15 ms·

Banks hide behind Bank Secrecy Act and other regulations in order to debank people. Chase closed my account, and the reason Chase gave: "Financial institutions

Banks hide behind Bank Secrecy Act and other regulations in order to debank people. Chase closed my account, and the reason Chase gave: "Financial institutions have an obligation to know our customers and monitor transactions that flow through our customers' accounts. After careful consideration, we decided to close your account because of unexpected activity on these or another Chase account." I didn't dispute any transactions, nor did I deposit any fraudulent checks, no check bounces, no overdrafts, no cash deposits, no wires, not an instance of disrespecting any Chase employee either on phone or in person. Yes, I used Zelle often, I deposited checks often. When people complain about debanking, many folks defend these banks, saying that there are good reasons for these banks to close (some transaction, etc). Banks are heavily regulated, I understand. Regulators want to see a certain number of SAR and CTR filings based on the size of bank. If a bank has 1M accounts, regulators want to see a certain number of SAR/CTR filings, a certain number of account closures; regulators go hard on financial institutions, if the latter don't follow the industry average (#SARs, #CTRs, #closures). This has created a vicious loop: banks use machine-learning/AI to flag accounts; then, back office employees 95% of the time just close these accounts. Welcome to the new debanking world. Chase and many others also monitor your political activity, social media, protests, etc. If they don't like you, they can close your account by simply stating that "we have an obligation to know our customers; after careful consideration, we decided to close your account". When banks decide to close your checking accounts, beware that they also close your credit cards (esp Chase is notorious for this).

fyzix 3y ago
I'm usually a crypto sceptic but your story scares me, because it'll only get worse with time.
- krupan 3y ago
  Just a tip, stick with Bitcoin, not crypto.
  - zb3 3y ago
    How can I pay my bills with bitcoin while being debanked?
    - krupan 3y ago
      Lots of discussion in the comments here about how ingrained banks are into our current system. I do honestly see Bitcoin as a way out of that, but at this early stage of it, you'd probably have to get help from someone who is not debanked in order to interact with our heavily banked system. If you are honestly interested in this, take a close look at Strike.
      - 2-718-281-828 3y ago
        BTC or BCH?
        krupan 3y ago
        BTC. BCH was a failed attempt at improving Bitcoin
        BLKNSLVR 3y ago
        I mostly agree with krupan's answer below, but it depends on use-case. BTC for investment or long-term store of value. BCH, or various other alternatives (Litecoin, XRP, Stellar, cough Nano cough), for making payments. But if you can use the Lightning network, then BTC works for payments as well (arguably - in this space anything and everything is highly arguable). If you're seriously looking down the track at using cryptocurrency, spend some time playing with small amounts of it to see how it all works. Different coins have different use-cases, and it's very confusing to come from zero knowledge. Also transferring and converting between different coin types can kill you in fees, so keep an eye on that as well. And in doing your research don't believe what anyone says about anything, especially youtube folks. Find the most likely narratives amongst the jungle of snakes and traps, based on your own experience at detecting bullshit and applying logic.
- klauserc 3y ago
  Why reach for crypto? My strategy would be to have a small emergency fund with a different bank. The risk of being debanked by two independent banks _at the same time_ seems lower than crypto.
  - atemerev 3y ago
    Absolutely possible if you are, say, an immigrant. And will be possible in many other cases in the future.
  - cortic 3y ago
    > The risk of being debanked by two independent banks _at the same time_ seems lower than crypto. I use 3 separate banks for this reason. But honestly, the 'reason' for dropping me might be a 3rd party risk assessment that flags something and services all three banks... Or some sort of story or hysteria that could trigger three similar systems. Using a decent crypto currency with good practice, the biggest threat is me messing something up. And i can put systems in place to minimize this. The only issue is that most things i spend moneys on don't accept crypto and so still need banking services to use crypto. I hope this changes.
  - anonzzzies 3y ago
    I use 5 different banks and have cash. The problem is that with the lame (primarily US driven) overreaching AML nonsense, banks will not take any risks and close whatever they don't make a lot of money on at the first sign of issues. Why would they not. What do you do if multiple/all banks closed your accounts for no reason at all outside that you are too small a fish to put an actual human on to verify the validity of the closure? Is there anything outside crypto and stuffing money and gold in your mattress?
  - uconnectlol 3y ago
    ...until they implement a system to automatically corroborate your accounts and close them all at once, which will happen, "because crime". security theater only gets worse over time. but right now you "hackers" can stop this since 99% of transactions can still be done in cash. but you won't because you're all fake.
- shapefrog 3y ago
  Using Crypto is probably the #1 reason for being debanked ... Unverifiable, untraceable money arriving into your account does not work well with AML regualations.
programmertote 3y ago
Sorry to hear your story/experience. This worries me because my mother, who currently resides in a SE Asian nation, is transferring some of her money to me (in the hope that she can use it when she migrates to the US). Did Chase let you withdraw the outstanding balance in full when they closed your account? The last thing I want is to see my money being trapped in limbo state...
- raincom 3y ago
  Yes, they sent me a cashier check for a small balance (around $1000) I left, as Chase gave me 45 days heads up for closure. However, for some people, Chase dragged out until after CFPB complaints are filed. The case one should worry about these banks is this: you deposit a $500K check, or you got a wire for $500K; check was cleared on the sender's side. Now Chase/Big Bank holds your funds, saying that this check is fraudulent, and that bank closes your account after finding you risky (risky because of this $500k and by looking back at your account history). Now $500K is in Chase's hands, your account is closed by Chase, and Chase doesn't want to give $500K, nor does Chase want to return $500K to the original bank/sender. This is where you should file a complaint with CFPB right away. Without CFPB complaints, the fraud department at Chase, its Bank employees just give you run around for months. File CFPB complaint right away, if any bank holds your funds after 10 business days; don't listen to these employees at all. CFPB can't force banks to reopen your accounts. Just to get your funds, file a complaint with CFPB right away, and don't trust any bank employee on getting your funds.
  - fencepost 3y ago
    I'm very far from dealing with 500k personal banking transactions, but my immediate thought is that if you're doing so you're probably making mistakes. If it's revenue from sale of a company or similar, move it through escrow with your attorney. If it's a legal settlement, do the same. If you don't have an attorney but are dealing with hundreds of thousands of dollars, get an attorney. If it's income from trading or investing it should likely be a transaction from a recognized brokerage which shouldn't raise red flags - and if it's a private investment, see above about an attorney. And of course if it's business transactions, do it with a business account.
unyttigfjelltol 3y ago
The article demonstrated over and over that in some instances branch managers really did know their customers, and that knowledge was ignored by an algorithm run amuck. Monitoring transactions should not be sufficient to satisfy KYC. Perhaps this article demonstrates that the largest banks are unable to know their customers and truly act on that information. And, perhaps having those banks engage in self-destructive mass cancelations serves regulators' purposes just fine.
