6 ms·

I am not saying we should hold up banks, or commit crimes, but in very recent years, I have had at least three experiences with my own bank and my relatives ban

I am not saying we should hold up banks, or commit crimes, but in very recent years, I have had at least three experiences with my own bank and my relatives bank that made me really sit back and ponder. A relative was going to gift me a (fairly, not huge) sum of money. The bank refused to allow them to wire transfer. As in, flat out, nope, you want to wire transfer more than say $5,000 and it is not to a corporation (e.g. mortgage, car company, etc, but to an individual) the answer is NO. This was truly eye-opening to me. This was their money. As in, hey, I worked for this money, and I would like to spend it. And... the answer is no. Of course, I understand, they can just cut a check, or make a money order, but that adds a delay, and hey, what is the bank there for? To add delays? A very similar thing happened to my bank. I literally was going to purchase a used item, it was a few grand, I went in, said I wanted a few grand from my account. The answer was NO. Write a check or grab a money order. Hey, regardless of the situation, regardless of "perhaps this person is doing a shady cash-only deal", that money in the bank is technically MINE, right? NO, its not my money. Its the banks money. I guess possession is really 9/10 of the law. After a few of these incidents happened and I started talking to friends, I head similar stories over and over. I find it amazing that citizens are pretty calm about this. It took a fair amount of emotional intelligence to not freak out in the lobby when the teller tells me the money I really worked for I just can not have right now.

