind closed doors. It's shady practice, at best.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120786654#Comment_120786654

But Nigel was offered basic banking services. That he was declined more? That a former banker is having trouble it would seem, in finding any UK based bank to offer him additional services?

Is a matter that a free market libertarian who's approach to legislative oversight when he was a member of the EU parliament was to wreck it, is quite ironic really.

Nigel should feel grateful to the EU and the rules regarding basic banking services that were adopted in the UK. Without the EU? Nigel would be bankless 🤷‍♀️ The EU swooping in to save the day for Nigel.

Edit

Just to add, on Widdecombe and her notion of legally contestable reason. The bank has a legal obligation to a minimum service provision. Where a bank makes a decision in line with both the legislation and it's terms of service to deny additional services? That is the banks choice.

Nigel went to a bakery and the baker provided him a cake. Nigel wanted the baker to pipe Happy Wedding Day Steve & Steve. The Baker said no, I don't want to pipe that message, but? You can still have the cake.

I am amused at the mental agility of those who think a baker is within his rights to have their religious freedom and agency in choosing a customer are both correct and protected.

Without realising that body's corporate have the same latitude in providing service. The bank has offered Nigel a basic account. They have zero obligation to provide him anything more. Indeed, I'd wonder how much Coutts refusal to provide service is based on his credit score than on his politics?

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120786754#Comment_120786754

I'm sure he has already.

Padraig Mor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120786331#Comment_120786331

Exactly. "I don't like Farage so LOL if his accounts are closed". Would the same folks agree if, say, Paul Murphy's bank accounts were closed? I mean, he's a political extremist, arguably more so than Farage, and supports violent protests and was involved in imprisoning women in a car just because he didn't like their politics. If you think Farage's accounts should be closed, sure you'd think Murphy's should be too?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120786816#Comment_120786816

Nigel Farage was never employed by Russia Today.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120786857#Comment_120786857

He earned appearance fees, like every other politician that appeared on the channel -- including Labour MPs.

However, Labour’s David Lammy, who, according to his register of members interests was paid £1,000 for two hours of his time on two occasions, is understood to have ruled out further appearances, despite being asked on an almost weekly basis.

Many MPs appeared reluctant to discuss their appearances, including Labour newcomer Rosie Duffield, who was paid £500 for three hours for her appearance on the channel.

Same thing here.

Should Lammy and Duffield also lose their bank accounts on the basis of earning appearance fees for RT, or is this sanction only going to be applied to Farage?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120786882#Comment_120786882

Changing the goalposts, quite a change from your original claim.

astrofool

So, turns out he still has bank accounts and basic services but he can't run a business account and will likely have limited lines of credit (and ability to trade currency, stock etc.)

And he hasn't made the reason the bank dropped these services public.

Where he can of course make these public himself or give the bank permission to make them public (and/or verify the reason).

So we have to assume he doesn't want this made public.

It'll become trumps accounts again where his supporters blindly ignore reality while everyone else knows it was to hide dodgy dealings given they can freely release all the details they want to about it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120786902#Comment_120786902

Farage was paid inconsequential appearance fees 6-7 years ago (a couple of thousand pounds), in the same way that the current Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs -- David Lammy -- earned a four-figure sum for his appearance fees on the channel.

I don't believe either should lose their bank accounts, whereas you believe only Farage should.

That's the difference.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120786928#Comment_120786928

That's not the sole reason the bank stopped providing farage extra services, if it was, you're correct, Lammy would also have lost their services (depending if they had the same bank and the same flags in place).

ArmaniJeanss

He hasn't named the bank, which has led people to thinking of it in terms of having their own BOI/AIB current account shut down, and how unfair that would be.

Whereas in reality this is going to be a 'rich person' bank isn't it? Something like Coutts or a similar branchless entity based in an expensive sidestreet somewhere in the City of London.

I'm sure Barclays or Lloyds etc will open a current account for him without issue (if he has an up-to-date ID and his most recent electricity bill). So I don't think he is being denied banking as such, more that he is being denied banking in the exclusive bank of his choice.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120786946#Comment_120786946

It arguably has been for some time if you include the attempts at subverting democracy that we saw with Brexit and Trump.

People need to stop mindlessly believing everything that Farage says.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120787029#Comment_120787029

Indeed. This is almost certainly due to his taking cash from Russia. Can't prove that but it seems to be the most likely explanation assuming something has happened with his accounts.