// The fact is here is [a] successful businessman... whose bank accounts... have, after 40 years, been closed very suddenly by his bank with no explanation... //
Hardly "very suddenly", as he was given two months' notice. While the explanation of "commercial reasons" as Farage states it is altogether too vague for my liking, private businesses nevertheless aren't obligated to give detailed reasons. From, for example, Nationwide's T&Cs:
// 78. We may close your account immediately and without notice in exceptional circumstances. These might include:
a) we are legally required to close the account;
b) you have carried out (or we reasonably suspect you have carried out) illegal or fraudulent activity on the account;
...
or
h) we reasonably consider that we may be exposed to action from any government, Regulator or law enforcement agency. //
I deleted reasons (c)-(g) as they are obviously irrelevant in this case. I suspect that other agreements with other banks are similar.
The part that I think is most relevant is that the bank may only "reasonably suspect" illegal activity, or "reasonably consider" that they may be exposed to Government action. What counts as "reasonable" is presumably something that can be tested according to an objective measure, and I hasten to add that I am not accusing Farage of being involved in any illegal activities. But if, for example, the bank has information that suggests that he *might* be, then the bank is entitled to close the account without waiting for the Courts to find that he *is*.
Terms in Barclays T&Cs are similar:
// We can close an account... by giving you at least two months’ notice. ... we’ll tell you why we’re ending the agreement unless doing so would be unlawful (emphasis added).
We may also end this agreement immediately or on less notice... if we reasonably believe you have seriously or persistently broken any terms of the agreement. We can also do this if we have reasonable grounds for thinking you have done any of the following things, all of
which this agreement prohibits:
• You put us in a position where we might break a law, regulation, code or other duty that applies to us if we maintain your account, or keeping your account open exposes us to action or censure from any government, regulator, or law enforcement agency.
...
• You use or try to use your account illegally or for criminal activity, including receiving proceeds of crime into your account – or you let someone else do this ... //
Again, the stress is on "reasonable belief", and I find the added comment compared to Nationwide that Barclays may on occasion find that it is "unlawful" to reveal the reasons for their closing the account to be significant in terms of the bank(s) apparently being extremely vague.
There's a lot more to this story, as I say, that Farage has revealed. Whether that's because he personally is hiding something, or because he hasn't been sufficiently made aware of what's gone on, I don't know. But I don't take his suggestion of an Establishment plot seriously at this stage, and there are multiple other possible explanations.
Again, although in this comment I've focused on possible illegal activity reasons, I don't personally intend to accuse Farage of any such activity, either directly or otherwise. I'm simply saying that (a) the bank is entitled to close his (or anybody else's) account, (b) that they do not need to give much notice (although it is typical to provide two months' notice where possible), (c) that there may well be legal reasons behind their vagueness at this stage.