4 ms·

So a State government, using lawful authority, for taxes owed ordered Chase to hand over your money, and you frame this as Chase "stealing" your money? I'll ack

So a State government, using lawful authority, for taxes owed ordered Chase to hand over your money, and you frame this as Chase "stealing" your money? I'll acknowledge the $150 fee that you ultimately pay is high, maybe even unreasonable, but I feel like your original post was a little disingenuous nonetheless. Your own explanation of events reads like you tried to ignore a tax liability until you gave them no choice but to seize it. If you believed it was erroneous you should have worked with the State of Indiana to resolve the error (or create a payment plan saving $150 in fees).

quaquaqua1 7y ago
It sounds like you aren't considering the possibility that Indiana did not have a legitimate reason to confiscate the money, such as a numerical error on a tax form, which has happened to me.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  I did acknowledge that. That's why I said they should have worked with the State to resolve the error, rather than ignore it until a seizure was required. Seizures are expensive for the state too. If you're working with them on the tax liability (inc. disputing it) they likely aren't going to go the seizure route as a first port of call.
  - quaquaqua1 7y ago
    There are situations where the mail that the State sends does not properly reach the taxpayer. I suppose if they confiscate the funds and then are open to swift resolution of the error, that's not so bad, but I'm surprised they don't choose wage garnishment or some other way of contacting the taxpayer before just "surprise, the money is ours!"
- wbronitsky 7y ago
  In this argument, that point does not matter. OP said that Chase stole money from them. That is not true; banks lawfully complying with government orders is not theft. Banks, or really any private business, do not protect you from the government.
- EpicEng 7y ago
  So... Chase is, in your imaginary world, supposed to refuse a lawful court order because this person claims that they don't actually owe the money? Hey, maybe Chase could even pony up for a legal defense fund! I mean, why wouldn't they?
  - quaquaqua1 7y ago
    When a private company tried to lay a claim to my account, BoA told them to go stuff themselves. I understand that a court of law is different, but that does not mean that the court has acted ethically or logically-- they have only acted officially. If your money was stored non-digitally, it would be a bit more difficult to confiscate, such as if it were in a safe that I privately maintained offsite somewhere.
    - EpicEng 7y ago
      All irrelevant. The GP is bashing Chase for complying with a court order. It's not their place to decide which lawful orders they will follow.
      - quaquaqua1 7y ago
        Out of curiosity, are you also one of those Westerners who also criticizes China for being authoritarian? It's because I'm trying to understand the logic of those who feel like just because an action has been performed by a certain government, it therefore must be logical and ethical 100000% of the time. I could point to examples of times where private organizations defied specific government orders because they felt the order was unjust, but I have a feeling this wouldn't be a sufficient argument for you.
        EpicEng 7y ago
        >Out of curiosity, are you also one of those Westerners who also criticizes China for being authoritarian? Wow. >It's because I'm trying to understand the logic of those who feel like just because an action has been performed by a certain government, it therefore must be logical and ethical 100000% of the time. I literally never said that. Not once in any of these comments. Are you even replying to the right person? >I could point to examples of times where private organizations defied specific government orders because they felt the order was unjust, but I have a feeling this wouldn't be a sufficient argument for you. So, in your mind, Chase should perform their own investigation of this man's taxes before complying with the court order? This is really what you think?
sneak 7y ago
There was no tax liability, no taxes owed. That’s where the “based entirely in fiction” part comes from. States do not have lawful authority to invent nonexistent tax liabilities and seize property in any amount they make up, which is what Indiana attempted here. Chase charged me $150 to rubber-stamp an illegal seizure of my account. They were entrusted with the funds and they seized them on behalf of a third party which had no legitimate claim to them. Sounds like Chase stole my money—and charged me to do it.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  So you're claiming you never lived in Indiana, received no correspondence from the State of Indiana on a potential tax liability, and absolutely no warning that they were planning on seizing your account?
  - sneak 7y ago
    Correct. It was not a lawful order.
- KorematsuFred 7y ago
  I am unable to see why your comments are being downvoted. Even if you owed money I do not see how state can compel your bank to hand over your personal wealth to recover that. They should employ the exact same methods as some other business might use to collect their debt, going to court should be the last step. Thanks for the warning and I will never do any business in state of Indiana.
  - Someone1234 7y ago
    > They should employ the exact same methods as some other business might use to collect their debt, going to court should be the last step. They said above the state had a warrant. So they did what you wanted them to do, went to court, got a warrant and forced the bank via legal edict to hand over the money.
    - 7y ago

quaquaqua1 7y ago

It sounds like you aren't considering the possibility that Indiana did not have a legitimate reason to confiscate the money, such as a numerical error on a tax form, which has happened to me.

