6 ms·

I get why this is insane but I also get why the law is there which leaves me in a wired spot. Part of me wants to say something along the lines of "make SAR's

I get why this is insane but I also get why the law is there which leaves me in a wired spot. Part of me wants to say something along the lines of "make SAR's disclosable / viewable to American citizens or legitimate users" but you can't really do that because the bad guys will quickly exploit any escape hatches like this. What do others think about this? Because I'm kinda stuck in the middle about them.

metacritic12 2y ago
The middle ground seems to be allowing SARs (which are analogous to tips to police officers), but not requiring banks keep them secret from the customer. The bank could decide to do so, but also could decide not to, like any other speech.
- hiatus 2y ago
  What is the incentive to divulge the information if they don't have to? Customer service? "We're the one bank that will tell you why we are dropping you as a customer"?
  - metacritic12 2y ago
    Probably some amount of customer service. Banks are at their distrection then on whether they want to tell you or not -- just like for any other reason for dropping you as a customer. I guess more important than empirically whether banks tell you, it's that it should be their right to tell you if they want.
hiatus 2y ago
When a case is brought to court, they have to outline the methods used to determine the perpetrator. Why is it okay to do that for things like murder and other crimes but not for banks?
- mandevil 2y ago
  SAR's can be discussed when criminal charges are filed. The most famous case I know of that stems from a publicly available SAR is former Speaker of the House Denny Hastert (R-Il) after his retirement from the House, when he was a lobbyist. He was being blackmailed by someone for his previous sexual assaults from his days as a high school teacher and wrestling coach three decades earlier, before he went into politics. He went to a bank to withdraw a bunch of cash to pay his blackmailer, and the bank started to fill out the form they do whenever you withdraw over $10,000 in cash (not a SAR, just a regular form). He saw the form being filled out, and decided he didn't want a paper trail with the government showing he was being blackmailed. So instead he stood in line hundreds of times at the bank, withdrawing $5,000 each time. This was why a SAR was filed, because he was clearly doing something called "structuring" which is setting up transactions deliberately to avoid those disclosure rules. After the FBI investigated, they decided that they couldn't get him for child sexual abuse, because it had been so long ago that the statue of limitations had expired. But they could get him for structuring, to which he plead guilty and served 15 months in jail. Besides the fact that knowing about when they are filed would tip off criminals, there is also the fact that oftentimes they are filed for perfectly innocuous reasons, and are never investigated and don't go anywhere. Not ideal to have publicly available "this guy did something suspicious" flags that have not been investigated further looming over you and haunting the rest of your life. Since SAR's are not shared with other financial institutions, they won't follow you the same way.
bradley13 2y ago
If there is evidence against you, you surely have the right to know of it and to contest it! That's pretty fundamental to any reasonable justice system.
- sneak 2y ago
  You have no right to a banking relationship, so there is no justice involved. It's not scary until everyone stops accepting cash.
  - dvdkon 2y ago
    It is already scary, many governments mandate that large purchases are only made through the banking system. Not to mention the private-sector pressure (how do you get paid for work?).
  - jeffhuys 2y ago
    But then we have to pay taxes on any amount of cash money above ~650 EUR in the Netherlands. They WANT to steer us towards cash-less, and MANY shops in the Netherlands have already stopped accepting cash. It's where we're going - ultimate control. No right on banking, but also it's a necessicity soon. So.... Too bad?
    - sneak 2y ago
      I leave my cards at home and only carry cash.
  - liontwist 2y ago
