Kafkaesque Terrorist Freezing Orders, The UK Treasury Way

Many of my training clients will know that I tend to bang on about the risk to the AML regulated sector posed by HM Treasury's (HMT) liberal use of Statutory Instruments to fight terrorism and serous organised crime.

Little did I know that this Labour Government would prove my cynicism right in spades.

Below, you'll find below a copy of the Channel 4 News item first aired on 23rd March 2009.

In it one man known as 'Q' tells how his life was ruined after the government froze his bank account under the UK's terror laws. HMT Treasury can and do impose this Kafkaesque regime on anyone it suspects of funding terrorism

Under laws that the Treasury wrote, it doesn't have to bother about bringing charges, or even informing the subject of the order what the nature of the allegations are.

Under these orders, your bank accounts and all your assets are frozen and you need ministerial approval to buy a pair of shoes. You cannot undertake any financial transactions - making it virtually impossible, in the interviewers opinion to work.

In the interview with Channel 4 news, one man known as 'Q' says his life has been ruined after he was blacklisted without ever knowing why.

May I suggest that you pay close attention to Dominic Grieve's contribution toward the very end of the video (6:16).



Despite this "proportionate" behaviour going on, HMT still appear to be living in cloud cuckoo land. At a counter terrorist conference I attended in July in London, it became abundantly clear that once anyone had come out of this terrorist blacklisting, the regulated financial sector was expected to give the victim of this order full access to all financial services.

Taking a risk based approach, mindful of the fact that some one is publicly labelled as possibly financing terrorism, that this listing has been based on most secret Government information (which they are certainly not going to share with the regulated institutions / firms)and that the Governments action may actually have radicalised the subject of the order, no institution in it's right mind would touch that person with a barge pole. Well not unless the Treasury was to indemnify the AML regulated firm against all future acts by this person in perpetuity.