Someone1234 7y ago
I did acknowledge that. That's why I said they should have worked with the State to resolve the error, rather than ignore it until a seizure was required. Seizures are expensive for the state too. If you're working with them on the tax liability (inc. disputing it) they likely aren't going to go the seizure route as a first port of call.
- quaquaqua1 7y ago
  There are situations where the mail that the State sends does not properly reach the taxpayer. I suppose if they confiscate the funds and then are open to swift resolution of the error, that's not so bad, but I'm surprised they don't choose wage garnishment or some other way of contacting the taxpayer before just "surprise, the money is ours!"
wbronitsky 7y ago
In this argument, that point does not matter. OP said that Chase stole money from them. That is not true; banks lawfully complying with government orders is not theft. Banks, or really any private business, do not protect you from the government.
EpicEng 7y ago
So... Chase is, in your imaginary world, supposed to refuse a lawful court order because this person claims that they don't actually owe the money? Hey, maybe Chase could even pony up for a legal defense fund! I mean, why wouldn't they?
- quaquaqua1 7y ago
  When a private company tried to lay a claim to my account, BoA told them to go stuff themselves. I understand that a court of law is different, but that does not mean that the court has acted ethically or logically-- they have only acted officially. If your money was stored non-digitally, it would be a bit more difficult to confiscate, such as if it were in a safe that I privately maintained offsite somewhere.
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    All irrelevant. The GP is bashing Chase for complying with a court order. It's not their place to decide which lawful orders they will follow.
    - quaquaqua1 7y ago
      Out of curiosity, are you also one of those Westerners who also criticizes China for being authoritarian? It's because I'm trying to understand the logic of those who feel like just because an action has been performed by a certain government, it therefore must be logical and ethical 100000% of the time. I could point to examples of times where private organizations defied specific government orders because they felt the order was unjust, but I have a feeling this wouldn't be a sufficient argument for you.
      - EpicEng 7y ago
        >Out of curiosity, are you also one of those Westerners who also criticizes China for being authoritarian? Wow. >It's because I'm trying to understand the logic of those who feel like just because an action has been performed by a certain government, it therefore must be logical and ethical 100000% of the time. I literally never said that. Not once in any of these comments. Are you even replying to the right person? >I could point to examples of times where private organizations defied specific government orders because they felt the order was unjust, but I have a feeling this wouldn't be a sufficient argument for you. So, in your mind, Chase should perform their own investigation of this man's taxes before complying with the court order? This is really what you think?

sneak 7y ago

There was no tax liability, no taxes owed. That’s where the “based entirely in fiction” part comes from. States do not have lawful authority to invent nonexistent tax liabilities and seize property in any amount they make up, which is what Indiana attempted here. Chase charged me $150 to rubber-stamp an illegal seizure of my account. They were entrusted with the funds and they seized them on behalf of a third party which had no legitimate claim to them. Sounds like Chase stole my money—and charged me to do it.

Someone1234 7y ago
So you're claiming you never lived in Indiana, received no correspondence from the State of Indiana on a potential tax liability, and absolutely no warning that they were planning on seizing your account?
- sneak 7y ago
  Correct. It was not a lawful order.
KorematsuFred 7y ago
I am unable to see why your comments are being downvoted. Even if you owed money I do not see how state can compel your bank to hand over your personal wealth to recover that. They should employ the exact same methods as some other business might use to collect their debt, going to court should be the last step. Thanks for the warning and I will never do any business in state of Indiana.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  > They should employ the exact same methods as some other business might use to collect their debt, going to court should be the last step. They said above the state had a warrant. So they did what you wanted them to do, went to court, got a warrant and forced the bank via legal edict to hand over the money.
  - 7y ago