absolutely valid argument. I am not saying Revolut has no right to discharge its AML responsibility, more that what protections customers have if Revolut fails on unlocking AML-related account locks adequately? (given the history of its AML breach, i can understand they want to be cautious on AML). They have been brought to court on such issue and lost, though they basically claimed admin errors on the delay. I can say my ( and my partner's) experience on poor de-risking procedure was just like what the guy had described in the below story. https://oacktree.com/revolut-faces-lawsuit-in-romania-over-blocked-account/

I was locked out until i discovered that the debit card was still functional (but not for bank transfers). So i have essentially used up my balance by topping up some other services. 50k clips are large sums for sure, and large sums have been a point many raised as a justification for Revolut. But note they advertise as a cheap FX conversion provider, so it is not unreasonable for those with larger FX exchange needs to utilise this and be subsequently locked up in this. You won't bother for changing 2000 GBP to EUR just to save 10 pounds.. from a customer protection point of view, my questions are: 1) Why is Revolut's AML a lot more different from banks in the UK? They project an image of being a smart current account. If you transfer large sums between high street bank accounts, most banks dont have AML policies this sensitive. You don't hear a high street bank receiving 3000 resolver complaints in 2019 just in the UK, mostly about blocked accounts but also on poor customer services? and most of these banks have a musher bigger customer base. Why the sensitivity? look at other similar FX providers, say Transferwise, they dont have a similar level of problem at all (have done similar amounts with them in one clip to be honest). 2) if Revolut does a lower level AML at account opening (for the ease of scaling), and subsequently use a transaction-size based trigger for a more invasive DD, they need to be transparent about it. I have seen such DD done at PayPal, but even so, such DDs are usually ID based rather than transaction or source of funds specific. If the initial DD was not suitable for larger sum, why advertising unlimited FX? 3) they are not a deposit taking institution but more a payment service provider, so effectively holding client money under the CASS regulation 7 of the FCA rule book, which is heavily restricted. There are strict rules on paying your customers promptly. Restricting client access to client money can be done on compliance grounds (most financial service providers have this in their T&C), but if long delays are also due to poor procedure and lack of customer service, are they justifiable? I was more hoping to raise the point to see if anyone's come across the regulatory framework on such matter. maybe it is just me but for Revolut to hide behind "AML policy" and restrict access to funds, is no different to Waitrose stopping you at their door demanding a bag search and proof of ownership for every item in your bag...

Hi there, I have seen a similar case posted here before so want to try my luck - anyone have a view on how to deal with such "bank bully?" 1. my problem is with Revolut having an overly sensitive AML (possibly algorithm) resulting in thousands of accounts suspensions, following which they typically have a poor customer service and invasive unlocking policies on resolve the issue. Revolut has no customer hotlines to call, and access to funds, sometimes large sum, can be locked behind slow chat room agents for ages. 2. in my case, i was attracted by Revolut's paid service of unlimited FX transactions (at fairly good rates, and instant access, 8GBP per month?), and decided to transfer large sums of EUR (three clips of 50k EUR each) from my own account to revolut, take advantage of the cheap FX exchange (which i have paid for) and transfer out. Both the transfer-in and transfer-outs are from accounts in the UK, under my own name. 3. Revolut flagged a request for verifying source of funding on 10th Dec 2020 after my second transfer, for which i immediately provided my Barclays bank account EU bank account statement. they did not respond at all for near 30 days while the account remained operational despite the review. 4. On 4th Jan 2021, i transferred in my third clip of 50k EUR, the transfer in and conversion to GBP encountered no issue, but the transfer out (to my own account elsewhere) was blocked 5. contacting revolut has been very frustrating - there is nowhere to call, and the chat room is the only way to contact any one. The agents take forever to reply, and it took me 4 hours to get to speak to someone who basically said - it is unusual to take this long. But we need your pay slips and tax return records. i work in institutional financial sector, know a bit about the concept of AML. I wonder if Revolut had grounds to conduct invasive reviews like this? note these are funds from my own-named accounts... While banks can hide behind their T&C and simply say it is their policy, surely as a regulated financial services provider there have to be rules governing such reviews and restricted access to client money? there are now thousands cases of complaints like this. in my view, if revolut want to be invasive on DD on picking their client, they have the right to be - but at the account opening stage. if they accept the account opening applications, and enable the service, they cannot then make the service overly sensitive to large sums? Especially if the services i paid for are advertised as "unlimited FX conversion". My guess is that Revolut was done for compliance reaches, and had instead gone overboard with AML detection without adequate unlocking policies. all they have are a stretched ream of agents with a poorly written unlocking procedure. if customers have any issues with this process (i suppose most do?), they simply just not respond...