differentView 4y ago
Are you in the U.S.? What banks did this to you and your relative?
skippyboxedhero 4y ago
And the reason why is AML. Your experience is bad, but have you seen the public reaction when a bank has been involved in money laundering? It is irrational (and strange, countries in the EU will happily launder your money, some domestic banks still accept suitcases full of cash in the basement but the rage is all directed to US/UK banks where money laundering is almost impossible without blackmailing someone in AML...this happens, but it is fairly rare...and risky because most banks now have teams of people watching their AML staff, following them outside work, going through their emails, etc.). The solution is simple: remove AML/KYC regulations. Let police investigate and find evidence of crimes. This isn't the job of banks, banks aren't the police, AML departments are basically run as private police departments, and the false positive rate is (unsurprisingly) through the roof. They also don't do a particularly good job with true positives either: some obscure Kazakh politician wants to open an account with $5m...okay, there is no Wikipedia page for him, he has provided proof of income, you suspect it is forged, you call the Kazakh police, they tell you it is legit...it is very hard to get right because you don't have any legal investigatory powers.
- emmanuel_1234 4y ago
  This is spot on. Although I disagree with the removal of AML/KYC regulation, this is indeed the reason why it's so complicated. HSBC was fined heavily and only came out of judiciaral control recently because they didn't care enough about money laundering. All the banks are scared to shit to be pinned by the regulator now, so that's what you get.
  - skippyboxedhero 4y ago
    I used to work in wealth management, I worked in research but once you see how this stuff actually works...why? The issue with HSBC wasn't related to them not caring enough, what happened is that some employees in their Mexican office essentially went rogue. HSBC can't blackmail their staff, money launderers can. HSBC can't bribe their staff with suitcases full of cash, money launderers can. HSBC can't threaten to execute your kids, money launderers can. And, again, even if you assume this all isn't true...banks do not have the investigatory powers. People who want to launder money do not turn up a bank with a briefcase full of cash, and wink repeatedly at the cashier when handing it over...they put substantial resources in disguising the source, and working out where the gaps are (with HSBC, it was currency exchange...this has been a weak spot for decades because it is mostly used by large corporates and there is an assumption that AML happens somewhere else in the chain). Police stopped doing this job because it was too difficult...and they had the powers, why people think banks can do it is beyond me. The stuff you read online about low integrity or not caring is just obvious nonsense (it wasn't why police failed in the first place, police cared a lot, they just weren't as good as the money launderers so blamed banks).
    - mistrial9 4y ago
      thank you for this post -- overall, I would add a personal "unsubstantiated claim" that a big, big part of new additional requirements, micromanagement, constant ID problems and moving the goal posts regarding cash flows is .. insiders at credit and banking, ex-finance career money handlers and others wearing a uniform, executing and getting away with financial theft. Ordinary citizens with "a life savings" are far more rare than "college educated with a gambling habit" insiders on the business side of money, forging, smearing and blaming while pocketing the results. I believe I saw this in the USA with VISA credit, mortgages and other forms of personal finance, leading up to the 2007 meltdown. Second rant part - regulatory compliance boils down to a "pain game" in so many old industries.. We know 'x-y-z' is happening but we shut it down when we find it, versus, 'newly promoted enforcement official needs to show success now' motivated audits, new regulations and 45-day decrees. All players at a certain size are guilty but the question is intent, awareness and effort to curtail. Bluntly, the expression is "sh* rolls down hill" .. meaning that the least able, least aware and least mobile get stuck with additional restrictions, burdens, in some cases fines or entrapment, while Big Business shows up to work again tomorrow.
mynameishere 4y ago
In the unlikely event you are unaware, person to person wire transfers just scream fraud to a bank. So write out a check. Big deal.
- shishy 4y ago
  I've paid for plenty of things with wire transfers to another person, domestically and internationally, without any complaints from my bank. Writing a check isn't always feasible depending on where they are.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  What sane (private party) seller is going to accept a check? With it's 2+ week delay in validation, high fraud levels, etc. That's a hard no for me.
  - crazygringo 4y ago
    A cashier's check, not a personal check. Every sane seller will receive one, it's literally what they're meant for. There's no fraud when it's a check from a bank.
    - chillfox 4y ago
      I don't see why that would be any more trustworthy, How do I know if the bank is trustworthy and is going to honor it? I literally had one of the big banks in Australia steal several thousands from me by "loosing" paperwork in their internal mail service TWICE. I had to make a big show of photographing it and bringing a witness for the third time to stick. I obviously switched banks after that experience, but it definitely made me realize that even big respected banks can't be trusted.
      - crazygringo 4y ago
        Of course it's more trustworthy. It's money drawn on a regulated financial institution, not some random person's personal account. And you can call a bank and verify that the cashier's check is valid, so fraud is impossible. Calling for verification is standard practice. And then you deposit that cashier's check at your own bank. If banks stop accepting each other's cashier's checks, that means the entire financial system has basically collapsed and you've got bigger things to worry about. I get that you had an issue with paperwork, and that sucks, but that has zero bearing on the trustworthiness of cashier's checks.
nyokodo 4y ago
> NO, its not my money. Its the banks money. It’s not even the bank’s money but the bank’s debt to you. When you give a bank money you are accepting an IOU with pages of conditions because they lend out most of it and do not keep enough money to pay everyone back. Banks don’t want withdrawals because that limits their ability to lend and make profits off the interest etc plus capital control laws are common to prevent bank runs etc, so they erect barriers to withdrawal and can prevent it entirely. When you’re prevented from withdrawing your money that is a sign the loan you gave the bank went bad.
alistairSH 4y ago
Are you in the US? No sane seller is going to accept a check or MO for something of value - too high a chance for scams. I suspect most problems like you've encountered are bank policy due to increasingly stringent anti-money-laundering regulations. But, not sure how "use a check" is helpful since nobody would every accept one. Do PayPal or Venmo allow large transactions? That might be the best option today?
- dalyons 4y ago
  They do not. Venmo is like 2k a day from memory
- crazygringo 4y ago
  What are you talking about? This is what cashier's checks are for. Every sane seller is going to accept a cashier's check. That's what they're for. You can even call the bank that issued it to verify it's valid. Of course you use a check. Not a personal one, but a cashier's one.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - sn_master 4y ago
    I won't use a cashier's check, simply because I've never seen nor used one before. If the buyer really insists, then I'll go with the buyer to the bank and cash or deposit it before giving them the product to make sure it's not a fake piece of paper.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  A cashier's check is equivalent to cash without the hassle, because it's backed by the bank that wrote it. They already took the money out of the customer's account, so there's no chance of it bouncing.
  - barelysapient 4y ago
    If the cashiers check is legit. A counterfeit one on the other hand...
adolph 4y ago
It is a big problem, especially for unbanked people like refugees. https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/current-affairs-trends/russia-ukraine-war-former-mp-ihor-kotvitskyis-wife-stuffed-28-million-dollars-in-suitcases-as-she-fled-to-hungary-8255921.html https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/current-affairs-tre...
crazygringo 4y ago
Sorry, but the bank is giving you totally reasonable options here -- you can always write a check to friend/family who trust you (know it won't bounce), and you can always get a cashier's check to pay someone who doesn't trust you (e.g. buying a car). Banks have daily and monthly limits on how much cash you can withdraw, for reasons of both logistics, fraud, and crime. And it's similar with wire transfers that have a risk of fraud, because they can't be reversed. Seriously, why couldn't your relative send you a check? And why couldn't you get a cashier's check for the used item? That's how it's always been done, for many many decades. Yes it's your money and you can withdraw it any time via check or cashier's check. The other options like wire and cash are extra options that come with understandable limitations. But there's nothing wrong with checks.
- readingnews 4y ago
  >Seriously, why couldn't your relative send you a check? We wanted it now and I was 1000 miles away. A wire transfer before 2PM local time would have been in the bank that day. They getting a MO or Certified check and sending it overnight now costs more money and adds a possible 24 hour delay, AND some banks do not cash cashiers checks, but put a hold on them. They CAN (IIRC) hold it for 9 (yes NINE, I have literally had this happen) days before cashing.
  - crazygringo 4y ago
    I mean, yeah, honestly it's not a reasonable expectation with consumer accounts to be able to transfer large amounts of money same-day and then be able to withdraw them immediately. Established businesses can do that because it's routine and not prone to fraud. Consumers can't simply because so many red flags for fraud risk get raised. Yes you can transfer your money to whoever you want, but it's also always going to take up to 24-48 hours to do, and up to 2 weeks to be able to cash out. It's fraud protection, and while it may be annoying, it's also understandable, and just something you need to be able to plan ahead for. Money isn't instantaneous except in small amounts, and this is by design.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

