And looking back, my points come across far more accusatory than intended. I'll try to clarify on both fronts.
I don't know Jolana from Adam (or Eve, I guess) and have no knowledge of her actions. As such I presume her innocence.
My main point was that
this has nothing to with the bank. Jolana has or had possession of items suspected to be stolen or exploited. Her innocence or guilt should stem from her knowledge at the time of those transactions, not now. She claims to have acted in good faith, and without contrary knowledge I will take her word - it is not my job to judge. I find the story curious, and I am not the only one.
The nature of her investment is completely beside the point, as this investigation must stem from her actions as an individual. I was only trying to make the point that all the talk in this thread about banks and bank procedure is moot.
My other point was that
Jolana says she did contact MA promptly, and MA responded periodically even though they had nothing to tell her. In light of everyone who said she behaved strangely by not doing anything, or that MA just ignored her, neither of those claims seem to be true.
The fact remains that regardless of what MA did or didn't tell her, she seems to know quite well that her involvement with these items is the cause of her being part of this investigation, fairly or not. If she is telling the truth she should be cleared, and I agree, the sooner the better. If the truth lies elsewhere, then that is another matter.
To expect MA to put forth any details of an investigation to a party to that investigation, let alone publicly, seems wrong to me, and so I don't find that surprising in the least. Obviously that is a point of disagreement for many.
Miles