- creer 3y ago
  No such thing as "an algorithm run amuck" - more like "another department run amuck". Someone programmed the thing, someone is running it deliberately.
  - raincom 3y ago
    Regulators fined Chase and other big banks for "weak controls". One way to show that these big banks have "strong controls" is to change parameters for these algorithms. Many legitimate transactions fall under structuring, layering, smurfing, laundering. After all, any goal of money laundering is to make their transactions appear "legitimate". Now almost all transactions (except for big businesses and people with few bills and pay stubs) come under scrutiny. Strong controls = more false positives, more account closures, more SAR reports. That's what regulators want, and politicians don't want to rein on these regulators either by amending laws or by reducing "too much discretion" given to regulators. Of course, those affected by debanking (ordinary citizens and small businesses) don't have that kind of lobbying power to bring any such changes. Big businesses instead can own small banks in fly over states, and run their transactions through those banks. Maybe, it is time to bank with local credit unions, as the latter allow mobile deposits. Once FedNow takes hold across credit unions, better switch to credit unions. Another lesson: every one should have at least three checking accounts (one or two big banks; one or two credit unions).
    - kornhole 3y ago
      All the examples cited in the article were with big banks who are probably the ones most likely to be employing these automated systems and getting pressure from regulators. For the benefit of decentralization and avoidance of CBDC's I am moving my accounts more to the smaller regional banks.
SpaceNoodled 3y ago
Will Chase cancel my mortgage, too?
- raincom 3y ago
  No, they don't; however they cancel your checking, savings, business checking, credit cards. Only exception is mortgages.
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    This reminds me of a common scam that casinos pull: if someone gets caught gambling when they weren't allowed to be, the casino will unwind everything if there was a net win, but will leave it stand if there was a net loss.
panarky 3y ago
> Chase monitors your political activity This is a big claim. It should have big evidence to back it up.
- raincom 3y ago
  At least in the UK, NatWest debanked Neil Farage's account for his political views. Even its CEO resigned over her lying. "19 Republican states accuse JPMorgan of closing bank accounts and discriminating against customers due to their religious or political beliefs" [1][3]. Of course, this site is not favorable to conservatives and their views. Some left activists' accounts are closed as well [2]. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/republican-states-accuse-jpmorgan-closing-accounts-religious-political-beliefs-2023-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/republican-states-accuse-jpm... [2] https://nitter.cz/OccupyWallStNYC/status/1674022837084991489 https://nitter.cz/OccupyWallStNYC/status/1674022837084991489 [3] https://www2.cbn.com/news/us/chase-bank-cancels-nonprofits-bank-account-religious-freedom-under-attack-corporate-america https://www2.cbn.com/news/us/chase-bank-cancels-nonprofits-b...
  - panarky 3y ago
    The fact that someone with a political opinion had their account closed is not evidence that Chase is monitoring all their customers' political activity and systematically closing accounts for political activity Chase doesn't like. The same way that Chase closing a restaurant's account is not evidence that Chase is tasting the food in every restaurant and systematically closing accounts for restaurants that cook food that Chase doesn't like.
    - raincom 3y ago
      Good that you trust Chase and other banks with the lame 'evidence' that they provide such as: "Financial institutions have an obligation to know our customers and monitor transactions that flow through our customers' accounts. After careful consideration, we decided to close your account because of unexpected activity on these or another Chase account." Based on that standard template, I won't trust big banks, because, hiding behind BSA, banks can use the blanket statement "because of unexpected activity". Now you ask me to trust Banks, because they can't show that evidence to me.
BLKNSLVR 3y ago
> If a bank has 1M accounts, regulators want to see a certain number of SAR/CTR filings, a certain number of account closures; regulators go hard on financial institutions, if the latter don't follow the industry average (#SARs, #CTRs, #closures) Oh lord, this just asks for gamification. If there's a multi-million dollar customer and a five thousand dollar customer, who do you reckon they'd rather lose in order to reach their quotas?
- raincom 3y ago
  Regulators fine big banks for "weak controls". To show that they have "strong controls", they have to show quantitative data. Now, every bank is engaged in one-upmanship. Since we don't have data on the number of account closures, we should look at SAR/CTR statistics provided by FinCen. Every year, SAR numbers go up by 20%; that's because banks fill SARs with "transaction with no apparent economic, business or lawful purpose". Just gamify SAR reports with vague stuff.
  - armada651 3y ago
    Do you have evidence such quotas exist or that banks are competing on SAR numbers? This all seems like wild conjecture if there's nothing to back it up.
    - raincom 3y ago
      https://www.bankersonline.com/ https://www.bankersonline.com/ is a place where people working for banks in BSA compliance, hang out. Based on my reading of that forum, there is a push from BSA auditors to file more and more SARs. Also, anon comments like the following from an old NYT article validate what I see publicly on bankersonline dot com. Also look at another poster's comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38158017 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38158017 "Banks are under tremendous pressure by regulators to file a certain amount of SARS (as a ratio of overall transaction activity, which is determined by the regulator - regulators have a secret bogey for each bank). A shortfall from the number expected by the regulators for a bank will result in the bank being penalized by the regulator as having an inadequate BSA program (even if the bank compliance staff reviewed the activity and didn’t find anything worth SAR reporting on). If the bank fights this censure for not filing enough SARs the arbiter of justice is