differentView 4y ago

Are you in the U.S.? What banks did this to you and your relative?

skippyboxedhero 4y ago

And the reason why is AML. Your experience is bad, but have you seen the public reaction when a bank has been involved in money laundering? It is irrational (and strange, countries in the EU will happily launder your money, some domestic banks still accept suitcases full of cash in the basement but the rage is all directed to US/UK banks where money laundering is almost impossible without blackmailing someone in AML...this happens, but it is fairly rare...and risky because most banks now have teams of people watching their AML staff, following them outside work, going through their emails, etc.). The solution is simple: remove AML/KYC regulations. Let police investigate and find evidence of crimes. This isn't the job of banks, banks aren't the police, AML departments are basically run as private police departments, and the false positive rate is (unsurprisingly) through the roof. They also don't do a particularly good job with true positives either: some obscure Kazakh politician wants to open an account with $5m...okay, there is no Wikipedia page for him, he has provided proof of income, you suspect it is forged, you call the Kazakh police, they tell you it is legit...it is very hard to get right because you don't have any legal investigatory powers.

emmanuel_1234 4y ago
This is spot on. Although I disagree with the removal of AML/KYC regulation, this is indeed the reason why it's so complicated. HSBC was fined heavily and only came out of judiciaral control recently because they didn't care enough about money laundering. All the banks are scared to shit to be pinned by the regulator now, so that's what you get.
- skippyboxedhero 4y ago
  I used to work in wealth management, I worked in research but once you see how this stuff actually works...why? The issue with HSBC wasn't related to them not caring enough, what happened is that some employees in their Mexican office essentially went rogue. HSBC can't blackmail their staff, money launderers can. HSBC can't bribe their staff with suitcases full of cash, money launderers can. HSBC can't threaten to execute your kids, money launderers can. And, again, even if you assume this all isn't true...banks do not have the investigatory powers. People who want to launder money do not turn up a bank with a briefcase full of cash, and wink repeatedly at the cashier when handing it over...they put substantial resources in disguising the source, and working out where the gaps are (with HSBC, it was currency exchange...this has been a weak spot for decades because it is mostly used by large corporates and there is an assumption that AML happens somewhere else in the chain). Police stopped doing this job because it was too difficult...and they had the powers, why people think banks can do it is beyond me. The stuff you read online about low integrity or not caring is just obvious nonsense (it wasn't why police failed in the first place, police cared a lot, they just weren't as good as the money launderers so blamed banks).
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    thank you for this post -- overall, I would add a personal "unsubstantiated claim" that a big, big part of new additional requirements, micromanagement, constant ID problems and moving the goal posts regarding cash flows is .. insiders at credit and banking, ex-finance career money handlers and others wearing a uniform, executing and getting away with financial theft. Ordinary citizens with "a life savings" are far more rare than "college educated with a gambling habit" insiders on the business side of money, forging, smearing and blaming while pocketing the results. I believe I saw this in the USA with VISA credit, mortgages and other forms of personal finance, leading up to the 2007 meltdown. Second rant part - regulatory compliance boils down to a "pain game" in so many old industries.. We know 'x-y-z' is happening but we shut it down when we find it, versus, 'newly promoted enforcement official needs to show success now' motivated audits, new regulations and 45-day decrees. All players at a certain size are guilty but the question is intent, awareness and effort to curtail. Bluntly, the expression is "sh* rolls down hill" .. meaning that the least able, least aware and least mobile get stuck with additional restrictions, burdens, in some cases fines or entrapment, while Big Business shows up to work again tomorrow.

mynameishere 4y ago

In the unlikely event you are unaware, person to person wire transfers just scream fraud to a bank. So write out a check. Big deal.

