Standchart eSaver

[demoforce1]

Yeah, SCB control is the most troublesome. Lock you out of online banking and ask you to contact them. When you call them, the operator can only note down and ask you to wait for their call with no timeline given.

OCBC block the transfer and call you to verify within 15mins. Pretty good.

DBS will hold the transfer and only release it 24hrs later if you don't call them to cancel the transfer.

So far, these are my encounters.

HSBC will call in 1-2 hrs

 

[tweeety]

is hsbc ega better rate now if i have wealth status?

 

[bruiser69]

OCBC blocked my transfer today .... a popup message indicate "for security reasons blah blah blah .... indicate will notify via call or push notifications within 6 hours when the review is completed"

You can expedite it by calling CSO - answer a few questions and the CSO will help notify the fraud team and OCBC will release the funds within 30 mins after the call

Mine was blocked by DBS. Transfer to Cimb. DBS indicated in the sms that for security they review blah blah blah and if you don't call them to flag as suspicious then the funds will be released 24 hours later

 

[Godeau]

Mine was blocked by DBS. Transfer to Cimb. DBS indicated in the sms that for security they review blah blah blah and if you don't call them to flag as suspicious then the funds will be released 24 hours later

I think this new protocol is really dumb; especially if transferring to a known(saved) recipient and it gets put on hold

 

[AST781]

I think this new protocol is really dumb; especially if transferring to a known(saved) recipient and it gets put on hold

That's what I said - that its an existing payee (myself) whom Im transferring too and there's a history of transferring to this payee's account b4. They (DBS / Stand Chart) could only tell me its MAS algorithm, whatever that means zzzz.

 

[sglandscape]

Mine was blocked by DBS. Transfer to Cimb. DBS indicated in the sms that for security they review blah blah blah and if you don't call them to flag as suspicious then the funds will be released 24 hours later

You call them can release within 2 hours. But yes, one extra step and navigating through the phone banking menu is a real pain.

 

[sesame246]

That's what I said - that its an existing payee (myself) whom Im transferring too and there's a history of transferring to this payee's account b4. They (DBS / Stand Chart) could only tell me its MAS algorithm, whatever that means zzzz.

In July, my funds were put on hold twice by DBS when I attempted to transfer proceeds from matured T-bills. I was particularly frustrated the second time, which happened just two weeks after the first.

I had already explained my situation during the first incident and had expected the bank to review the transactions more thoughtfully. There must be a set of clear criteria for such holds.

In my case:

1. The inflow was clearly from matured T-bills.
2. The transfer was to my own account at another bank, which is already listed under my favourite payees.

Given these facts, the bank should be able to recognize this as a low-risk, routine transaction. It would make sense for DBS to review a customer’s transaction history before imposing such restrictions, rather than applying them arbitrarily.
Furthermore, the customer service officers I spoke with were unable to explain the rationale or process behind these holds, which added to the frustration.
pective.

 

[sglandscape]

In July, my funds were put on hold twice by DBS when I attempted to transfer proceeds from matured T-bills. I was particularly frustrated the second time, which happened just two weeks after the first.

I had already explained my situation during the first incident and had expected the bank to review the transactions more thoughtfully. There must be a set of clear criteria for such holds.

In my case:

1. The inflow was clearly from matured T-bills.
2. The transfer was to my own account at another bank, which is already listed under my favourite payees.

Given these facts, the bank should be able to recognize this as a low-risk, routine transaction. It would make sense for DBS to review a customer’s transaction history before imposing such restrictions, rather than applying them arbitrarily.
Furthermore, the customer service officers I spoke with were unable to explain the rationale or process behind these holds, which added to the frustration.
pective.

Very similar situation to you, but kudos to the customer service officer for being able to expedite it, only issue is having to spend a good 15-20 minutes to make that call, urgh, for what would have otherwise be routine.

 

[fr33d0m]

In July, my funds were put on hold twice by DBS when I attempted to transfer proceeds from matured T-bills. I was particularly frustrated the second time, which happened just two weeks after the first.

I had already explained my situation during the first incident and had expected the bank to review the transactions more thoughtfully. There must be a set of clear criteria for such holds.

In my case:

1. The inflow was clearly from matured T-bills.
2. The transfer was to my own account at another bank, which is already listed under my favourite payees.