the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) department of the FDIC or OCC. They rule in favor of the regulators over 99% of the time.) For example California Pacific Bank- a tiny bank serving the Chinese trading community with 200 customers and 500 accounts - was persecuted for more than 5 years for not filing enough SARs, it’s hearing with the ALJ is on YouTube. Even though racist anti Chinese comments by the regulators were unearthed in depositions, the ALJ ruling still went against the bank. Furthermore, banks are required to review ongoing activity of SAR’d customers and file follow up SARs if the “typology” of suspicious activity continues. Bank BSA policies have the requirement that repeat SAR subjects will need to have their accounts closed. Most banks therefore just file SARS on anything that matches a typology and close accounts- that’s just how the BSA regulatory system works.” [1] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/08/your-money/bank-account-suspicious-activity.html#commentsContainer https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/08/your-money/bank-account-s...
landemva 3y ago
> Regulators want to see a certain number of SAR and CTR filings I didn't experience that when I was on board of directors. In my personal affairs I had a checking account force closed because of their auditors - not the regulators. Rumors and myths about enforcement have internal people and contractor (compliance software) going too far. No recourse individually on this behavior.
cryptoegorophy 3y ago
My close friend was scammed via interac and bank closed his account, cards, and he was banned from interac even though he was the one that got scammed. Bitcoin solves that, but Bitcoin has another issue why banks win - if you are scammed with your card - you get your money back or if you forget password - you still have your money, if you are scammed with Bitcoin - you basically lose, if you forget your password - you lose. Just depends on what spectrum you are.
- Scoundreller 3y ago
  Banned from Interac? They won't let them get a debit card again through any bank/credit union? Or won't let them ever send email money transfers? Won't let them ever receive email money transfers? (Interac is the Canadian debit card system, owned by a network of banks, which has also branched out into person-to-person money transfers between bank accounts because we don't have Venmo/Zelle/etc here).
crossroadsguy 3y ago
You don’t have an ombudsman? Or something like that? Here in India we can even make them sing exact reason for rejecting credit card applications and if they just did it shoddily then they have to actually issue it. They just can’t say “internal policy” or shit like “discretion”.
- tjpnz 3y ago
  Same thing in New Zealand. If you can't get something worked out with your bank you complain to the ombudsman and the bank must respond. Sometimes, even the mention of a potential ombudsman complaint is enough to grease the wheels.
  - pilchard123 3y ago
    In some a case going to the Ombudsman costs the bank regardless of the outcome. In the UK the first three cases in a year are free, but from the fourth onward the bank has to pay £750 [1]. It doesn't matter the outcome is - the customer could be totally innocent or the next Bernie Madoff - the bank has to pay. A customer saying "I will get the Ombudsman involved" is heard by the bank as "if we don't make this go away right now, we will get charged £750 (plus any compensation the Ombudsman may award)". It does tend to make them sit up and take notice, I hear, presumably because banks get a lot of complaints and so a large bill. [1]: https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/resolving-complaint/case-fees https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/resolving-...
avitous 3y ago
> not an instance of disrespecting any Chase employee either on phone or in person. Since when is this grounds for closing an account?
- coolspot 3y ago
  See “amazon disabled account after delivery driver misheard automated message from security system” incident.
- switch007 3y ago
  I feel sacking customers got really popular during Covid and continued after. Many phone systems have a thinly veiled threat about zero tolerance policies, to treat staff with respect, and in the case of certain government agencies here in the UK, that they will refer cases to the police. The same is repeated on written posters in eg doctors and dentist offices Just a coincidence I’m sure but I find employees (especially on the phone) even more condescending and unhelpful these days
- raincom 3y ago
  Earlier, banks used to warn customers at least once for any disrespect towards employees. Now, expect big banks and financial institutions to close accounts without any warning, unless you are a wealthy client. Charles Schwab and Chase do that.
zlg_codes 3y ago
Do you happen to know if credit unions can hide behind banking regulations? As an account holder, I also own a share in the company.
- raincom 3y ago
  Yes, they can. At least with credit unions, they can call you for clarifications when they or their system flags your transactions suspicious. With big banks, once they find your transactions suspicious, they will send a notice to close your accounts. No human being can help you.
Accujack 3y ago
> If they don't like you, they can close your account by simply stating that "we have an obligation to know our customers; after careful consideration, we decided to close your account". What's really behind the decision is simply risk avoidance. It's like "firing" bad customers. The banks consider it prudent business to kick anyone who might be a problem out the door. Avoiding one criminal causing issues is worth kicking out 20 ordinary honest customers.
refurb 3y ago
> Banks hide behind Bank Secrecy Act and other regulations in order to debank people. Banks do what the government tells them to do. They are more than happy to launder drug money, they don't care. You think they close the account of some random person who made too many cash deposits to protect themselves from the customer? No, they protect themselves from the government who will hit them with massive fines when they "fund terrorism".
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pc86 3y ago
Do you have even a single example of a bank account being closed based on political or social media activity?
CodeWriter23 3y ago
I'd be curious to know, raincom, did your purchasing history visible to Chase include ammo, firearms, donations to Trump or MAGA politicians, supplies for building an off-grid homestead?

