3 ms·
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/?
by 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 agoI 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...
- rue 17y agoI did indeed mean the supervisor managing compliance officers, but good info nonetheless!