Given these facts, the bank should be able to recognize this as a low-risk, routine transaction. It would make sense for DBS to review a customer’s transaction history before imposing such restrictions, rather than applying them arbitrarily.
Furthermore, the customer service officers I spoke with were unable to explain the rationale or process behind these holds, which added to the frustration.
pective.

do you arbitrarily or consistently?

for your case, is it arbitrary?

 

[CrashWire]

In July, my funds were put on hold twice by DBS when I attempted to transfer proceeds from matured T-bills. I was particularly frustrated the second time, which happened just two weeks after the first.

I had already explained my situation during the first incident and had expected the bank to review the transactions more thoughtfully. There must be a set of clear criteria for such holds.

In my case:

1. The inflow was clearly from matured T-bills.
2. The transfer was to my own account at another bank, which is already listed under my favourite payees.

Given these facts, the bank should be able to recognize this as a low-risk, routine transaction. It would make sense for DBS to review a customer’s transaction history before imposing such restrictions, rather than applying them arbitrarily.
Furthermore, the customer service officers I spoke with were unable to explain the rationale or process behind these holds, which added to the frustration.
pective.

I have no idea why banks cannot implement something to check the name of the FAST payee.

If the name matches, they should just allow those transfers to go through.

MAS and ABS should be ashamed.

 

[fr33d0m]

I have no idea why banks cannot implement something to check the name of the FAST payee.

If the name matches, they should just allow those transfers to go through.

MAS and ABS should be ashamed.

hello.

how could 1 bank know the name of the customer of account from another bank? We got privacy, okay?

 

[vsvs24]

From the questions asked, banks are not just verifying that the transaction is done by us.

They also verifying if we did it under influence of scammers eg I was asked did someone ask you to do the transfer, did any one claiming to be government official contact you, what is the purpose of the funds etc.

 

[Mickey01]

From the questions asked, banks are not just verifying that the transaction is done by us.

They also verifying if we did it under influence of scammers eg I was asked did someone ask you to do the transfer, did any one claiming to be government official contact you, what is the purpose of the funds etc.

yes .... the questions asked seems to be a set of std questions (by MAS?? Association of Banks??) to determine if we are transferring the funds under influence of someone or scammers). And i think it is recorded to be used as evidence (if the customer answer those questions untruly and the transfers was really a scam and the bank will not share responsibility for compensation).

 

[sesame246]

do you arbitrarily or consistently?

for your case, is it arbitrary?

i always deposit funds into DBS to buy Tbills and transferred out when matured

 

[sesame246]

This is my 1st encounter with DBS.

I agree that this is a good initiative to prevent scams. However, banks should apply clear and well-defined logic before placing transactions on hold, esp when the payee is already on the account holder’s favorite list, where the risk is typically much lower.

A 24-hour hold seems excessive, what if the account holder urgently needs access to their funds? Also, very often at the start of the month, customers move money between accounts to take advantage of new promotions.
thankfully, I transferred funds out of my SC account on 1st Aug without any issues.

 

[hwarzoner]

uob block my 200k transfer to my another bank took few days to settle lol

 

[twosix]

Nowadays banks probably using AI to determine if the fund transfer is suspicious or not. Certain banks (non local banks) can take days to freeze and verify before releasing the funds. So if local banks take few hrs to 24hrs, this is very fast already.

 

[AST781]

I have no idea why banks cannot implement something to check the name of the FAST payee.

If the name matches, they should just allow those transfers to go through.

MAS and ABS should be ashamed.

I did ask this and the CSO mentioned there were cases whereby scammers were in control of the payee's accounts even though its in the name of the person transferring.

 

[fr33d0m]

yes .... the questions asked seems to be a set of std questions (by MAS?? Association of Banks??) to determine if we are transferring the funds under influence of someone or scammers). And i think it is recorded to be used as evidence (if the customer answer those questions untruly and the transfers was really a scam and the bank will not share responsibility for compensation).

bingo. This is to protect the banks from potential liabilities, too.

 

[fr33d0m]

This is my 1st encounter with DBS.

I agree that this is a good initiative to prevent scams. However, banks should apply clear and well-defined logic before placing transactions on hold, esp when the payee is already on the account holder’s favorite list, where the risk is typically much lower.

A 24-hour hold seems excessive, what if the account holder urgently needs access to their funds? Also, very often at the start of the month, customers move money between accounts to take advantage of new promotions.
thankfully, I transferred funds out of my SC account on 1st Aug without any issues.

SC may not appreciate it when you use it as an example.