fyzix 3y ago

I'm usually a crypto sceptic but your story scares me, because it'll only get worse with time.

krupan 3y ago
Just a tip, stick with Bitcoin, not crypto.
- zb3 3y ago
  How can I pay my bills with bitcoin while being debanked?
  - krupan 3y ago
    Lots of discussion in the comments here about how ingrained banks are into our current system. I do honestly see Bitcoin as a way out of that, but at this early stage of it, you'd probably have to get help from someone who is not debanked in order to interact with our heavily banked system. If you are honestly interested in this, take a close look at Strike.
    - 2-718-281-828 3y ago
      BTC or BCH?
      - krupan 3y ago
        BTC. BCH was a failed attempt at improving Bitcoin
      - BLKNSLVR 3y ago
        I mostly agree with krupan's answer below, but it depends on use-case. BTC for investment or long-term store of value. BCH, or various other alternatives (Litecoin, XRP, Stellar, cough Nano cough), for making payments. But if you can use the Lightning network, then BTC works for payments as well (arguably - in this space anything and everything is highly arguable). If you're seriously looking down the track at using cryptocurrency, spend some time playing with small amounts of it to see how it all works. Different coins have different use-cases, and it's very confusing to come from zero knowledge. Also transferring and converting between different coin types can kill you in fees, so keep an eye on that as well. And in doing your research don't believe what anyone says about anything, especially youtube folks. Find the most likely narratives amongst the jungle of snakes and traps, based on your own experience at detecting bullshit and applying logic.
klauserc 3y ago
Why reach for crypto? My strategy would be to have a small emergency fund with a different bank. The risk of being debanked by two independent banks _at the same time_ seems lower than crypto.
- atemerev 3y ago
  Absolutely possible if you are, say, an immigrant. And will be possible in many other cases in the future.
- cortic 3y ago
  > The risk of being debanked by two independent banks _at the same time_ seems lower than crypto. I use 3 separate banks for this reason. But honestly, the 'reason' for dropping me might be a 3rd party risk assessment that flags something and services all three banks... Or some sort of story or hysteria that could trigger three similar systems. Using a decent crypto currency with good practice, the biggest threat is me messing something up. And i can put systems in place to minimize this. The only issue is that most things i spend moneys on don't accept crypto and so still need banking services to use crypto. I hope this changes.
- anonzzzies 3y ago
  I use 5 different banks and have cash. The problem is that with the lame (primarily US driven) overreaching AML nonsense, banks will not take any risks and close whatever they don't make a lot of money on at the first sign of issues. Why would they not. What do you do if multiple/all banks closed your accounts for no reason at all outside that you are too small a fish to put an actual human on to verify the validity of the closure? Is there anything outside crypto and stuffing money and gold in your mattress?
- uconnectlol 3y ago
  ...until they implement a system to automatically corroborate your accounts and close them all at once, which will happen, "because crime". security theater only gets worse over time. but right now you "hackers" can stop this since 99% of transactions can still be done in cash. but you won't because you're all fake.
shapefrog 3y ago
Using Crypto is probably the #1 reason for being debanked ... Unverifiable, untraceable money arriving into your account does not work well with AML regualations.

programmertote 3y ago

Sorry to hear your story/experience. This worries me because my mother, who currently resides in a SE Asian nation, is transferring some of her money to me (in the hope that she can use it when she migrates to the US). Did Chase let you withdraw the outstanding balance in full when they closed your account? The last thing I want is to see my money being trapped in limbo state...

