4 ms·

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

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.
  - jfengel 3y ago
    I don't trust Chase as far as I can throw them. But I still trust them more than Nigel Farage.
  - panarky 3y ago
    None of this is about whether I trust Chase or not. It's about the big claim that Chase monitors the political activity of their customers and systematically closes the accounts of people with opinions Chase doesn't like. There's precisely zero evidence that they do this. Even if one blindly accepts your citations from "The 700 Club" and some random post from "Nitter" as authoritative, even they provide zero evidence for that claim. Big claims require compelling evidence, and you haven't provided any.
    - zlg_codes 3y ago
      So if MSM doesn't report, it doesn't exist? State the requirements of 'compelling evidence'. You debate like that Chase email explains their reasoning.
      - rfrey 3y ago
        "Compelling" evidence would be great, but SOME evidence would be nice too. The media not reporting it is certainly not evidence, down that path lies true crazy.
    - pabs3 3y ago
      FWIW, Nitter is just an alternative frontend to Twitter/X.
- pauldenton 3y ago
  So what alternative theory do you have for all those accounts being closed?
  - bergen 3y ago
    Risk avoidance. Extremists (!) are more likely to have dubios donors. And even if they're "normal" political figures or activists, their behaviour in public might damage the bank. This being said this approach is a pretty wild one still, since people NEED banks, and there should be long duration till the expiration (except in cases of fraud, money laundering, ..)
    - suoduandao3 3y ago
      Their behavior in public, such as their social media activity? Sounds like there's no disagreement here.
fanf2 3y ago
No, Natwest got rid of him because he is broke, and the CEO resigned for discussing his personal details in public.
- raincom 3y ago
  Natwest's initial response was what you said: his accounts fell below a certain threshold after he paid off his mortgage. Then Farage sought info from Natwest using "subject access request". In those documents, it is "found that an internal committee had deemed his views did not align with the bank's own. This formed part of the basis for cutting him, the document showed, alongside commercial considerations." [1] [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/natwest-meets-quarterly-profit-forecast-amid-farage-debanking-row-2023-10-27/ https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/natwest-meets-quart...
- mayd 3y ago
  You are incorrect. Natwest was forced to release internal documents about the debanking of Nigel Farage under an FOI request and it is clear from the evidence that he was debanked because of his politics. From the Guardian 30 July 2023: <https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/30/uk-banks-closing-more-than-1000-accounts-every-day https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/30/uk-banks-cl...>: "Farage used a subject access request to discover that, despite initial denials by NatWest subsidiary Coutts, his political views had played a part in the closure of his account."
maccard 3y ago
> At least in the UK, NatWest debanked Neil Farage's account for his political views. Even its CEO resigned over her lying. No, a subsidiary of NatWest closed Farage's account when he no longer met the investment thresholds for the account he held. The CEO resigned for telling a journalist the above. That's not the same thing, at all.
- xioxox 3y ago
  No fan of Farage, but then why was most of the document the bank produced about what he did as a politician? Farage also claims he never met these supposed thresholds.
  - bostik 3y ago
    Combination of reputational damage[0] and him being a PEP. I believe the account closure was a business decision, but they definitely had no reason to be public about it. One good thing came out of the debacle, though: it put the spotlight on UK retail banking regulations and how they are allowed to treat customers in the first place. Financial institutions don't like small-time PEPs. They don't net the banks anywhere near the money dictators and kleptocrats do, but are just as likely to engage in ongoing bribery due to their position in society. 0: Farage had apparently been very vocal about having an account with Coutts, and waving that thing around as a sign of ... something. For the bank, that was negative brand value.
    - HenryBemis 3y ago
      Negative brand value is no reason to debank someone, half musicians that do drugs would give their bank a bad name. There must be a legal basis to debank someone. I don't like Farage's opinions, and being a PEP only means "more eyes on you", doesn't mean "kick them out". 1) Now, if Coutts dropped the ball on something, shame on them. A good lawyer can get some good ££££ for damaging the client's business/etc. 2) If Farage didn't mean a minimum-net-worth.. that's another story.
      - 3y ago
rfrey 3y ago
Even if Farange was targeted for his political beliefs, that is independent of whether Chase monitors customers political activites. Farange's politics were a matter of celebrity.
davidgerard 3y ago
This is a false claim.

