No they shouldn't. While I'm sure a number of these accounts that get shut down are indeed scams or forgeries of some kind there will be a number of them that a

No they shouldn't. While I'm sure a number of these accounts that get shut down are indeed scams or forgeries of some kind there will be a number of them that are legitimate accounts or perhaps legitimate people who wish to remain anonymous. Unfortunately what is really happening is this simply a way of excluding undesirables from participation in modern society. If it's about crime or fraud or something else there should be a paper trail a referral to criminal proceedings before the bank takes any action to seize and close out people's money. What governments like is passing rules to make extra judicial rulings to lock people out of society. There is no free society if there is no due process in society. It is meant as a way to erode the principles of common law and substitute a legislative dictatorship. When any institution becomes core to the functionality of a society and the system of governance enables those institutions, even privately held ones, to become core to functioning in a society then access to those must be preserved at all cost for the people. It is better to air on the side of allowing a criminal entity, that has not been convicted in a court of law, to have access to banking than to cause one legitimate person to be excluded from having access to Banks. Because banking is core to everything. Try and get a job where they will pay you directly in cash. Try to get a job that doesn't want to direct deposit money to your account and will still write you a paper check. Even when you have that paper check try to go to their bank and get that check cashed. Locking people out of banking without a criminal charge and a conviction in court excludes people from participation in society in any meaningful way.