raincom 3y ago
Yes, they sent me a cashier check for a small balance (around $1000) I left, as Chase gave me 45 days heads up for closure. However, for some people, Chase dragged out until after CFPB complaints are filed. The case one should worry about these banks is this: you deposit a $500K check, or you got a wire for $500K; check was cleared on the sender's side. Now Chase/Big Bank holds your funds, saying that this check is fraudulent, and that bank closes your account after finding you risky (risky because of this $500k and by looking back at your account history). Now $500K is in Chase's hands, your account is closed by Chase, and Chase doesn't want to give $500K, nor does Chase want to return $500K to the original bank/sender. This is where you should file a complaint with CFPB right away. Without CFPB complaints, the fraud department at Chase, its Bank employees just give you run around for months. File CFPB complaint right away, if any bank holds your funds after 10 business days; don't listen to these employees at all. CFPB can't force banks to reopen your accounts. Just to get your funds, file a complaint with CFPB right away, and don't trust any bank employee on getting your funds.
- fencepost 3y ago
  I'm very far from dealing with 500k personal banking transactions, but my immediate thought is that if you're doing so you're probably making mistakes. If it's revenue from sale of a company or similar, move it through escrow with your attorney. If it's a legal settlement, do the same. If you don't have an attorney but are dealing with hundreds of thousands of dollars, get an attorney. If it's income from trading or investing it should likely be a transaction from a recognized brokerage which shouldn't raise red flags - and if it's a private investment, see above about an attorney. And of course if it's business transactions, do it with a business account.

unyttigfjelltol 3y ago

The article demonstrated over and over that in some instances branch managers really did know their customers, and that knowledge was ignored by an algorithm run amuck. Monitoring transactions should not be sufficient to satisfy KYC. Perhaps this article demonstrates that the largest banks are unable to know their customers and truly act on that information. And, perhaps having those banks engage in self-destructive mass cancelations serves regulators' purposes just fine.

creer 3y ago
No such thing as "an algorithm run amuck" - more like "another department run amuck". Someone programmed the thing, someone is running it deliberately.
- raincom 3y ago
  Regulators fined Chase and other big banks for "weak controls". One way to show that these big banks have "strong controls" is to change parameters for these algorithms. Many legitimate transactions fall under structuring, layering, smurfing, laundering. After all, any goal of money laundering is to make their transactions appear "legitimate". Now almost all transactions (except for big businesses and people with few bills and pay stubs) come under scrutiny. Strong controls = more false positives, more account closures, more SAR reports. That's what regulators want, and politicians don't want to rein on these regulators either by amending laws or by reducing "too much discretion" given to regulators. Of course, those affected by debanking (ordinary citizens and small businesses) don't have that kind of lobbying power to bring any such changes. Big businesses instead can own small banks in fly over states, and run their transactions through those banks. Maybe, it is time to bank with local credit unions, as the latter allow mobile deposits. Once FedNow takes hold across credit unions, better switch to credit unions. Another lesson: every one should have at least three checking accounts (one or two big banks; one or two credit unions).
  - kornhole 3y ago
    All the examples cited in the article were with big banks who are probably the ones most likely to be employing these automated systems and getting pressure from regulators. For the benefit of decentralization and avoidance of CBDC's I am moving my accounts more to the smaller regional banks.

SpaceNoodled 3y ago

Will Chase cancel my mortgage, too?

raincom 3y ago
No, they don't; however they cancel your checking, savings, business checking, credit cards. Only exception is mortgages.
- josephcsible 3y ago
  This reminds me of a common scam that casinos pull: if someone gets caught gambling when they weren't allowed to be, the casino will unwind everything if there was a net win, but will leave it stand if there was a net loss.

panarky 3y ago

> Chase monitors your political activity This is a big claim. It should have big evidence to back it up.