    Maybe that was a true when a bank was a private business and you could reasonably live without it. Today they are effectively a branch of the government and your life would be seriously impaired. For example, where does your employer setup direct deposit? How do you apply for a mortgage and demonstrate assets? If society relies on technology then you need it to participate. Yes you can still breathe without access to transportation, but you can’t work in the economy. In 1940 car or bus access was a luxury because normal people got along fine without one. That’s why it’s misleading to say increasing car access is an better standard of living. It’s actually an increase in the cost to participate in life. So yes banking must be a right. Or alternatively we could strengthen cash rights (reduce technology) with legal protections to qualify for loans, etc. But that won’t happen.
browningstreet 2y ago
You should see the rules about discussing SARs you are asked to respond to, as an employee of a bank, with your colleagues and managers...
efitz 2y ago
You’ve stipulated that the debanking was ok but that not disclosing why was problematic? How about this: 1. Corporations are highly regulated legal constructs. Being given an extraordinary right (immunity for shareholders) they should be expected to return significant value to society. I propose that value should be “lack of freedom of association” - eg I don’t think corporations should be allowed to stop doing business with, or refuse to do business with, anyone citizen, except after conviction in a court of law for behavior directly related to that business. 2. Government should not be able to use their secret monitoring to prevent anyone from doing anything. No lists, secret orders, etc. If government wants someone debanked, take it to court. Finally, if corporations can’t debank people, how do they handle unusual cost/risk? With pricing, of course. If porn and crypto transactions pose extraordinary financial risk, then allow pricing based on actual financial risk.
- AnAfrican 2y ago
  >Finally, if corporations can’t debank people, how do they handle unusual cost/risk? With pricing, of course. If porn and crypto transactions pose extraordinary financial risk, then allow pricing based on actual financial risk. And you're absolutely certain that powerful and vocal crypto people won't claim that this special pricing is discrimination as they're doing now with debunking ?
  - pjdesno 2y ago
    Look at the mortgage and credit card markets. Most lenders don't discriminate via pricing - they accept or deny individual applications. The market discriminates via pricing, as higher-cost providers are willing to loan to customers who pose more significant credit risks.
    - efitz 2y ago
      Mortgage market works as you describe. Credit card market works very differently - if Visa and Mastercard debank you, then you are effectively excluded from the market.
- 2y ago
marcosdumay 2y ago
The law seems to be punishing people based on secret judgements over sealed "non-accusations". Sorry, but no, I can't see why a country would want a law like this. Honestly, my country had a dictator impose a Constitution that made sure every person had access to banks over 200 years ago (we haven't had a democracy at that point, but nobody even discussed it since, because nobody disagrees). I also can't understand how come the US treats that system so frivolously.
- DrillShopper 2y ago
  This is all tied to the war on drugs and laundering of drug money (post-9/11 it become about terrorism as well, but again, more on drug money being funneled into terrorist groups) There are enough people in the US that think that the mere existence of drug users is an indictment of society, so any action taken to limit the ability of people who sell drugs is justified. You also see this with asset forfeiture laws. So the reason these laws exist is the people against drugs, unable to see that the war on drugs has been lost for over 20 years at this point, want to impose more and more draconian restrictions around them which just fuels the power of cartels and criminal gangs selling drugs. If the war on drugs worked then why can you get them in every high school and prison in the US?
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    You fight money laundering by letting people use the banks, have the banks record everything, and using the records on court to get the money back. You may have something about limiting international transfers, but forcing people out of the banks is contrary to the goals of a criminal investigation.
TacticalCoder 2y ago
> What do others think about this? Stop with the Al Capone, totally dumb, angle: instead of arresting him for his actual crime, they arrested him because he didn't pay his taxes. Something dumb like that. And everybody applauds as if it was so brilliant. It's not. What I think is: arrest people for the actual crime they commit... and leave honest people the fuck alone.