shishy 4y ago
I've paid for plenty of things with wire transfers to another person, domestically and internationally, without any complaints from my bank. Writing a check isn't always feasible depending on where they are.
alistairSH 4y ago
What sane (private party) seller is going to accept a check? With it's 2+ week delay in validation, high fraud levels, etc. That's a hard no for me.
- crazygringo 4y ago
  A cashier's check, not a personal check. Every sane seller will receive one, it's literally what they're meant for. There's no fraud when it's a check from a bank.
  - chillfox 4y ago
    I don't see why that would be any more trustworthy, How do I know if the bank is trustworthy and is going to honor it? I literally had one of the big banks in Australia steal several thousands from me by "loosing" paperwork in their internal mail service TWICE. I had to make a big show of photographing it and bringing a witness for the third time to stick. I obviously switched banks after that experience, but it definitely made me realize that even big respected banks can't be trusted.
    - crazygringo 4y ago
      Of course it's more trustworthy. It's money drawn on a regulated financial institution, not some random person's personal account. And you can call a bank and verify that the cashier's check is valid, so fraud is impossible. Calling for verification is standard practice. And then you deposit that cashier's check at your own bank. If banks stop accepting each other's cashier's checks, that means the entire financial system has basically collapsed and you've got bigger things to worry about. I get that you had an issue with paperwork, and that sucks, but that has zero bearing on the trustworthiness of cashier's checks.

nyokodo 4y ago

> NO, its not my money. Its the banks money. It’s not even the bank’s money but the bank’s debt to you. When you give a bank money you are accepting an IOU with pages of conditions because they lend out most of it and do not keep enough money to pay everyone back. Banks don’t want withdrawals because that limits their ability to lend and make profits off the interest etc plus capital control laws are common to prevent bank runs etc, so they erect barriers to withdrawal and can prevent it entirely. When you’re prevented from withdrawing your money that is a sign the loan you gave the bank went bad.

alistairSH 4y ago

Are you in the US? No sane seller is going to accept a check or MO for something of value - too high a chance for scams. I suspect most problems like you've encountered are bank policy due to increasingly stringent anti-money-laundering regulations. But, not sure how "use a check" is helpful since nobody would every accept one. Do PayPal or Venmo allow large transactions? That might be the best option today?

dalyons 4y ago
They do not. Venmo is like 2k a day from memory
crazygringo 4y ago
What are you talking about? This is what cashier's checks are for. Every sane seller is going to accept a cashier's check. That's what they're for. You can even call the bank that issued it to verify it's valid. Of course you use a check. Not a personal one, but a cashier's one.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- sn_master 4y ago
  I won't use a cashier's check, simply because I've never seen nor used one before. If the buyer really insists, then I'll go with the buyer to the bank and cash or deposit it before giving them the product to make sure it's not a fake piece of paper.
jaywalk 4y ago
A cashier's check is equivalent to cash without the hassle, because it's backed by the bank that wrote it. They already took the money out of the customer's account, so there's no chance of it bouncing.
- barelysapient 4y ago
  If the cashiers check is legit. A counterfeit one on the other hand...

adolph 4y ago

It is a big problem, especially for unbanked people like refugees. https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/current-affairs-trends/russia-ukraine-war-former-mp-ihor-kotvitskyis-wife-stuffed-28-million-dollars-in-suitcases-as-she-fled-to-hungary-8255921.html https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/current-affairs-tre...

crazygringo 4y ago

Sorry, but the bank is giving you totally reasonable options here -- you can always write a check to friend/family who trust you (know it won't bounce), and you can always get a cashier's check to pay someone who doesn't trust you (e.g. buying a car). Banks have daily and monthly limits on how much cash you can withdraw, for reasons of both logistics, fraud, and crime. And it's similar with wire transfers that have a risk of fraud, because they can't be reversed. Seriously, why couldn't your relative send you a check? And why couldn't you get a cashier's check for the used item? That's how it's always been done, for many many decades. Yes it's your money and you can withdraw it any time via check or cashier's check. The other options like wire and cash are extra options that come with understandable limitations. But there's nothing wrong with checks.

readingnews 4y ago
>Seriously, why couldn't your relative send you a check? We wanted it now and I was 1000 miles away. A wire transfer before 2PM local time would have been in the bank that day. They getting a MO or Certified check and sending it overnight now costs more money and adds a possible 24 hour delay, AND some banks do not cash cashiers checks, but put a hold on them. They CAN (IIRC) hold it for 9 (yes NINE, I have literally had this happen) days before cashing.
- crazygringo 4y ago
  I mean, yeah, honestly it's not a reasonable expectation with consumer accounts to be able to transfer large amounts of money same-day and then be able to withdraw them immediately. Established businesses can do that because it's routine and not prone to fraud. Consumers can't simply because so many red flags for fraud risk get raised. Yes you can transfer your money to whoever you want, but it's also always going to take up to 24-48 hours to do, and up to 2 weeks to be able to cash out. It's fraud protection, and while it may be annoying, it's also understandable, and just something you need to be able to plan ahead for. Money isn't instantaneous except in small amounts, and this is by design.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]