raincom 3y ago
At least in the UK, NatWest debanked Neil Farage's account for his political views. Even its CEO resigned over her lying. "19 Republican states accuse JPMorgan of closing bank accounts and discriminating against customers due to their religious or political beliefs" [1][3]. Of course, this site is not favorable to conservatives and their views. Some left activists' accounts are closed as well [2]. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/republican-states-accuse-jpmorgan-closing-accounts-religious-political-beliefs-2023-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/republican-states-accuse-jpm... [2] https://nitter.cz/OccupyWallStNYC/status/1674022837084991489 https://nitter.cz/OccupyWallStNYC/status/1674022837084991489 [3] https://www2.cbn.com/news/us/chase-bank-cancels-nonprofits-bank-account-religious-freedom-under-attack-corporate-america https://www2.cbn.com/news/us/chase-bank-cancels-nonprofits-b...
- panarky 3y ago
  The fact that someone with a political opinion had their account closed is not evidence that Chase is monitoring all their customers' political activity and systematically closing accounts for political activity Chase doesn't like. The same way that Chase closing a restaurant's account is not evidence that Chase is tasting the food in every restaurant and systematically closing accounts for restaurants that cook food that Chase doesn't like.
  - raincom 3y ago
    Good that you trust Chase and other banks with the lame 'evidence' that they provide such as: "Financial institutions have an obligation to know our customers and monitor transactions that flow through our customers' accounts. After careful consideration, we decided to close your account because of unexpected activity on these or another Chase account." Based on that standard template, I won't trust big banks, because, hiding behind BSA, banks can use the blanket statement "because of unexpected activity". Now you ask me to trust Banks, because they can't show that evidence to me.

BLKNSLVR 3y ago

> If a bank has 1M accounts, regulators want to see a certain number of SAR/CTR filings, a certain number of account closures; regulators go hard on financial institutions, if the latter don't follow the industry average (#SARs, #CTRs, #closures) Oh lord, this just asks for gamification. If there's a multi-million dollar customer and a five thousand dollar customer, who do you reckon they'd rather lose in order to reach their quotas?

raincom 3y ago
Regulators fine big banks for "weak controls". To show that they have "strong controls", they have to show quantitative data. Now, every bank is engaged in one-upmanship. Since we don't have data on the number of account closures, we should look at SAR/CTR statistics provided by FinCen. Every year, SAR numbers go up by 20%; that's because banks fill SARs with "transaction with no apparent economic, business or lawful purpose". Just gamify SAR reports with vague stuff.
- armada651 3y ago
  Do you have evidence such quotas exist or that banks are competing on SAR numbers? This all seems like wild conjecture if there's nothing to back it up.
  - raincom 3y ago
    https://www.bankersonline.com/ https://www.bankersonline.com/ is a place where people working for banks in BSA compliance, hang out. Based on my reading of that forum, there is a push from BSA auditors to file more and more SARs. Also, anon comments like the following from an old NYT article validate what I see publicly on bankersonline dot com. Also look at another poster's comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38158017 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38158017 "Banks are under tremendous pressure by regulators to file a certain amount of SARS (as a ratio of overall transaction activity, which is determined by the regulator - regulators have a secret bogey for each bank). A shortfall from the number expected by the regulators for a bank will result in the bank being penalized by the regulator as having an inadequate BSA program (even if the bank compliance staff reviewed the activity and didn’t find anything worth SAR reporting on). If the bank fights this censure for not filing enough SARs the arbiter of justice is the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) department of the FDIC or OCC. They rule in favor of the regulators over 99% of the time.) For example California Pacific Bank- a tiny bank serving the Chinese trading community with 200 customers and 500 accounts - was persecuted for more than 5 years for not filing enough SARs, it’s hearing with the ALJ is on YouTube. Even though racist anti Chinese comments by the regulators were unearthed in depositions, the ALJ ruling still went against the bank. Furthermore, banks are required to review ongoing activity of SAR’d customers and file follow up SARs if the “typology” of suspicious activity continues. Bank BSA policies have the requirement that repeat SAR subjects will need to have their accounts closed. Most banks therefore just file SARS on anything that matches a typology and close accounts- that’s just how the BSA regulatory system works.” [1] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/08/your-money/bank-account-suspicious-activity.html#commentsContainer https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/08/your-money/bank-account-s...

landemva 3y ago

> Regulators want to see a certain number of SAR and CTR filings I didn't experience that when I was on board of directors. In my personal affairs I had a checking account force closed because of their auditors - not the regulators. Rumors and myths about enforcement have internal people and contractor (compliance software) going too far. No recourse individually on this behavior.

cryptoegorophy 3y ago

My close friend was scammed via interac and bank closed his account, cards, and he was banned from interac even though he was the one that got scammed. Bitcoin solves that, but Bitcoin has another issue why banks win - if you are scammed with your card - you get your money back or if you forget password - you still have your money, if you are scammed with Bitcoin - you basically lose, if you forget your password - you lose. Just depends on what spectrum you are.

