> Lloyds has not explained why it has taken this action… despite multiple communications from us

Because you've tripped an AML flag you unbearable dweebs, this happens a thousand times every week and the story is always the same, tipping off rules actively prevent notification. But of course the reason must be political, because that's the only story that will drive traffic to an otherwise unknown outlet

What’s new is banks coordinating to prevent someone who has been de-banked from being re-banked, as discussed in TFA. Oh, and that this was a journalistic outlet that was de-banked; possibly not an AML case based on the UK’s recent targeting of activists.

> that's the only story that will drive traffic to an otherwise unknown outlet

Naked Capitalism (the blog where this is published) has been around since before the GFC and is actually quite well-known among those who read, especially for its coverage of financial shenanigans. The economist Michael Hudson often comments there, and they sometimes republish his work. They are highly critical of the hyperfinancialization that’s taken over the economy, but despite this bias they often have a clearer view of what’s happening than the subservient and often manipulative financial press.

Why shouldn't they get an explanation?

> Because you've tripped an AML flag

So now that I randomly tripped some "flag" of some obscure algorithm, my innocence doesn't matter anymore and actions taken against me (without compensation) are automatically justified?

We should be ok with that just because this is how it works?

These cases sound closer to sanctions than AML but in either case there needs to be due process.

Unknown to you perhaps.