"I'm a banking consultant, not an economist. I don't normally believe in conspiracy theories. But when I see regular bank customers in major American and British institutions facing restrictions and unnecessary delays when withdrawing $2,000, I fear that something is amiss." So says Peter Macfarlane, The Q Wealth Report's non-resident banking expert, in this article which should concern all clients of all banks around the world.

As I said, I'm not an economist. So let's keep it simple. My understanding is that everybody benefits from velocity of money in circulation. The quicker people get their money, the quicker they spend it, and the whole economy benefits.

So new policies put into place in the last few months to reduce the velocity of withdrawals suggest that the whole fiat-based banking system is much more fragile than the powers-that-be would have us believe. Increasing desperation on the part of banks? We shall see.

News of a major US bank putting in place limits on wire transfers in and out, and the first run on a bank in the UK in more than a hundred years, recently encouraged me to investigate this a little more on behalf of my clients.

Anecdotes of banks trying to avoid paying out withdrawals have become increasingly common in recent times. Before paying out significant withdrawals, banks are increasingly asking for documentation about the purpose of the transfer such as copies of contracts, invoices etc. Even if you do have such documents in hand, the result is usually that the bank has a day or two longer to play with your money while they investigate. If you don't, it could take weeks.

Of course, all this is done in the name of preventing money laundering. If the banks find money that might be tainted, they are generally delighted to "freeze" the account and ask for a mountain of paperwork which is almost impossible to provide.

But the change we've seen in the last few months is banks putting specific policies in place to delay paying out withdrawals to millions of small account holders. Money laundering doesn't work as an excuse in these cases, so "online safety" is being wheeled out instead. Some are suggesting that this more systematic approach to stopping people getting at their money is a sign of further weaknesses in the system.

Here are some concrete examples of what I'm talking about:

• An investigation by the Guardian newspaper in the UK revealed an extraordinary move back in time to paper cheques by Abbey National, part of the Spanish Santander group (slogan: "The Value of Ideas"). Whereas withdrawals from Abbey's savings accounts used to be permitted by bank-to-bank transfer or by picking up a cheque in any convenient branch, in the name of "security and fraud policies", the only way they now allow withdrawals is by cheque - sent by second-class post, which, for a few pennies less takes 3-5 days longer than first class. APACS (the banking industry's association for payments, of which Abbey is a member) called the move "bonkers" and "barking mad", as general policy is to discourage use of cheques and encourage electronic transfers which are much safer and more efficient (in other words, people get their money quicker!) The Guardian investigation told the story of a customer infuriated at having to wait well over a week for his $100,000 withdrawal to arrive by second class post, then having to wait a few more days for his cheque to clear after that.

• Gold guru Jim Sinclair (www.jsmineset.com) recently drew my attention to new limits placed by Citibank on their account holders transferring funds between their own accounts in other banks:

• Other, smaller US banks also have such limits in place. One is California-based Tomato Bank, which specialises in bank accounts for non-US residents who want access to services such as Paypal. (They find it hard to get bank accounts in the US at all these days, so they are obviously regarded as fair game for all kinds of extra limits and regulations.) Their current account for aliens has a limit on outgoing wire transfers as follows: "Up to $1500.00 per transfer with a total $10,000 per month in outgoing wire transfers." If in exceptional circumstances they allow account holders to withdraw more of their money, the charge is: "Wire Transfer fee OVER $1500.00 (see note below) $45.00 +2.5%". Source: https://www.accentbanking.com/fees-and-limits.html

Just a few years ago nobody would have thought about accounts having limits on wire transfers as part of the terms and conditions. Now it is becoming increasingly the norm.

Perhaps not coincidentally, all this comes soon after the run on Northern Rock, a bank in the UK which was apparently overly exposed to short term money market financing, and had to be bailed out by the British government.

The Northern Rock fiasco was the first run on a British bank in 140 years. Queues outside Northern Rock branches stretched around blocks, and according to the tabloid press, police were called to intervene in Golders Green, North London, after vicious handbag attacks by elderly ladies grappling for better positions in the queue.

The money leaving Northern Rock in cash, however, was insignificant in the grander scheme of things. What has bankers really scared was the online bank run.

Apparently a relatively small bailout from the Bank of England was necessary late on the afternoon of Thursday September 13th and news somehow reached the internet. By the time Northern Rock branches opened and people awoke to the news reports on the mainstream breakfast TV on the Friday morning, almost £350 million pounds ($700 million US dollars) had already been withdrawn via online banking. Around then, the servers hosting the online banking mysteriously crashed.

So, let's ask ourselves, for whose security are these new withdrawal policies, and who might really be committing fraud? Be prepared to see more of this in future.


What solutions does The Q Wealth Report propose?

I say: diversify, diversify and diversify. Keep your money in different currencies, in different banks, in different countries! I advise my personal consulting clients to work with a number of different, very solid and very reputable offshore banks, mostly in stable European or Caribbean nations. I frequently analyze the financials of these banks, watch their investment strategies, and fly around the world keeping my ear to the ground.

We foresaw, in early 2007, the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the US. One of the investments we recommended was gold, a traditional hedge against instability - readers who followed our advice not only protected their assets against inflation, but made a healthy profit to boot!

As for banks, there are various strategies that can be applied to decide what banks are safer than others. Ironically, money in offshore branches of major onshore banks might often be safer than deposits at onshore branches, as banks and governments have strong political and public relations reasons to develop a pecking order in priority for payouts in case of any financial difficulties. By applying the strategies I write about in The Q Wealth Report, you will be able to ensure you are right at the top of the pecking order, with your deposits guaranteed by underlying assets and by financially-healthy governments.

Another important strategy, of course, might be to keep your money secure from creditors or potential creditors. Hungry contingency fee lawyers are attracted by fat bank accounts visible to all in onshore countries. In The Q Wealth Report, I regularly tell members of little-known strategies for moving money discreetly to an offshore home where it can never, ever be found. Frequently, this account will not be held in your name, but you can maintain full control through the use of Trusts, Foundations and Corporate Structures.

The Q Wealth Report - subscribe today for impartial information and solutions-related offshore and private banking, and benefit from immediate access to the online archives for many more articles on offshore banking.