4 ms·

The fact that they closed his account frankly sounds like the outcome of an AML review. Banks are deputized by the government to check for all sorts of suspici

by ucha 4y ago

The fact that they closed his account frankly sounds like the outcome of an AML review. Banks are deputized by the government to check for all sorts of suspicious transaction. They get fined when their procedures are not sufficiently stringent. They're not allowed to tip you as to why your account is being suspended or closed. At any moment, any bank can lock your account for months without informing you of anything. It's unfortunately the power we decided to give them to prevent money laundering.

tinalumfoil 4y ago
> No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. I know I'm at risk of upsetting the "private companies don't have to obey the constitution" police, but if the government is essentially acting through banks to deprive you of life, liberty or property then maybe the bank should be providing some sort of due process to you.
phpisthebest 4y ago
>>It's unfortunately the power we decided to give them to prevent money laundering. "We" did no such thing, most of these regulations are created by non-elected administrative state that has far far too much power
krenel 4y ago
Yeah, thought the same. The AML team on a bank cannot disclose that the account is being investigated by the regulator, nor give any information to the client about it. Of course, if the bank wished to do so, they could give information or unblock the funds. But the fines that the regulator can impose to the bank are disproportionate (hundreds of thousands, per individual case) to "convince" the bank to comply. Thus, is not "the bank" who is doing that to you, it's the regulator, and the agreement between the bank and them. And this "agreement" is a requirement in order for the regulator to give a banking license, so... Let's be clear, the bank is not gaining anything out of this, quite the opposite: they are at risk of bad reputation, having an angry customer at their offices or calling daily, etc... It's a very frustrating situation, tho. I do understand that.

by ucha 4y ago

tinalumfoil 4y ago

> No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. I know I'm at risk of upsetting the "private companies don't have to obey the constitution" police, but if the government is essentially acting through banks to deprive you of life, liberty or property then maybe the bank should be providing some sort of due process to you.

phpisthebest 4y ago

>>It's unfortunately the power we decided to give them to prevent money laundering. "We" did no such thing, most of these regulations are created by non-elected administrative state that has far far too much power

krenel 4y ago

Yeah, thought the same. The AML team on a bank cannot disclose that the account is being investigated by the regulator, nor give any information to the client about it. Of course, if the bank wished to do so, they could give information or unblock the funds. But the fines that the regulator can impose to the bank are disproportionate (hundreds of thousands, per individual case) to "convince" the bank to comply. Thus, is not "the bank" who is doing that to you, it's the regulator, and the agreement between the bank and them. And this "agreement" is a requirement in order for the regulator to give a banking license, so... Let's be clear, the bank is not gaining anything out of this, quite the opposite: they are at risk of bad reputation, having an angry customer at their offices or calling daily, etc... It's a very frustrating situation, tho. I do understand that.