Proportionality in CIFAS marker removal means that the action taken must be balanced against the seriousness of the conduct. In the context of CIFAS:
- A marker should only be applied if it is a necessary and proportionate response to proven fraudulent behaviour.
- Innocent mistakes, minor breaches, or coerced actions should not result in six years of exclusion.
This requirement comes from:
- CIFAS Principle 5: Fairness and Proportionality – members must interpret and use data in a proportionate manner.
- UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018 – processing personal data must be fair and not excessive.
- Court decisions such as R v Andrewes [2022] UKSC 24, which emphasised that penalties for dishonesty must not go beyond what is necessary.
Why Proportionality Matters #
CIFAS markers are not criminal convictions, but their effect can be just as damaging. They can:
- Prevent you from accessing basic financial services.
- Restrict your ability to work in regulated industries.
- Create long-term reputational harm.
Given these impacts, proportionality ensures that markers are not applied in a way that punishes people more harshly than the evidence justifies.
Examples of Disproportionate Markers #
- A student who allows their account to be used once for a small fraudulent transfer, yet faces six years of financial exclusion.
- A customer who provides incorrect documents by mistake, with no evidence of dishonesty.
- An individual coerced into misuse of their account, where intent to commit fraud is absent.
In all of these scenarios, proportionality arguments may justify early removal.
How to Use Proportionality in Challenges #
When challenging a marker, you can argue that:
- The alleged conduct did not justify a six-year marker.
- The impact on your financial and personal life is excessive compared to the evidence.
- The bank or member failed to balance fraud prevention with fairness to you.
This can be raised in:
- Complaints to the bank.
- CIFAS internal reviews.
- Ombudsman escalations.
- Court proceedings as a ground for judicial review or injunction.
Key Takeaway #
Proportionality is one of the strongest arguments for removing a CIFAS marker. If the evidence is weak, or the impact is excessive compared to the conduct, you have the right to challenge the marker and demand fair treatment.
