4 ms·

Hey. Jason Goldberg here. Do I think Citibank or Citigroup is a homophobic malicious company? No. Do I think some compliance officer is a moron who made a

Hey. Jason Goldberg here. Do I think Citibank or Citigroup is a homophobic malicious company? No. Do I think some compliance officer is a moron who made a really stupid decision? Yes. Three hours of trying to sort this out provided even more comedic insanity than I even revealed on the blog post. Including a bank manager who didn't want to talk about this because she was uncomfortable talking about the content of our blog over a recorded phone conversation. Oh, and we've learned that the account was marked to be a cancelled by said compliance officer for this "objectionable content." wtf. All we know so far is that we finally got someone to lift the block on the account, but that the best she could promise is another review of the situation today. insanity.

ohashi 17y ago
Why is a bank even looking at your content out of curiosity? Should it matter unless you're violating the law (and presumably a judge can tell them to freeze/cancel your accounts at that point)?
- InclinedPlane 17y ago
  Just speculating, could be related to the "know your customer" laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer
- betashop 17y ago
  Right? I'm told that irbid standard practice for a compliance officer to review new business acccounts shortly after they are opened. This individual clearly had dome bad judgement.
- betashop 17y ago
  Right? I'm told that irbid standard practice for a compliance officer to review new business acccounts shortly after they are opened. This individual clearly had some bad judgement.
  - rubyrescue 17y ago
    I started opening an account with HSBC in the states last month and they were noticeably wary until they saw a web page for my company - the Patriot act was specifically mentioned - it seems that the due diligence requirements for new accounts is very high.
    - theBobMcCormick 17y ago
      That's an odd thing for them to look for. Almost any dufus with FrontPage,etc. could put up a reasonably businessy looking website. I don't expect bankers to be internet experts, but I would think they'd realize that the presence of a website isn't much of a proof of legitimacy. As an interesting counter-anecdote, I recently opened a business account with TCF bank. We definitely didn't have our website up (not sure we'd even registered a domain name at that point). TCF didn't seem to have any interest in our web site, they just wanted our federally issued EIN and a copy of our business registration with the state (in our case, Articles of Organization for an LLC.). IMHO, those seem like sensible documents for them to request. A website? Not so much.
      - rubyrescue 17y ago
        Agreed, but most bankers aren't paid to think anymore. I had those other documents in hand as well... but, show the website... whatever works. Perhaps there is a secret thrill in being a banker who may one day catch a Patriot Act violator, or even a $200 bonus?
- wheels 17y ago
  Perhaps they were getting a merchant account as well? When we got our merchant account they had a checklist of things they had to check out on the site to make sure we were inline with Visa / Mastercard requirements. Though, it's still mind boggling how the leap could be made from, you know, mentioning gay folks to ... I don't even know ... treating it as porn? The blog is totally tame. The only thing I can think maybe happened is that they hit the home page, and then falsely referred to it as "the blog". The wording on the home page is sparse and ambiguous enough that it could be misconstrued (especially if we're already talking about someone who fears teh gays) as being a hook-up site. That said, I hope Jason and crew ride this one for all it's worth; it's like the perfect storm for generating buzz pre-launch. :-)
rue 17y ago
Thanks for popping in. Something does not add up at all, and I would be inclined to think at the bank's end. Which type of an account, checking/savings/loan/? Were they closing it, closing a card, freezing it? A bank manager/supervisor should be bending over backwards to rectify the situation if one of their employees has been stupid enough to close an account over a personal moral issue. As we all probably know, a bank can terminate an account at any time for any reason - except as laws (such as anti-discrimination and the various banking regulations) otherwise dictate. The bank must first explain whether the closure is, in their view, lawful and complying with their own regulations. If they maintain this is the case, they must explain to you the criteria for "objectionable content" and why presence of such a non-banking-related issue is considered grounds for termination, and why it is not discriminatory (e.g. if the issue is something like a non-profit account for a for-profit company.) If they acknowledge it was an error, YMMV but I personally would like to be briefed on how they address the issue, both with the employee in question and ensuring something similar does not occur in the future; preferrably by a senior VP. It is that severe.
- Lazlo_Nibble 17y ago
  I have no information specific to Citi but I doubt very much that any bank manager/supervisor is in a position to do anything about a decision made by the Compliance office. Compliance is a big gorilla in a financial services org -- they're responsible for keeping the company out of legal trouble. That includes making sure SarbOx, the Patriot Act and other regulations are followed to the letter. Most of the rules they enforce have significant financial/legal consequences so their decisions get a lot of deference. And the nature of compliance actions, which are often triggered by things like suspected money laundering or fraud, means front-line employees are unlikely to have any detailed information about the reasoning behind them, beyond a brief note on the account from the compliance office, which reveals no more than the barest minimum of information (the folks Fabulis talked to were probably all giving the same response because they were probably all reading the same compliance-office note on the account). All of this makes a lot of operational sense -- missing a legitimate compliance violation costs the firm more than cleaning up after the occasional false positive, as long as those false positives stay occasional. But the downside is that one stupid decision by one stupid employee in the compliance office can take some serious effort to unravel. The legit complaints have to bubble up through all the deadbeat dads bitching about having their child support payments garnished...
rms 17y ago
This is crazy enough that a supervisor will probably fix it instantly once business hours start, but on the (~15%?) chance that they don't fix it, you might want to record the call and announce that you are recording it.
webwright 17y ago
Good and even-tempered response, JG. Nothing is sadder to me than an internet mob with torches and pitchforks attacking a company because of the actions of one stupid individual (or even a few). My guess (and hope!) is that senior folks at Citi come down on these individuals like a ten ton hammer and apologize profusely to you guys. G'luck!

ohashi 17y ago

Why is a bank even looking at your content out of curiosity? Should it matter unless you're violating the law (and presumably a judge can tell them to freeze/cancel your accounts at that point)?

