Dutch banks such as ABN AMRO and ING are under fire for their practice of actively approaching customers with questions about withdrawing cash.
While the Dutch Banking Association (NVB) is urging consumers to have cash at home for emergencies, banks seem to be sending the opposite signal. The contradiction is causing outrage among customers and raising questions about the priorities of financial institutions.
why do you withdraw cash?
Increasingly, customers of major banks are receiving a phone call after withdrawing a significant amount of cash. The conversation often begins with a seemingly innocent question: why do you need so much cash? This practice, which according to the banks is intended to prevent money laundering and financial crime, is experienced as intimidating by many consumers.
An ABN AMRO customer, who wishes to remain anonymous, says: "I withdrew €1000 to get through a month. Within a few days I was called asking what I needed the money for. It felt like I had to justify my own savings."
A spokesperson for ABN-AMRO responded by stating that it is their job to report suspicious transactions. “We are required to combat money laundering and other criminal activities. Withdrawing large amounts of cash can be an indicator. That is why we sometimes have a conversation with our customers.”
The banks’ call comes at a special time. The Dutch Banking Association (NVB) recently advised consumers to have sufficient cash at home for unforeseen circumstances, such as a nationwide disruption of digital payments. In an emergency, the use of debit cards or online banking may become impossible, making cash a crucial means of payment. “It’s almost like banks don’t want you to use cash,” says another ING customer. “I have no criminal intentions, I just want to be prepared. Why am I being watched for that?”
foreign payments
A Dutch entrepreneur recently received a letter from ING with a remarkable request: a payment of only €46,95 from a foreign taxi company was blocked. Only after submitting extensive evidence, including a copy of the invoice and a VIES verification of the VAT number of the foreign company, was the transaction released. The incident has led to frustration among the entrepreneurs, loss for the foreign taxi company and growing criticism of the strict control mechanisms of Dutch banks.
The days when you could just walk into a local bank branch for advice or a simple transaction seem to be over for good. With the disappearance of almost all physical service points, banks such as ING and ABN AMRO have fully focused on digital services. But instead of increasing customer focus, many people experience the opposite. The focus seems to have shifted to one goal: checking customers for fraud and money laundering. And those strict checks are paid for by the same customers who are getting less and less service.
The entrepreneur, who wishes to remain anonymous, shared his experience with the payment being blocked. “It was a regular payment for a service provided to a customer abroad. When the payment was blocked, I received a letter from ING demanding that I demonstrate why this payment was necessary. This meant that I had to provide a copy of the invoice and a VIES check of the taxi company’s VAT number. In the meantime, my customer abroad received a reminder because the amount had not been received.” The VIES check, an online system that verifies VAT numbers, had to prove that the taxi company really existed. Only after submitting these documents, a process that took days, was the payment released by ING without further reactions.
foreign companies
The incident had serious consequences for the taxi company in question. Due to the lack of payment, the company was temporarily cut off from an important service. “This is downright damaging,” says the Dutch entrepreneur. “My customer thought he had not paid, while the bank stopped the payment without any direct warning or clear explanation.”
ING provided only summary information after the payment was released. The bank stated that the transaction had been investigated because they actively monitor suspicious foreign payments. The company wanted to make sure that the account number was not on an international list of fraud companies. However, such lists are often widely used, which means that legitimate companies can also be affected.
taxi companies increasingly targeted
This is not the first incident in which taxi companies have come under increased supervision by banks. According to industry organizations, the taxi industry has long been considered a risk sector due to alleged involvement in money laundering practices. Banks are therefore carrying out extra checks on transactions related to taxi services, especially if they are cross-border.
“It is understandable that banks want to tackle money laundering, but this approach completely misses the mark,” says financial expert and sector analyst Arno Wellens. “We are talking about a payment of less than €50. These types of checks, in which entrepreneurs are saddled with a mountain of administrative work and companies abroad are unfairly disadvantaged, are not in proportion to the risk.”
lack of transparency
ING's attitude in this matter has been criticized. The fact that the bank only provides information after the transaction has been blocked creates uncertainty among entrepreneurs. "You have to hope that you can provide all the evidence quickly, otherwise a customer relationship can suffer irreparable damage," says the affected entrepreneur. "And even if you have provided everything, you hardly get any explanation about what exactly has been checked."
ING defends the practice by pointing to the obligation to investigate suspicious payments under the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Prevention) Act (Wwft). Nevertheless, the call for more proportionality and better communication from entrepreneurs is getting louder.
The incident underscores a broader problem in the relationship between banks and entrepreneurs. As financial institutions face stricter regulations, customers increasingly experience these checks as a hindrance. Especially in the case of small amounts and transparent transactions, the need for such checks seems questionable.
Experts argue for a more balanced approach. Banks could focus more on preventing actual crime rather than harming legitimate entrepreneurs and their foreign business partners. Until then, the question remains whether current control mechanisms do more harm than they prevent.
