This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/30/hsbc-bank-no-muslim-accounts-finsbury-park-mosque

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
HSBC: the bank that likes to say no to Muslim accounts HSBC: the bank that likes to say no to Muslim accounts
(34 minutes later)
It is the “world’s local bank” – or so it tells us. With advertising dominating the departure lounges of international airports, HSBC styles itself as global in reach and personal in service. But recent letters to a number of Muslim organisations and individuals informing them, without any intelligible reason, that the bank no longer wants their business, raises questions about both claims.It is the “world’s local bank” – or so it tells us. With advertising dominating the departure lounges of international airports, HSBC styles itself as global in reach and personal in service. But recent letters to a number of Muslim organisations and individuals informing them, without any intelligible reason, that the bank no longer wants their business, raises questions about both claims.
On 22 July, the Finsbury Park mosque, in north London – of Abu Hamza fame – got a letter out of the blue telling them that the bank was going to close its account because it was no longer within their “risk appetite”, whatever that is supposed to mean. It is “absolutely not based on race or religion” the bank insists, though no reason other than the Orwellian “risk appetite” comment is given for the move and no contact was made by the bank before the letter dropped through the mosque’s letterbox. On 22 July, the Finsbury Park mosque, in north London – of Abu Hamza fame – got a letter out of the blue telling it that the bank was going to close its account because it was no longer within its “risk appetite”, whatever that is supposed to mean. It is “absolutely not based on race or religion” the bank insists, though no reason other than the Orwellian “risk appetite” comment is given for the move and no contact was made by the bank before the letter dropped through the mosque’s letterbox.
Whatever else this is, it is not the behaviour of a cosy local bank, where a concerned manager would invite you in for a little chat if they had any issues. And the mosque was given no opportunity to address the bank’s “risk appetite” concerns, which has led one of the mosque’s trustees to suggest that “the only reason this has happened is because of an Islamophobic campaign targeting Muslim charities in the UK”. This the bank denies. But in the absence of any other credible explanation, it is understandable how the mosque would reach this conclusion. Whatever else this is, it is not the behaviour of a cosy local bank, where a concerned manager would invite you in for a little chat if he had any issues. And the mosque was given no opportunity to address the bank’s “risk appetite” concerns, which has led one of the mosque’s trustees to suggest that “the only reason this has happened is because of an Islamophobic campaign targeting Muslim charities in the UK”. This the bank denies. But in the absence of any other credible explanation, it is understandable how the mosque would reach this conclusion.
Even weirder is a similar letter from HSBC that was sent to Mr Anas Al Tikriti who runs an Islamic thinktank. This time no explanation whatsoever was given. And his wife and two sons – one aged 16, one aged 12 – got a letter too. Whatever the youngest Mr Tikriti has been spending his pocket money on, it’s hard to believe that a small boy falls outside the “risk appetite” of Europe’s largest bank. And especially a bank that was, until recently, perfectly happy with the business of Mexican drug cartels, allowing them to launder their money through HSBC accounts in the Cayman Islands. Not only that, but the same US Senate committee that fined HSBC $1.9bn back in 2012, also questioned the bank’s dodgy links with financial institutions in Saudi Arabia that, they believed, were responsible for funding terrorism. Even weirder is a similar letter from HSBC that was sent to Anas Al Tikriti, who runs an Islamic thinktank. This time no explanation whatsoever was given. His wife and two sons – one aged 16, one aged 12 – got a letter too. Whatever the youngest Mr Tikriti has been spending his pocket money on, it’s hard to believe that a small boy falls outside the “risk appetite” of Europe’s largest bank. And especially a bank that was, until recently, perfectly happy with the business of Mexican drug cartels, allowing them to launder their money through HSBC accounts in the Cayman Islands. Not only that, but the same US Senate committee that fined HSBC $1.9bn in 2012, also questioned the bank’s dodgy links with financial institutions in Saudi Arabia that, they believed, were responsible for funding terrorism.
Perhaps all of this is unconnected, I write with an eyebrow raised. But it certainly seems the bank’s “risk appetite” has indeed changed. So perhaps we can look forward to a new branding campaign with their hallmark juxtaposed images – but this time of a terrorist and a small boy, both quizzically labelled “risk”. Good luck with that one. Perhaps all of this is unconnected, I write with an eyebrow raised. But it certainly seems the bank’s “risk appetite” has indeed changed. So perhaps we can look forward to a new branding campaign with its hallmark juxtaposed images – but this time of a terrorist and a small boy, both quizzically labelled “risk”. Good luck with that one.