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.
- jfengel 3y ago
  I don't trust Chase as far as I can throw them. But I still trust them more than Nigel Farage.
- panarky 3y ago
  None of this is about whether I trust Chase or not. It's about the big claim that Chase monitors the political activity of their customers and systematically closes the accounts of people with opinions Chase doesn't like. There's precisely zero evidence that they do this. Even if one blindly accepts your citations from "The 700 Club" and some random post from "Nitter" as authoritative, even they provide zero evidence for that claim. Big claims require compelling evidence, and you haven't provided any.
  - zlg_codes 3y ago
    So if MSM doesn't report, it doesn't exist? State the requirements of 'compelling evidence'. You debate like that Chase email explains their reasoning.
    - rfrey 3y ago
      "Compelling" evidence would be great, but SOME evidence would be nice too. The media not reporting it is certainly not evidence, down that path lies true crazy.
  - pabs3 3y ago
    FWIW, Nitter is just an alternative frontend to Twitter/X.
pauldenton 3y ago
So what alternative theory do you have for all those accounts being closed?
- bergen 3y ago
  Risk avoidance. Extremists (!) are more likely to have dubios donors. And even if they're "normal" political figures or activists, their behaviour in public might damage the bank. This being said this approach is a pretty wild one still, since people NEED banks, and there should be long duration till the expiration (except in cases of fraud, money laundering, ..)
  - suoduandao3 3y ago
    Their behavior in public, such as their social media activity? Sounds like there's no disagreement here.

fanf2 3y ago

No, Natwest got rid of him because he is broke, and the CEO resigned for discussing his personal details in public.

raincom 3y ago
Natwest's initial response was what you said: his accounts fell below a certain threshold after he paid off his mortgage. Then Farage sought info from Natwest using "subject access request". In those documents, it is "found that an internal committee had deemed his views did not align with the bank's own. This formed part of the basis for cutting him, the document showed, alongside commercial considerations." [1] [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/natwest-meets-quarterly-profit-forecast-amid-farage-debanking-row-2023-10-27/ https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/natwest-meets-quart...
mayd 3y ago
You are incorrect. Natwest was forced to release internal documents about the debanking of Nigel Farage under an FOI request and it is clear from the evidence that he was debanked because of his politics. From the Guardian 30 July 2023: <https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/30/uk-banks-closing-more-than-1000-accounts-every-day https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/30/uk-banks-cl...>: "Farage used a subject access request to discover that, despite initial denials by NatWest subsidiary Coutts, his political views had played a part in the closure of his account."

maccard 3y ago

> At least in the UK, NatWest debanked Neil Farage's account for his political views. Even its CEO resigned over her lying. No, a subsidiary of NatWest closed Farage's account when he no longer met the investment thresholds for the account he held. The CEO resigned for telling a journalist the above. That's not the same thing, at all.

xioxox 3y ago
No fan of Farage, but then why was most of the document the bank produced about what he did as a politician? Farage also claims he never met these supposed thresholds.
- bostik 3y ago
  Combination of reputational damage[0] and him being a PEP. I believe the account closure was a business decision, but they definitely had no reason to be public about it. One good thing came out of the debacle, though: it put the spotlight on UK retail banking regulations and how they are allowed to treat customers in the first place. Financial institutions don't like small-time PEPs. They don't net the banks anywhere near the money dictators and kleptocrats do, but are just as likely to engage in ongoing bribery due to their position in society. 0: Farage had apparently been very vocal about having an account with Coutts, and waving that thing around as a sign of ... something. For the bank, that was negative brand value.
  - HenryBemis 3y ago
    Negative brand value is no reason to debank someone, half musicians that do drugs would give their bank a bad name. There must be a legal basis to debank someone. I don't like Farage's opinions, and being a PEP only means "more eyes on you", doesn't mean "kick them out". 1) Now, if Coutts dropped the ball on something, shame on them. A good lawyer can get some good ££££ for damaging the client's business/etc. 2) If Farage didn't mean a minimum-net-worth.. that's another story.
    - 3y ago

rfrey 3y ago

Even if Farange was targeted for his political beliefs, that is independent of whether Chase monitors customers political activites. Farange's politics were a matter of celebrity.

davidgerard 3y ago

This is a false claim.