5 ms·

Semantics aside - the Act does allow for the suspension of civil liberties that should be troubling to everyone. The ability for a government to unilaterally lo

Semantics aside - the Act does allow for the suspension of civil liberties that should be troubling to everyone. The ability for a government to unilaterally lock people out of their bank accounts without a court order or any form of recourse is virtually unprecedented in Western society. Likewise, retroactively labelling a behaviour as a crime, then punishing individuals for it is explicitly against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Being 2022, most financial transactions are electronic. Locking people out of their bank accounts is severely restricting their ability to buy essential goods such as food, shelter, transportation, etc. Remember, it's not about the individuals, it's about the precedent it sets. If the government can do it to those you disagree with, they can (and will) do it to you.

woodruffw 5y ago
When a conversation starts with accusations of "martial law," you don't get to wiggle out of that by wringing over "semantics": "martial law" means something specific, and using it in the first place belies either an incorrect understanding or a dishonest attempt to portray the Canadian government's actions in terms that nobody can disagree with. > The ability for a government to unilaterally lock people out of their bank accounts without a court order or any form of recourse is virtually unprecedented in Western society. No, it isn't. The US uses SARs[1] on a daily basis, and has since the passing of the Bank Secrecy Act in the 1970s. There is virtually no recourse to a SAR levied against your account: virtually every bank in the US will simply close your account and refuse to disclose any further information.
- aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
  So...your argument for Canada discarding due process is: "But the US discards due process, too!"
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    It's not an argument. The GP claimed that the act of freezing bank accounts was unprecedented in Western societies; I showed that there is, in fact, ample precedent. There isn't even remotely a due process concern here, in the US constitutional sense (which isn't the Canadian sense!) of the phrase. When someone receives a SAR, their bank account is frozen and they are given steps to liquidate the account. No deprivation of property, the necessary condition for due process, occurs.
- greyface- 5y ago
  > SARs[1] Link? I found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report but this describes a process where a bank makes a report to the feds, not a process where the feds make a report to the bank. And account closure is not mentioned.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    The federal government does not make a report to the bank. They mandate that the bank makes reports on any currency transaction over $10,000 USD, including special activity reports when the transaction is flagged for other reasons. The liability associated with maintaining a bank account after submitting an SAR is high, which is why banks immediately freeze those accounts.
    - greyface- 5y ago
      > The liability associated with maintaining a bank account after submitting an SAR is high, which is why banks immediately freeze those accounts. Again, do you have a source on this? It would seem to be at odds with the requirement that a bank keeps the filing of SARs secret from the accountholder. Skimming the BSA, there seem to be a lot of liability carveouts for banks that file SARs. I can't find anything that would increase bank liability in a situation where a SAR is filed.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        > It would seem to be at odds with the requirement that a bank keeps the filing of SARs secret from the accountholder. If you have a SAR filed against your account, your bank will not tell you. They'll tell you that they've closed your account for internal policy or compliance reasons. And they won't be lying: the BSA doesn't require them to close the account. The liabilities in question are both regulatory and financial. On the regulatory side: bank employees are instructed never to tell a customer about the presence of a SAR, but mistakes can happen (and thus open the bank up to regulatory scrutiny or punishment). Similarly, the FDIC and Fed track SAR patterns, and may increase their scrutiny of a bank if customers who have historically received SARs at other banks successfully maintain accounts with a different bank. On the financial side: SARs are filed for all kinds of crimes, including crimes against financial institutions themselves. It's a financial risk to keep those accounts around, because their rotating value might not reflect their actual "ultimate" settled value. As for sources: here is a FAQ on SARs from the NCUA[1]. I don't have a pre-existing source for banks immediately closing accounts on SARs. Here's one I randomly found that states that a little over 1/4th of all SARs lead to account closure[2]. [1]: https://www.ncua.gov/newsroom/press-release/2021/ncua-federal-banking-agencies-fincen-issue-faqs-sar-and-other-aml-requirements/answers-faqs-regarding-suspicious-activity-reporting-and-other-anti-money https://www.ncua.gov/newsroom/press-release/2021/ncua-federa... [2]: https://bpi.com/the-truth-about-suspicious-activity-reports/ https://bpi.com/the-truth-about-suspicious-activity-reports/
MattRix 5y ago
“Locking people out of their bank accounts is severely restricting their ability to buy essential goods such as food, shelter, transportation, etc.” From what I saw, the language specifically allows them to continue using their account for regular daily purchases (food, etc).
xiphias2 5y ago
,, The ability for a government to unilaterally lock people out of their bank accounts without a court order or any form of recourse is virtually unprecedented in Western society.'' Technically you are right, but for me the bail-in in Cyprus in 2013 was scary enough to diversify into physical gold and Bitcoin (I stopped the gold part since then), as I realized that I'm just a ,,creditor'' to a bank, I don't own the money that exists in my bank account, and this can happen inside the EU.

