Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Media United Kingdom

Russia Today: NatWest To Close Russian Channel's UK Bank Accounts (bbc.com) 131

According to the editor-in-chief of state-run broadcaster Russia Today (RT), NatWest bank froze its account. Margarita Simonyan said, "They've closed our accounts in Britain. All our accounts. 'The decision is not subject to review.' Praise be to freedom of speech!" The Guardian adds: Russia has angrily accused Britain of trampling on freedom of speech after NatWest said it was closing down the bank accounts of the Kremlin TV channel Russia Today (RT). Russian MPs, the foreign ministry and human rights officials all condemned the move, and said the UK government was guilty of violating press freedom and of double standards. Simonyan said she had received a letter out of the blue from NatWest saying that it was pulling the plug on the broadcaster's accounts from mid-December. "We have recently undertaken a review of your banking arrangements with us and reached the conclusion that we will no longer provide these facilities," it said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russia Today: NatWest To Close Russian Channel's UK Bank Accounts

Comments Filter:
  • by Rei ( 128717 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @01:44PM (#53093367) Homepage

    ... while the focus in the US has been more about the hacking of the DNC and similar stories, if I had to wager, I'd guess that this is part of the new sanctions threatened against Russia by John Kerry and Boris Johnson over the bombing of Aleppo.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • ... while the focus in the US has been more about the hacking of the DNC and similar stories, if I had to wager, I'd guess that this is part of the new sanctions threatened against Russia by John Kerry and Boris Johnson over the bombing of Aleppo.

      The focus in the US has hardly touched the DNC hacking, if the American versions of RT - CNN, MSNBC, NBC et al are anything to go by. It's all been about women coming out of the woodwork to accuse Trump of doing something a decade or more ago.

    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      Yes, the timing is suspiciously coincidental. But if it *is* a US covert sanction, it makes you wonder exactly how it was worked.

    • by Xest ( 935314 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @03:35AM (#53098165)

      No, this is part of a change to UK banking law. It occured a couple of years ago and it's effected all sorts of people and organisations including MPs themselves - the law of unintended consequences and all that.

      Basically, the law now allows for banks to be held culpable if they facilitate money laundering, and as such banks have started pursuing a zero risk approach to the topic. Therefore everything from charities merely accused of corruption, funding terrorism and so forth, through to MPs that engage with corrupt foreign leaders even if simply engaging on political fact finding missions have had their and even their families bank accounts shutdown.

      This is merely a continuance of that, Russia is basically the global capital of corruption. Given the rise of the many billionaire oligarchs post-soviet era I'm amazed it's actually taken the banks this long to decide that supplying banking for the a Russian government run organisation is too risky.

      So no conspiracy theories are really necessary, nor would they make any sense. When the same law is resulting in MPs and their wives, kids, and grandmothers having their bank accounts closed down as it is RT it's a complete nonsense to suggest anything nefarious is going on. It really is just about a private company choosing to play it overly safe in the face of a change in the law.

      Given the impact on MPs themselves, I'd be surprised if this particular law change lasts long at all. I believe this also enshrined into law US overreach too, as my father who has never had any link to, nor ever been to the US was asked to prove he was not a US citizen (I don't know how you prove you're not a US citizen, I can imagine how you prove you are one) and avoiding paying taxes whilst living overseas under the FATCA regulations. It rather sickens me that my father had to provide information on his personal finances as a British citzen to the US authorities to allow them to decide if he's evading American taxes or not when he's got nothing to do with America or face having his bank account shutdown in a similar manner.

      Yeah, so long story short, basically they've gone over the top in trying to crackdown on fraud and tax evasion and everyone and their dog (probaby literally) in the UK is being hit right now. On the scale of organisations deserving to be hit by this law though because of probable real actual corruption I'd say RT is pretty high up the list relative to all the people who really are unquestionably innocent and are also suffering the same fate.

      Really, despite all the rhetoric from Russia about censorship, sanctions and such there genuinely is no such story here. It's entirely about our banking regulations currently having been made a complete ass.

  • To pay the people in their London bureau?

  • Russia has angrily accused Britain of trampling on freedom of speech

    As if Putin, and thereby extension Russia, knows what freedom of speech is.

    If Russia is so worried about freedom of speech then perhaps they should start at home by allowing all those opposition and independent news organizations they keep investigating and shutting down to reopen. Lead by example.

    The same would go for the Tartar news and radio organizations they've shut down since they've taken over Crimea from Ukraine rat
  • by bytesex ( 112972 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @02:15PM (#53093707) Homepage
    • by JustNiz ( 692889 )

      No.. the UK Government are not denying involvement, only the UK Treasury are. Not the same thing at all.

      • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        Its deep in the text of "RT: NatWest to close Russian channel's UK bank accounts"
        http://www.bbc.com/news/world-... [bbc.com]
        "The UK Treasury said it does not comment on individual cases, but added that no new sanctions or obligations relating to Russia had been imposed on British banks by the government since February 2015."
        Very careful wording.
        The UK wording gets even more interesting in
        "NatWest decision over Russia's RT is matter for bank -UK PM spokeswoman" (Oct 17, 2016)
        http://www.reuters.com/article.. [reuters.com]
        • by jeremyp ( 130771 )

          OK I guess it is possible that the Nat West Bank was gently reminded by the British government as to what the rules are.

  • by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @02:24PM (#53093781)

    I can't help wondering if there is more to this. For some reason, I get a bunch of Russia Today articles in my news feed. It's interesting to read their side of things from time to time. Heavily biased and full of pro-Russian propaganda, but I'm smart enough to wade through most of that.

    That said, it's hard to see how any of it is illegal and deserving of being closed down. Is there more to this story that isn't public? Or is this as simple as Britain shutting off RT just to quiet it. I hope there is more to this and not some overly sensitive clod high-up abusing his power.

    • by Shatrat ( 855151 )

      Since it's government owned it's fair game for sanctions related to things like blowing up airliners in Ukraine and civilians in Syria.
      This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the content, although that probably doesn't help.

      • considering ALL sides are guilty of blowing up civilians in Syria does that mean we no longer get any press?
    • by Xest ( 935314 )

      "That said, it's hard to see how any of it is illegal and deserving of being closed down. Is there more to this story that isn't public? Or is this as simple as Britain shutting off RT just to quiet it. I hope there is more to this and not some overly sensitive clod high-up abusing his power."

      On the contrary, it's none of these things. It's a private sector organisation refusing to provide banking services to another private sector organisation.

      Businesses get to choose what other businesses they do business

      • banking/financial services don't/shouldn't have the right to discriminate based on political views and certainly should not be using their power to influence such a thing, that is actually far more scary than the government doing it. Not sure about the UK but many countries require banks to not discriminate based on anything other than financial ability to service debt, operate the account legally etc.
        • by Xest ( 935314 )

          I largely agree with you, but I'm not convinced it's a solveable problem, and you've kind of subconciously noted the problem with enforcing that strictly in your own post - what if someone has strong political views that most people find abhorrent, but the bank has to serve them anyway, but that person is also likely to get them in hot bother because they engage in money laundering, or because they simply cause the bank to take a loss? Can they close the account down?

          If no, then what happens when everyone w

  • Are we far enough along with Brexit that this action doesn't reflect on the EU?
    • The hot air balloon that is Brexit has been heavily inflated, but has not made an inch of progress in measures that matter - legislation, principally. There has been ink spilled by the bucket load, probably only outweighed by the fuming sulphuric acid (a.k.a. vitriol) , but that's always a distraction from inaction.
  • by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @03:01PM (#53094147)

    Before we get into the whole "was the UK gov involved" quagmire, for what reason did the bank state that they froze the accounts? Without evidence, everything is pure speculation.

    • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *
      They gave no reason. RT published the letter on their website earlier. It was a vague corporate form letter saying the accounts would be closed because they no longer wished to provide services.
    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      The letter is "UK bank to close RT accounts, 'long live freedom of speech!' – editor-in-chief" (17 Oct, 2016)
      https://www.rt.com/news/363013... [rt.com]
      Enjoy the freedom to read the text in full :)
  • by Streetlight ( 1102081 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @03:22PM (#53094341) Journal
    I wouldn't be surprised if Wells Fargo might be interested in setting up multiple accounts for Russia Today. They have the infrastructure in place to set up multiple accounts whether you want them or not, though that infrastructure has been sidelined recently.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by aepervius ( 535155 ) on Monday October 17, 2016 @05:20PM (#53095393)
    They were given a two months notice. Whatever the reason. They can still access their assets and move them elsewhere. A PITA, yes, but a far cry from "frozen".
  • This isn't sanctioned by the uk government. It's a bank who, for some reason, has decided they don't to take a risk with Russia Today. There's nothing stopping Russia Today opening another bank account with another bank in the UK.

    To say it's under the control of the uk government is wrong. They bailed this shoddy excuse for a financial institution in the last recession, and would likely sell it up if it ever got worth anything.

    However, RT IS a voice of the Kremlin. They both share those chips on their shoul

Real programmers don't bring brown-bag lunches. If the vending machine doesn't sell it, they don't eat it. Vending machines don't sell quiche.

Working...