Scoundreller 3y ago
Banned from Interac? They won't let them get a debit card again through any bank/credit union? Or won't let them ever send email money transfers? Won't let them ever receive email money transfers? (Interac is the Canadian debit card system, owned by a network of banks, which has also branched out into person-to-person money transfers between bank accounts because we don't have Venmo/Zelle/etc here).

crossroadsguy 3y ago

You don’t have an ombudsman? Or something like that? Here in India we can even make them sing exact reason for rejecting credit card applications and if they just did it shoddily then they have to actually issue it. They just can’t say “internal policy” or shit like “discretion”.

tjpnz 3y ago
Same thing in New Zealand. If you can't get something worked out with your bank you complain to the ombudsman and the bank must respond. Sometimes, even the mention of a potential ombudsman complaint is enough to grease the wheels.
- pilchard123 3y ago
  In some a case going to the Ombudsman costs the bank regardless of the outcome. In the UK the first three cases in a year are free, but from the fourth onward the bank has to pay £750 [1]. It doesn't matter the outcome is - the customer could be totally innocent or the next Bernie Madoff - the bank has to pay. A customer saying "I will get the Ombudsman involved" is heard by the bank as "if we don't make this go away right now, we will get charged £750 (plus any compensation the Ombudsman may award)". It does tend to make them sit up and take notice, I hear, presumably because banks get a lot of complaints and so a large bill. [1]: https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/resolving-complaint/case-fees https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/resolving-...

avitous 3y ago

> not an instance of disrespecting any Chase employee either on phone or in person. Since when is this grounds for closing an account?

coolspot 3y ago
See “amazon disabled account after delivery driver misheard automated message from security system” incident.
switch007 3y ago
I feel sacking customers got really popular during Covid and continued after. Many phone systems have a thinly veiled threat about zero tolerance policies, to treat staff with respect, and in the case of certain government agencies here in the UK, that they will refer cases to the police. The same is repeated on written posters in eg doctors and dentist offices Just a coincidence I’m sure but I find employees (especially on the phone) even more condescending and unhelpful these days
raincom 3y ago
Earlier, banks used to warn customers at least once for any disrespect towards employees. Now, expect big banks and financial institutions to close accounts without any warning, unless you are a wealthy client. Charles Schwab and Chase do that.

zlg_codes 3y ago

Do you happen to know if credit unions can hide behind banking regulations? As an account holder, I also own a share in the company.

raincom 3y ago
Yes, they can. At least with credit unions, they can call you for clarifications when they or their system flags your transactions suspicious. With big banks, once they find your transactions suspicious, they will send a notice to close your accounts. No human being can help you.

Accujack 3y ago

> If they don't like you, they can close your account by simply stating that "we have an obligation to know our customers; after careful consideration, we decided to close your account". What's really behind the decision is simply risk avoidance. It's like "firing" bad customers. The banks consider it prudent business to kick anyone who might be a problem out the door. Avoiding one criminal causing issues is worth kicking out 20 ordinary honest customers.

refurb 3y ago

> Banks hide behind Bank Secrecy Act and other regulations in order to debank people. Banks do what the government tells them to do. They are more than happy to launder drug money, they don't care. You think they close the account of some random person who made too many cash deposits to protect themselves from the customer? No, they protect themselves from the government who will hit them with massive fines when they "fund terrorism".

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

pc86 3y ago

Do you have even a single example of a bank account being closed based on political or social media activity?

CodeWriter23 3y ago

I'd be curious to know, raincom, did your purchasing history visible to Chase include ammo, firearms, donations to Trump or MAGA politicians, supplies for building an off-grid homestead?