4 ms·

I think the key is "unilaterally confiscate". In the real world I'm sure a court would rule in either a criminal or civil suit that the bank is entitled to mone

I think the key is "unilaterally confiscate". In the real world I'm sure a court would rule in either a criminal or civil suit that the bank is entitled to money from the bank robber as restitution. In which case, the judge would probably allow the funds in that account to be confiscated.

davedx 5y ago
Are you sure about that, or are you just making it up? It sounds snarky but it's a really serious question. Are banks definitely obligated to continue to operate the accounts of someone who has committed a crime against them? Are they not allowed to block the account pending legal process?
- djrogers 5y ago
  Confiscating money from an account and refusing to serve a customer are two completely different things, I don’t think conflating them is helping your case at all.
  - davedx 5y ago
    Sure, I get that. So far this thread is devoid of any factual evidence of what banks can and cannot do with your money, so I give up. Hopefully the posters will consider backing up claims with citations in the future
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
      >"Hopefully the posters will consider backing up claims with citations in the future" >"It sounds snarky but it's a really serious question. Are banks definitely obligated to continue to operate the accounts of someone who has committed a crime against them? Are they not allowed to block the account pending legal process?" You're essentially doing the same thing by asserting that banks do have the right to seize account holders' funds and then expecting evidence to the contrary. There is a big difference between providing service - and suspending it for whatever reasons they stipulate - and literally just confiscating the account holder's money. I'm certain US Banking laws prohibit banks from doing this. I don't have a citation for you, but you can go digging if you need one. But here's a related concept that sheds some light on my stance. There are all sorts of unclaimed and lost property laws across the US where people have left money in bank accounts that have lapsed. Those people are still entitled to withdraw their money. The bank does not have the right to just take it. Even after a few decades, people can still claim the account funds. If no claim is ever made, I believe that money goes to the government's general fund - depending on the state.

davedx 5y ago

Are you sure about that, or are you just making it up? It sounds snarky but it's a really serious question. Are banks definitely obligated to continue to operate the accounts of someone who has committed a crime against them? Are they not allowed to block the account pending legal process?

djrogers 5y ago
Confiscating money from an account and refusing to serve a customer are two completely different things, I don’t think conflating them is helping your case at all.
- davedx 5y ago
  Sure, I get that. So far this thread is devoid of any factual evidence of what banks can and cannot do with your money, so I give up. Hopefully the posters will consider backing up claims with citations in the future
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    >"Hopefully the posters will consider backing up claims with citations in the future" >"It sounds snarky but it's a really serious question. Are banks definitely obligated to continue to operate the accounts of someone who has committed a crime against them? Are they not allowed to block the account pending legal process?" You're essentially doing the same thing by asserting that banks do have the right to seize account holders' funds and then expecting evidence to the contrary. There is a big difference between providing service - and suspending it for whatever reasons they stipulate - and literally just confiscating the account holder's money. I'm certain US Banking laws prohibit banks from doing this. I don't have a citation for you, but you can go digging if you need one. But here's a related concept that sheds some light on my stance. There are all sorts of unclaimed and lost property laws across the US where people have left money in bank accounts that have lapsed. Those people are still entitled to withdraw their money. The bank does not have the right to just take it. Even after a few decades, people can still claim the account funds. If no claim is ever made, I believe that money goes to the government's general fund - depending on the state.