Standard Bank Holding Our Business Funds Hostage

Second Review: Standard Bank Holding Our Business Funds Hostage

After my first review, I received the usual automated message assuring me that I am “important” and that someone would get back to me. Eventually, I did receive a phone call. The representative admitted that if he were in my position, he would also be upset, and acknowledged that Standard Bank’s process does not work for businesses like ours.

For clarity, here is the issue: Standard Bank’s process to release business funds after closing an account requires them to phone directors, shareholders, and account signatories for verification. This is impractical. Our directors and signatories are busy professionals, often working in Africa or on mines, where taking calls from unrecognised numbers at arbitrary times is unsafe or impossible.

We have already:

Submitted a signed letter on company letterhead confirming the board’s decision to change bankers and close the account.

Copied all signatories in the email, who again confirmed this decision.

Provided a bank letter from our new institution (FNB) showing the company name and registration number, which matches Standard Bank’s records exactly.

Despite this, Standard Bank insists they cannot release funds without phone confirmation. This is inconsistent: when payments were released in the past, verification was done via email by our personal banker and we have emails as proof, and we were charged R500 for that service. Now, they refuse to close the account unless our signatories are available for calls at times that suit the bank.

Meanwhile, Standard Bank continues to deduct monthly bank charges from an account we cannot access. They say these charges can be “written back” if requested, but this is not ethical. We no longer have access to Business Online, and the only monthly activity is the deduction of fees.

This i how I understand legislation inputs for min requirements to close a bank account in RSA: Written Instruction: Banks require a formal written request (on company letterhead or via official forms) signed by the authorised signatories or directors.

DONE

Zero Balance: The account must be cleared — overdrafts settled, debit orders migrated, and remaining funds transferred to the new account. DONE ACCEPT FOR OUR BALANCE

Verification of Authority: Banks must verify that the individuals requesting closure are duly authorised. This usually means directors or signatories listed on the mandate. DONE they have it on file

Supporting Documents:

Board resolution or signed letter confirming the decision to close the account.

DONE

Proof of the new account (bank confirmation letter with company name and registration number).

DONE

Updated company details if anything has changed.

It did not change so

DONE

Closure Confirmation: Banks must issue written confirmation that the account is closed with a zero balance. This protects against ongoing fees or disputes.

NOT DONE BY STANDARD BANK.

In summary:

Our money is being withheld despite full compliance with closure requirements. As per the bank legislation, maybe not their procurers but certainly we are inline with banking laws for due diligence on closing a account.

Verification demands are impractical and unsafe for our directors.

Charges continue to be deducted from an account we cannot use.

Standard Bank’s process is inconsistent with their own past practices.

This is not ethical banking. I urge small and medium‑sized businesses: do not open accounts with Standard Bank. Do not be misled by their sponsored programmes about consumer fairness — they do not practice it themselves.