A lawyer has earned the right to see suspicious activity reports (SARs) that his bank made to the National Crime Agency (NCA) about the money received in his accounts.
He had seven accounts (one of which was a personal account, while the rest was related to property activities, two of which were joint accounts). In March of 2017, his bank froze one of the joint accounts for eight days while performing a SAR to the NCA, and then, in December of 2017, he froze them while producing more SAR.
The bank then gave the lawyer a notice that he was closing his accounts and he issued a process for breach of contract, breach of the Data Protection Act of 1998 and defamation.
In the request in court, the lawyer wanted to inspect the SARs mentioned in the bank’s defense and in the lawyer’s statement.
He also requested the disclosure of personal information in accordance with the 1998 Law and the summary judgment on the breach of the contract claim. The bank requested that the entire claim be crossed out or for a summary judgment.
The July decision was only published this week and the case has already been resolved, ruling that the lawyer should be inspected of the documents that had been mentioned in the defense and the statement.
The assistant judge of the Superior Court also found that bank filings that an order may require him to commit a crime of forgery under the 2002 Proceedings of the Crime Act were not supported by any evidence.
See the press release by Neil Rose here.