4 ms·

The Bank Secrecy Act. And I don’t “think” it. I know it.

theptip 4y ago
Which bit of the BSA? edit: As I re-read the thread I see that I am thinking more of onboarding KYC, as opposed to this case which would be ongoing-activity investigation. So that would explain the difference in expectations here. Still interested in learning more about the regs for ongoing investigations if you have time to share!
- elliekelly 4y ago
  The bit at 31 USC § 5318(g)(2)(A) under the title “Notification prohibited.” FinCEN has also promulgated confidentiality rules thereunder. I don’t have a pincite for that but I believe it’s tucked amongst their record keeping rules.
  - theptip 4y ago
    Thanks! For anyone following along, text at https://www.fincen.gov/resources/statutes-and-regulations/bank-secrecy-act https://www.fincen.gov/resources/statutes-and-regulations/ba... > https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2020-title31/pdf/USCODE-2020-title31-subtitleIV-chap53-subchapII-sec5318.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2020-title31/pdf/.... This is for SARs (Suspicious Activity Reports). (At least, that's the one I've encountered before, there may be other forms too).
bigiain 4y ago
While this is clearly "a thing", I would be a fine bottle of wine that the OP's issue is not one of those things, and is just some dumb algorithmic or overworked fraud prevention contractor problem. I would bet that 99.9% of the Stripe (and Paypal) horror stories that get posted almost weekly are _not_ federal money laundering or terrorism financing investigations with legal secrecy provisions imposed on the payment processor.
numair 4y ago
Unless you are a federal prosecutor, law enforcement officer, or bank executive that has actively worked on a Bank Secrecy Act case, I don't think you can authoritatively state that this sort of cowboy-style, "Move Fast and Break Things" way of blitz-scaling revenues while downscaling customer service favored by companies such as Stripe has ANYTHING to do with the Bank Secrecy Act. If anything, I would bet that regulators would be concerned about the fact that companies such as Stripe have triggered a race to the bottom whereby underwriting has become an after-the-fact exercise that can severely damage and/or kill a high-growth SME. The old way, where you filled out a ton of paperwork, provided every bit of information possible about you and your business, and then went back and forth with a human to get approval, was a much more stable way to business. But alas, when you've got former bank governors on your payroll and political mega-PAC donors on your cap table, people don't scrutinize very much.
- elliekelly 4y ago
  I am indeed more than qualified to “authoritatively state this”. Even by the ridiculous standards you’ve outlined. And I would be more than happy to take that bet.
  - numair 4y ago
    So you’re stating that you have been involved in a situation in which a merchant account was frozen due to circumstances involving the Bank Secrecy Act? I just want to be completely certain that this is the assertion?

Which bit of the BSA? edit: As I re-read the thread I see that I am thinking more of onboarding KYC, as opposed to this case which would be ongoing-activity investigation. So that would explain the difference in expectations here. Still interested in learning more about the regs for ongoing investigations if you have time to share!

elliekelly 4y ago
The bit at 31 USC § 5318(g)(2)(A) under the title “Notification prohibited.” FinCEN has also promulgated confidentiality rules thereunder. I don’t have a pincite for that but I believe it’s tucked amongst their record keeping rules.
- theptip 4y ago
  Thanks! For anyone following along, text at https://www.fincen.gov/resources/statutes-and-regulations/bank-secrecy-act https://www.fincen.gov/resources/statutes-and-regulations/ba... > https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2020-title31/pdf/USCODE-2020-title31-subtitleIV-chap53-subchapII-sec5318.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2020-title31/pdf/.... This is for SARs (Suspicious Activity Reports). (At least, that's the one I've encountered before, there may be other forms too).

bigiain 4y ago

While this is clearly "a thing", I would be a fine bottle of wine that the OP's issue is not one of those things, and is just some dumb algorithmic or overworked fraud prevention contractor problem. I would bet that 99.9% of the Stripe (and Paypal) horror stories that get posted almost weekly are _not_ federal money laundering or terrorism financing investigations with legal secrecy provisions imposed on the payment processor.

numair 4y ago

Unless you are a federal prosecutor, law enforcement officer, or bank executive that has actively worked on a Bank Secrecy Act case, I don't think you can authoritatively state that this sort of cowboy-style, "Move Fast and Break Things" way of blitz-scaling revenues while downscaling customer service favored by companies such as Stripe has ANYTHING to do with the Bank Secrecy Act. If anything, I would bet that regulators would be concerned about the fact that companies such as Stripe have triggered a race to the bottom whereby underwriting has become an after-the-fact exercise that can severely damage and/or kill a high-growth SME. The old way, where you filled out a ton of paperwork, provided every bit of information possible about you and your business, and then went back and forth with a human to get approval, was a much more stable way to business. But alas, when you've got former bank governors on your payroll and political mega-PAC donors on your cap table, people don't scrutinize very much.

elliekelly 4y ago
I am indeed more than qualified to “authoritatively state this”. Even by the ridiculous standards you’ve outlined. And I would be more than happy to take that bet.
- numair 4y ago
  So you’re stating that you have been involved in a situation in which a merchant account was frozen due to circumstances involving the Bank Secrecy Act? I just want to be completely certain that this is the assertion?