4 ms·

The cost and risk banks take to ensure that US citizens comply with US law is absurdly draconian. It is massively safer for a bank to simply deny participation

The cost and risk banks take to ensure that US citizens comply with US law is absurdly draconian. It is massively safer for a bank to simply deny participation than to risk fines and expulsion from the global financial system that would effectively cripple it. Banks and other businesses globally are forced to become extensions of the US government without receiving funding to do so. This is economic warfare. The United States is a great place and the people are amazing (as people have been everywhere I've travelled), but the institutions have essentially enslaved the population and strong-armed the rest of the world. Thankfully, it ends soon with internal reform or collapse under its own paranoia and resource-intensive policing. I'm expecting this within a decade and am hopeful that it is the former.

throwaway676890 8y ago
Do you have any details about this? My impression was that the Pakistani government felt that requiring US based people to report details of foreign accounts was a way to gather intelligence about other countries, and they didn't want to give them a way to do it. I did not think it was that Pakistani banks themselves had any reporting requirements to the US.
- eesmith 8y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/sep/24/americans-chased-by-irs-give-up-citizenship-after-being-forced-out-of-bank-accounts https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/sep/24/americans-chas... > The Foreign Accounts Taxation Compliance Act required all foreign banks to disclose the financial information of any American with assets over $50,000 sitting in banks outside of the US. > Steep penalties add muscle to the law. If a foreign bank – not just in Canada, but anywhere – fails to report even a single US citizen as a customer to the IRS, the US Treasury department would withhold 30% of the banks’ US income as penalty.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    I actually work in this field, and I interact with banks regularly. The FATCA requirements are actually quite simple, and the theoretical penalties are just that--theoretical. As a practical matter, the FATCA US customer report is satisfied by a relative spartan list of names, tax ids, account numbers, and balances. In other words, something a simple report should be able to generate in about .000001 seconds. If a bank can't handle that type of compliance, you should take your money elsewhere because it indicates serious internal control issues.
    - eesmith 8y ago
      Your answer seems to be that "yes, banks and other businesses globally are forced to become extensions of the US government without receiving funding to do so" (quoting miscreanity) and "Pakistani banks themselves [have] reporting requirements to the US" (quoting throwaway676980) ... so long as they have an account in the US (my link). I believe that includes Swift accounts? I don't think they are really asking about the ease by which a bank should be able to generate that report, but rather the necessity to do so.
  - throwaway676890 8y ago
    The article is informative. It seems the requirements are only for banks that have a presence in the US. I'm not sure if the bank I went to has a presence in the US. But I can see the Pakistani government simply giving a blanket "No".
    - eesmith 8y ago
      Many banks have SWIFT accounts (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Worldwide_Interbank_Financial_Telecommunication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Worldwide_Interban... ). This has been used by the US for purposes that other countries disagree with. As a result, and quoting from that URL: > In September 2018 the European Union foreign policy head, Federica Mogherini, proposed the development of a new "special purpose financial vehicle" intended to bypass the U.S. controlled Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication payments system - commonly known as SWIFT. The seven founding members of this new system are to be Iran, the European Commission, Germany, France, the U.K., Russia and China - but not the United States. Web sites like http://non-fatca-banks.com/pk.html http://non-fatca-banks.com/pk.html list which banks are members of SWIFT, because that means they are exposed to penalties should they fail to follow FACTA reporting laws. For example, the National Bank of Pakistan followed FACTA, see https://www.nbp.com.pk/fatca/index.aspx https://www.nbp.com.pk/fatca/index.aspx .

throwaway676890 8y ago

Do you have any details about this? My impression was that the Pakistani government felt that requiring US based people to report details of foreign accounts was a way to gather intelligence about other countries, and they didn't want to give them a way to do it. I did not think it was that Pakistani banks themselves had any reporting requirements to the US.

eesmith 8y ago
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/sep/24/americans-chased-by-irs-give-up-citizenship-after-being-forced-out-of-bank-accounts https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/sep/24/americans-chas... > The Foreign Accounts Taxation Compliance Act required all foreign banks to disclose the financial information of any American with assets over $50,000 sitting in banks outside of the US. > Steep penalties add muscle to the law. If a foreign bank – not just in Canada, but anywhere – fails to report even a single US citizen as a customer to the IRS, the US Treasury department would withhold 30% of the banks’ US income as penalty.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  I actually work in this field, and I interact with banks regularly. The FATCA requirements are actually quite simple, and the theoretical penalties are just that--theoretical. As a practical matter, the FATCA US customer report is satisfied by a relative spartan list of names, tax ids, account numbers, and balances. In other words, something a simple report should be able to generate in about .000001 seconds. If a bank can't handle that type of compliance, you should take your money elsewhere because it indicates serious internal control issues.
  - eesmith 8y ago
    Your answer seems to be that "yes, banks and other businesses globally are forced to become extensions of the US government without receiving funding to do so" (quoting miscreanity) and "Pakistani banks themselves [have] reporting requirements to the US" (quoting throwaway676980) ... so long as they have an account in the US (my link). I believe that includes Swift accounts? I don't think they are really asking about the ease by which a bank should be able to generate that report, but rather the necessity to do so.
- throwaway676890 8y ago
  The article is informative. It seems the requirements are only for banks that have a presence in the US. I'm not sure if the bank I went to has a presence in the US. But I can see the Pakistani government simply giving a blanket "No".
  - eesmith 8y ago
    Many banks have SWIFT accounts (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Worldwide_Interbank_Financial_Telecommunication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Worldwide_Interban... ). This has been used by the US for purposes that other countries disagree with. As a result, and quoting from that URL: > In September 2018 the European Union foreign policy head, Federica Mogherini, proposed the development of a new "special purpose financial vehicle" intended to bypass the U.S. controlled Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication payments system - commonly known as SWIFT. The seven founding members of this new system are to be Iran, the European Commission, Germany, France, the U.K., Russia and China - but not the United States. Web sites like http://non-fatca-banks.com/pk.html http://non-fatca-banks.com/pk.html list which banks are members of SWIFT, because that means they are exposed to penalties should they fail to follow FACTA reporting laws. For example, the National Bank of Pakistan followed FACTA, see https://www.nbp.com.pk/fatca/index.aspx https://www.nbp.com.pk/fatca/index.aspx .