header-logo header-logo

Banks, SARS & the customer

31 July 2009 / David Hislop
Issue: 7380 / Categories: Features , Human rights , Banking
printer mail-detail

Banks & customers are potential victims in an unhappy balance,
says David Hislop

Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2007 (POCA 2002) put banks between a rock and a hard place. The bank has no interest in acting contrary to the needs or interests of their customers upon who they rely for business. Doubtless they have every desire to meet their own contractual duties owed to their customers in the interests of good business. But Pt 7 of POCA 2002 clearly puts the bank between its customer and the legislature.

Even if a bank account did not contain funds which were criminal property and no offence had been committed by the customer, s 328(1) applied where the bank had a suspicion that it was involved in dealing with criminal property; the combined effect of ss 328(2), 335 and 338 is to force a third party in the bank’s position to report its suspicions to the relevant authorities and not to move suspect funds or property for the requisite time period; in

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Francis Ho, City of London Law Society

NLJ Career Profile: Francis Ho, City of London Law Society

Francis Ho, Charles Russell Speechlys partner, was recently appointed chair of the Construction Law Committee of the City of London Law Society. He discusses the challenges of learning to lead, the importance of professional ethics, and the power of the written word, withNLJ

Slater Heelis—Chester office

Slater Heelis—Chester office

North West presence strengthened with Chester office launch

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Firm grows commercial disputes expertise with partner promotion

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
In this week's NLJ, Bhavini Patel of Howard Kennedy LLP reports on Almacantar v De Valk [2025], a landmark Upper Tribunal ruling extending protection for leaseholders under the Building Safety Act 2022
Writing in NLJ this week, Hanna Basha and Jamie Hurworth of Payne Hicks Beach dissect TV chef John Torode’s startling decision to identify himself in a racism investigation he denied. In an age of ‘cancel culture’, they argue, self-disclosure can both protect and imperil reputations
back-to-top-scroll