InclinedPlane 17y ago
Just speculating, could be related to the "know your customer" laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer
betashop 17y ago
Right? I'm told that irbid standard practice for a compliance officer to review new business acccounts shortly after they are opened. This individual clearly had dome bad judgement.
betashop 17y ago
Right? I'm told that irbid standard practice for a compliance officer to review new business acccounts shortly after they are opened. This individual clearly had some bad judgement.
- rubyrescue 17y ago
  I started opening an account with HSBC in the states last month and they were noticeably wary until they saw a web page for my company - the Patriot act was specifically mentioned - it seems that the due diligence requirements for new accounts is very high.
  - theBobMcCormick 17y ago
    That's an odd thing for them to look for. Almost any dufus with FrontPage,etc. could put up a reasonably businessy looking website. I don't expect bankers to be internet experts, but I would think they'd realize that the presence of a website isn't much of a proof of legitimacy. As an interesting counter-anecdote, I recently opened a business account with TCF bank. We definitely didn't have our website up (not sure we'd even registered a domain name at that point). TCF didn't seem to have any interest in our web site, they just wanted our federally issued EIN and a copy of our business registration with the state (in our case, Articles of Organization for an LLC.). IMHO, those seem like sensible documents for them to request. A website? Not so much.
    - rubyrescue 17y ago
      Agreed, but most bankers aren't paid to think anymore. I had those other documents in hand as well... but, show the website... whatever works. Perhaps there is a secret thrill in being a banker who may one day catch a Patriot Act violator, or even a $200 bonus?
wheels 17y ago
Perhaps they were getting a merchant account as well? When we got our merchant account they had a checklist of things they had to check out on the site to make sure we were inline with Visa / Mastercard requirements. Though, it's still mind boggling how the leap could be made from, you know, mentioning gay folks to ... I don't even know ... treating it as porn? The blog is totally tame. The only thing I can think maybe happened is that they hit the home page, and then falsely referred to it as "the blog". The wording on the home page is sparse and ambiguous enough that it could be misconstrued (especially if we're already talking about someone who fears teh gays) as being a hook-up site. That said, I hope Jason and crew ride this one for all it's worth; it's like the perfect storm for generating buzz pre-launch. :-)

rue 17y ago

Thanks for popping in. Something does not add up at all, and I would be inclined to think at the bank's end. Which type of an account, checking/savings/loan/? Were they closing it, closing a card, freezing it? A bank manager/supervisor should be bending over backwards to rectify the situation if one of their employees has been stupid enough to close an account over a personal moral issue. As we all probably know, a bank can terminate an account at any time for any reason - except as laws (such as anti-discrimination and the various banking regulations) otherwise dictate. The bank must first explain whether the closure is, in their view, lawful and complying with their own regulations. If they maintain this is the case, they must explain to you the criteria for "objectionable content" and why presence of such a non-banking-related issue is considered grounds for termination, and why it is not discriminatory (e.g. if the issue is something like a non-profit account for a for-profit company.) If they acknowledge it was an error, YMMV but I personally would like to be briefed on how they address the issue, both with the employee in question and ensuring something similar does not occur in the future; preferrably by a senior VP. It is that severe.

Lazlo_Nibble 17y ago
I have no information specific to Citi but I doubt very much that any bank manager/supervisor is in a position to do anything about a decision made by the Compliance office. Compliance is a big gorilla in a financial services org -- they're responsible for keeping the company out of legal trouble. That includes making sure SarbOx, the Patriot Act and other regulations are followed to the letter. Most of the rules they enforce have significant financial/legal consequences so their decisions get a lot of deference. And the nature of compliance actions, which are often triggered by things like suspected money laundering or fraud, means front-line employees are unlikely to have any detailed information about the reasoning behind them, beyond a brief note on the account from the compliance office, which reveals no more than the barest minimum of information (the folks Fabulis talked to were probably all giving the same response because they were probably all reading the same compliance-office note on the account). All of this makes a lot of operational sense -- missing a legitimate compliance violation costs the firm more than cleaning up after the occasional false positive, as long as those false positives stay occasional. But the downside is that one stupid decision by one stupid employee in the compliance office can take some serious effort to unravel. The legit complaints have to bubble up through all the deadbeat dads bitching about having their child support payments garnished...

rms 17y ago

This is crazy enough that a supervisor will probably fix it instantly once business hours start, but on the (~15%?) chance that they don't fix it, you might want to record the call and announce that you are recording it.

webwright 17y ago

Good and even-tempered response, JG. Nothing is sadder to me than an internet mob with torches and pitchforks attacking a company because of the actions of one stupid individual (or even a few). My guess (and hope!) is that senior folks at Citi come down on these individuals like a ten ton hammer and apologize profusely to you guys. G'luck!