NIGEL Farage’s former bank closed his account because he fell below the financial threshold required to maintain it, according to people familiar with the matter.
BBC journalist Simon Jack reported that Coutts – the prestigious bank of which Farage was formerly a customer – did not close the GB News presenter’s account because of political prejudice but “for commercial reasons” relating to the amount of money Farage was borrowing or saving.
Coutts requires customers to invest or borrow £1 million with the bank or hold £3 million in savings to be eligible for a current account.
An insider also told the BBC Farage was offered an account with Natwest - which also owns Coutts – but that the offer has yet to be accepted.
Nigel Farage fell below the financial threshold required to hold an account at Coutts, the prestigious private bank for wealthy customers the BBC has been told.
— Simon Jack (@BBCSimonJack) July 4, 2023
It also understood that he was offered a normal account at Natwest which owns Coutts.
People familiar....
This comes despite Farage insisting that the decision to close his account – and his apparent inability to open a new one with a different UK bank – is down to political prejudice and rules concerning Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs).
PEPs are defined as individuals who undertake a “prominent public function” and are therefore considered high-risk by financial institutions.
As such, PEPs are subject to additional anti-money laundering measures which, in theory, could result in their accounts being closed.
READ MORE: Scottish Greens to speak at anti-monarchy rally – enraging Tories
It comes after security minister Tom Tugendhat said it was “completely unacceptable” for banks to close the accounts of controversial political figures because of their views.
“PEP is there to prevent the corrupt use of banking facilities by politicians in corrupt regimes,” said Tugendhat. “It is not here to silence individuals who may hold views with which we may or may not agree.
“Such a closure on political grounds, if that is indeed what has happened – after all, we have only the allegation of it at this point – should, therefore, be completely unacceptable.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel