5 ms·

Chase is famous for this. Do a search. They have been closing accounts for political reasons for a long time. Not saying that is your issue but chase is known

Chase is famous for this. Do a search. They have been closing accounts for political reasons for a long time. Not saying that is your issue but chase is known for just closing accounts for a huge array of non-financial reasons. Don't bank with chase US citizens have no rights to banking even as we the taxpayers (contray to the feds latest claims ) bear all the risk in insuring and bailing the banks out when they inevitably screw up FDIC insurance should require banks to open accounts for citizens unless there is clear financial reasons to refuse ( ie fraud, or other criminal acts) Until then the only thing you can do is 1. Use credit unions. They are member owned and are generally better but not always 2. Spread you money out. Even if you do not have a lot. Have more then 1 account at different place. Have a rent account. A groceries account etc. It sucks but better that then being locked out of all your money 3. Keep some cash on hand

charcircuit 4y ago
>FDIC insurance should require banks to open accounts for citizens unless there is clear financial reasons to refuse ( ie fraud, or other criminal acts) That wouldn't help OP since his account was crosed due to suspected fraud.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  No where in their statement does it say that. You have projected that belief base on assumptions, Your incorrect application of the dept name in question, and probably a good helping of personal bais Hint compliance department, != Only fraud compliance department is also their political and Religious hit squad
  - briantakita 4y ago
    Would the compliance department also cover the Bank's compliance re: the Bank's financials? https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/risk-and-resilience/our-insights/a-best-practice-model-for-bank-compliance https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/risk-and-resilience/ou...
- Etheryte 4y ago
  It doesn't say it was closed for suspected fraud anywhere?
  - scrollaway 4y ago
    It doesn’t say it in the post but it’s what happened. “Your account was closed and we can’t tell you why, also you’re banned now” is always suspected fraud or worse. Source: I work in fintech. Everyone who works in fintech knows this.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      The "worse" has been proven to be political.. like when they closed gun dealers accounts a couple of years ago
      - giantg2 4y ago
        While that sucks, my understanding is that was done differently. Those accounts were not locked and they told them a vague reason about risk. I believe they even gave them a month or so to withdraw before the accounts were to be closed. If your account gets "flagged" and "locked" with no explaination at all, it's almost always suspected fraud, money laundering, or ties to blacklisted organizations.
    - werewrsdf 4y ago
      I believe you are most likely right. I spoke with the teller at the bank and they said this happens most often with trying to cash bad checks. Mine is not that because I have never done that. My best guess with little evidence is some kind of anti money laundering thing, but again they won't say anything
      - scrollaway 4y ago
        If you don't know what happened, try to get a bank statement of the past ~2 months and go to someone who works in finance, ask them if there's anything that could raise red flags.
nindalf 4y ago
This bizarre claim that FDIC insurance is funded by taxpayers is becoming more prevalent. So a bank offers financial services to a citizen and in exchange makes money. The bank uses these profits to pay insurance on the deposits. And by some mental gymnastics, this makes the bank taxpayer funded? If we taxpayers buy phones from Apple, is Apple now taxpayer funded? Is an antitrust fine on Apple meaningless because it’s “borne by the taxpayer”? At that point, the term “taxpayer funded” becomes meaningless.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  FDIC is a Federal organization that can not go under. Banks pay to insurance on deposit up to 250k. We now know that the insurance is unlimited but the fees are only based on 250k liability So if the amount of money left in FDIC is less than the amount of money needed to make depositors whole the FDIC gets its money from either the taxpayer or the Fed prints the money If Apple were to offer some kind of protection plan for the iPhone's and then all of the iPhone blew up and Apple cannot afford to pay to replace them Apple would go under That is the difference between a federal agency like the FDIC and a private corporation like Apple they are not an the same At the end of the day the federal government IE the taxpayer 100% backs the FDIC
  - BoiledCabbage 4y ago
    > FDIC gets its money from either the taxpayer or the Fed prints the money The piece that your missing is that if they do (like what just happened here) it done essentially a loan. And any funds provided will be recovered via a special assessment on banks. Essentially they will increase their insurance rates that banks pay. It is legally required that the banks themselves cover all costs, and FDIC cannot just take money from tax-payers to pay back private banks. You are mistaken when you say that the taxpayer pays for it or the Fed prints money and pays for the result. That's not what happens at all. You can read it from the FDIC directly on SVB > No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by taxpayers. Shareholders and certain unsecured debt holders will not be protected. Senior management has also been removed. Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law.

charcircuit 4y ago

>FDIC insurance should require banks to open accounts for citizens unless there is clear financial reasons to refuse ( ie fraud, or other criminal acts) That wouldn't help OP since his account was crosed due to suspected fraud.

phpisthebest 4y ago
No where in their statement does it say that. You have projected that belief base on assumptions, Your incorrect application of the dept name in question, and probably a good helping of personal bais Hint compliance department, != Only fraud compliance department is also their political and Religious hit squad
- briantakita 4y ago
  Would the compliance department also cover the Bank's compliance re: the Bank's financials? https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/risk-and-resilience/our-insights/a-best-practice-model-for-bank-compliance https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/risk-and-resilience/ou...
Etheryte 4y ago
It doesn't say it was closed for suspected fraud anywhere?
- scrollaway 4y ago
  It doesn’t say it in the post but it’s what happened. “Your account was closed and we can’t tell you why, also you’re banned now” is always suspected fraud or worse. Source: I work in fintech. Everyone who works in fintech knows this.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    The "worse" has been proven to be political.. like when they closed gun dealers accounts a couple of years ago
    - giantg2 4y ago
      While that sucks, my understanding is that was done differently. Those accounts were not locked and they told them a vague reason about risk. I believe they even gave them a month or so to withdraw before the accounts were to be closed. If your account gets "flagged" and "locked" with no explaination at all, it's almost always suspected fraud, money laundering, or ties to blacklisted organizations.
  - werewrsdf 4y ago
    I believe you are most likely right. I spoke with the teller at the bank and they said this happens most often with trying to cash bad checks. Mine is not that because I have never done that. My best guess with little evidence is some kind of anti money laundering thing, but again they won't say anything
    - scrollaway 4y ago
      If you don't know what happened, try to get a bank statement of the past ~2 months and go to someone who works in finance, ask them if there's anything that could raise red flags.

nindalf 4y ago

This bizarre claim that FDIC insurance is funded by taxpayers is becoming more prevalent. So a bank offers financial services to a citizen and in exchange makes money. The bank uses these profits to pay insurance on the deposits. And by some mental gymnastics, this makes the bank taxpayer funded? If we taxpayers buy phones from Apple, is Apple now taxpayer funded? Is an antitrust fine on Apple meaningless because it’s “borne by the taxpayer”? At that point, the term “taxpayer funded” becomes meaningless.

phpisthebest 4y ago
FDIC is a Federal organization that can not go under. Banks pay to insurance on deposit up to 250k. We now know that the insurance is unlimited but the fees are only based on 250k liability So if the amount of money left in FDIC is less than the amount of money needed to make depositors whole the FDIC gets its money from either the taxpayer or the Fed prints the money If Apple were to offer some kind of protection plan for the iPhone's and then all of the iPhone blew up and Apple cannot afford to pay to replace them Apple would go under That is the difference between a federal agency like the FDIC and a private corporation like Apple they are not an the same At the end of the day the federal government IE the taxpayer 100% backs the FDIC
- BoiledCabbage 4y ago
  > FDIC gets its money from either the taxpayer or the Fed prints the money The piece that your missing is that if they do (like what just happened here) it done essentially a loan. And any funds provided will be recovered via a special assessment on banks. Essentially they will increase their insurance rates that banks pay. It is legally required that the banks themselves cover all costs, and FDIC cannot just take money from tax-payers to pay back private banks. You are mistaken when you say that the taxpayer pays for it or the Fed prints money and pays for the result. That's not what happens at all. You can read it from the FDIC directly on SVB > No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by taxpayers. Shareholders and certain unsecured debt holders will not be protected. Senior management has also been removed. Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law.