On the 20th of June 2025, Barclays sent another request for information repeating a few of the items from last time without clear justification of what was wrong with the previous information.
Ciro quickly printed out the documents, but didn't know where to send them to, and had to wait until the 2nd of July for the return envelope to arrive, which he sent back on the 4th of July.
Announcements:
On the 28th of July 2025, Barclays finally replied with a hopefully final (who knows, everything is such a mess with this process):continues, keeping this account open poses a risk that we might breach laws or regulations. We therefore request that such
payments are halted and, if the transactions repeat, we will take action to close this account with immediate notice. In the
event of any closure, you will be required to repay any overdraft or other borrowing on the account.
So Ciro Santilli gets to keep his account and the anonymous ~80k cashed out to it, but he cannot receive further anonymous donations on it.
Following a review of the above account, we have identified large value crypto assets with unknown sources. If such activity
payments are halted and, if the transactions repeat, we will take action to close this account with immediate notice. In the
event of any closure, you will be required to repay any overdraft or other borrowing on the account.
So Ciro Santilli gets to keep his account and the anonymous ~80k cashed out to it, but he cannot receive further anonymous donations on it.
As an outcome of this, I've also had to update my donation guidelines to not count anonymous donations towards my goals.
Barclays regulation felt so sloppy that I'm sure that with some effort to essentially launder the money, e.g. cashing out smaller amounts across various accounts, which I explicitly did not do in part to test the system, I would have gotten away with it, or large part of it. But I'm not going to be the one put this theory to the test.
Articles by others on the same topic
There are currently no matching articles.