Harald Mcpike-Zima, a Person with Significant Control of Starling Bank Limited according to Companies House, England filings who has authorised the digital challenger bank to use one of the most controversial and draconian clauses seen in the digital bank’s general terms that Starling Bank knows the majority of customers will not read when applying to be an account holder.
Financial Fraudster News investigations has seen a copy of section 3 of the Bank’s general terms which if taken on its face would amount to an unreasonable business practice open to abuse to potentially cause harm and financial loss to an unwitting customer unaware of the egregious conduct of the Bank.
According to Starling Bank’s general terms, it can restrict any account for an indeterminate period without notice, without penalty and without reason, the clause speaks volumes to the Bank’s approach to handling client’s deposits of which all potential customers must read.
Disgruntled personal and business customer of Starling Bank Ms Alex Maxwell [not her real name] of North London, raise significant funding from several lenders to inject into her litigation and consulting and research business to fuel its long-term growth, has deposits in excess of £600k across several accounts held with Starling Bank restricted indefinitely since November 2023.
Despite numerous attempts, which included over 100 calls, emails and live bank chats, Starling Bank left Ms Maxwell in the dark refusing to give any reasons.
Starling Bank whilst purportedly restricting Ms Maxwell’s bank accounts acted with depraved indifference when it appropriated funds held in a Euro account. When Ms Maxwell complained, Starling Bank simply wrote a cheque on the threat of legal action then cancelled the cheque deliberately preventing its encashment.
Financial Fraudster News spoke to a spokesperson for Ms Maxwell who said “when legal action commenced against Starling Bank on January 31st, 2024 in the County Court of England within two days Starling Bank’s management made the inexplicable decision to report Ms Maxwell to HM Revenue and Customs under the falsehood that the deposits derived from legitimate loans, might be the proceeds of crime or might be used for criminal activities. Ms Maxwell was shocked…the vexatious act led to Starling Bank perverting the course of public justice and misleading HMRC who used Section 303 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to induce the misuse of POCA 2002 and to make an application to the Magistrates’ Courts of England for an Account Freezing Order known as an AFO in an act of criminality…”
Financial Fraudster News investigations legal contributor and criminal barrister James Darly said “…POCA 2002 part 5 section 16 inserted chapter 3b into part 5 of POCA 2002; forfeiture of money held in bank and building society accounts allows a bank to alert any suspicions about a customer…I have looked at the case of Ms Maxwell and conclude that the bank statements that show monies from legitimate sources of loans to grow a new business which Starling Bank had been willing to accept deposits two years earlier…I am astonished as to its general terms and how any reasonable person would sign up to such hideous terms in the first instance. Starling Bank reacted to allegations raised in a civil claim commenced on January 31st, 2024 where Starling Bank is accused of misappropriation of deposits. Starling Bank appears to have reportedly and in a vexatious act alerted HMRC that deposits from Ms Maxwell’s accounts were caught by POCA 2002 which compelled HMRC to apply to the Courts for an Asset Freezing Order, albeit granted by the Court on February 9th, 2024 but interestedly at a much reduced time period, such was the strength of representations made by Ms Maxwell…at first look it appears that HMRC were duped by Starling Bank at great financial cost to Ms Maxwell, a law abiding citizen who is believed to have lost control of her successful business…if proven, it is arguable that a criminal charge of perverting the course of public justice can be brought against Starling Bank…misuse of the powerful instruments of POCA 2002, should not and must not go unpunished.”
Financial Fraudster News have asked Starling Bank and HMRC to comment.