woodruffw 5y ago

When a conversation starts with accusations of "martial law," you don't get to wiggle out of that by wringing over "semantics": "martial law" means something specific, and using it in the first place belies either an incorrect understanding or a dishonest attempt to portray the Canadian government's actions in terms that nobody can disagree with. > The ability for a government to unilaterally lock people out of their bank accounts without a court order or any form of recourse is virtually unprecedented in Western society. No, it isn't. The US uses SARs[1] on a daily basis, and has since the passing of the Bank Secrecy Act in the 1970s. There is virtually no recourse to a SAR levied against your account: virtually every bank in the US will simply close your account and refuse to disclose any further information.

aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
So...your argument for Canada discarding due process is: "But the US discards due process, too!"
- woodruffw 5y ago
  It's not an argument. The GP claimed that the act of freezing bank accounts was unprecedented in Western societies; I showed that there is, in fact, ample precedent. There isn't even remotely a due process concern here, in the US constitutional sense (which isn't the Canadian sense!) of the phrase. When someone receives a SAR, their bank account is frozen and they are given steps to liquidate the account. No deprivation of property, the necessary condition for due process, occurs.
greyface- 5y ago
> SARs[1] Link? I found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report but this describes a process where a bank makes a report to the feds, not a process where the feds make a report to the bank. And account closure is not mentioned.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  The federal government does not make a report to the bank. They mandate that the bank makes reports on any currency transaction over $10,000 USD, including special activity reports when the transaction is flagged for other reasons. The liability associated with maintaining a bank account after submitting an SAR is high, which is why banks immediately freeze those accounts.
  - greyface- 5y ago
    > The liability associated with maintaining a bank account after submitting an SAR is high, which is why banks immediately freeze those accounts. Again, do you have a source on this? It would seem to be at odds with the requirement that a bank keeps the filing of SARs secret from the accountholder. Skimming the BSA, there seem to be a lot of liability carveouts for banks that file SARs. I can't find anything that would increase bank liability in a situation where a SAR is filed.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      > It would seem to be at odds with the requirement that a bank keeps the filing of SARs secret from the accountholder. If you have a SAR filed against your account, your bank will not tell you. They'll tell you that they've closed your account for internal policy or compliance reasons. And they won't be lying: the BSA doesn't require them to close the account. The liabilities in question are both regulatory and financial. On the regulatory side: bank employees are instructed never to tell a customer about the presence of a SAR, but mistakes can happen (and thus open the bank up to regulatory scrutiny or punishment). Similarly, the FDIC and Fed track SAR patterns, and may increase their scrutiny of a bank if customers who have historically received SARs at other banks successfully maintain accounts with a different bank. On the financial side: SARs are filed for all kinds of crimes, including crimes against financial institutions themselves. It's a financial risk to keep those accounts around, because their rotating value might not reflect their actual "ultimate" settled value. As for sources: here is a FAQ on SARs from the NCUA[1]. I don't have a pre-existing source for banks immediately closing accounts on SARs. Here's one I randomly found that states that a little over 1/4th of all SARs lead to account closure[2]. [1]: https://www.ncua.gov/newsroom/press-release/2021/ncua-federal-banking-agencies-fincen-issue-faqs-sar-and-other-aml-requirements/answers-faqs-regarding-suspicious-activity-reporting-and-other-anti-money https://www.ncua.gov/newsroom/press-release/2021/ncua-federa... [2]: https://bpi.com/the-truth-about-suspicious-activity-reports/ https://bpi.com/the-truth-about-suspicious-activity-reports/

MattRix 5y ago

“Locking people out of their bank accounts is severely restricting their ability to buy essential goods such as food, shelter, transportation, etc.” From what I saw, the language specifically allows them to continue using their account for regular daily purchases (food, etc).

xiphias2 5y ago

,, The ability for a government to unilaterally lock people out of their bank accounts without a court order or any form of recourse is virtually unprecedented in Western society.'' Technically you are right, but for me the bail-in in Cyprus in 2013 was scary enough to diversify into physical gold and Bitcoin (I stopped the gold part since then), as I realized that I'm just a ,,creditor'' to a bank, I don't own the money that exists in my bank account, and this can happen inside the EU.