metacritic12 2y ago

The middle ground seems to be allowing SARs (which are analogous to tips to police officers), but not requiring banks keep them secret from the customer. The bank could decide to do so, but also could decide not to, like any other speech.

hiatus 2y ago
What is the incentive to divulge the information if they don't have to? Customer service? "We're the one bank that will tell you why we are dropping you as a customer"?
- metacritic12 2y ago
  Probably some amount of customer service. Banks are at their distrection then on whether they want to tell you or not -- just like for any other reason for dropping you as a customer. I guess more important than empirically whether banks tell you, it's that it should be their right to tell you if they want.

hiatus 2y ago

When a case is brought to court, they have to outline the methods used to determine the perpetrator. Why is it okay to do that for things like murder and other crimes but not for banks?

mandevil 2y ago
SAR's can be discussed when criminal charges are filed. The most famous case I know of that stems from a publicly available SAR is former Speaker of the House Denny Hastert (R-Il) after his retirement from the House, when he was a lobbyist. He was being blackmailed by someone for his previous sexual assaults from his days as a high school teacher and wrestling coach three decades earlier, before he went into politics. He went to a bank to withdraw a bunch of cash to pay his blackmailer, and the bank started to fill out the form they do whenever you withdraw over $10,000 in cash (not a SAR, just a regular form). He saw the form being filled out, and decided he didn't want a paper trail with the government showing he was being blackmailed. So instead he stood in line hundreds of times at the bank, withdrawing $5,000 each time. This was why a SAR was filed, because he was clearly doing something called "structuring" which is setting up transactions deliberately to avoid those disclosure rules. After the FBI investigated, they decided that they couldn't get him for child sexual abuse, because it had been so long ago that the statue of limitations had expired. But they could get him for structuring, to which he plead guilty and served 15 months in jail. Besides the fact that knowing about when they are filed would tip off criminals, there is also the fact that oftentimes they are filed for perfectly innocuous reasons, and are never investigated and don't go anywhere. Not ideal to have publicly available "this guy did something suspicious" flags that have not been investigated further looming over you and haunting the rest of your life. Since SAR's are not shared with other financial institutions, they won't follow you the same way.

bradley13 2y ago

If there is evidence against you, you surely have the right to know of it and to contest it! That's pretty fundamental to any reasonable justice system.

sneak 2y ago
You have no right to a banking relationship, so there is no justice involved. It's not scary until everyone stops accepting cash.
- dvdkon 2y ago
  It is already scary, many governments mandate that large purchases are only made through the banking system. Not to mention the private-sector pressure (how do you get paid for work?).
- jeffhuys 2y ago
  But then we have to pay taxes on any amount of cash money above ~650 EUR in the Netherlands. They WANT to steer us towards cash-less, and MANY shops in the Netherlands have already stopped accepting cash. It's where we're going - ultimate control. No right on banking, but also it's a necessicity soon. So.... Too bad?
  - sneak 2y ago
    I leave my cards at home and only carry cash.
- liontwist 2y ago
  Maybe that was a true when a bank was a private business and you could reasonably live without it. Today they are effectively a branch of the government and your life would be seriously impaired. For example, where does your employer setup direct deposit? How do you apply for a mortgage and demonstrate assets? If society relies on technology then you need it to participate. Yes you can still breathe without access to transportation, but you can’t work in the economy. In 1940 car or bus access was a luxury because normal people got along fine without one. That’s why it’s misleading to say increasing car access is an better standard of living. It’s actually an increase in the cost to participate in life. So yes banking must be a right. Or alternatively we could strengthen cash rights (reduce technology) with legal protections to qualify for loans, etc. But that won’t happen.

browningstreet 2y ago

You should see the rules about discussing SARs you are asked to respond to, as an employee of a bank, with your colleagues and managers...

efitz 2y ago

You’ve stipulated that the debanking was ok but that not disclosing why was problematic? How about this: 1. Corporations are highly regulated legal constructs. Being given an extraordinary right (immunity for shareholders) they should be expected to return significant value to society. I propose that value should be “lack of freedom of association” - eg I don’t think corporations should be allowed to stop doing business with, or refuse to do business with, anyone citizen, except after conviction in a court of law for behavior directly related to that business. 2. Government should not be able to use their secret monitoring to prevent anyone from doing anything. No lists, secret orders, etc. If government wants someone debanked, take it to court. Finally, if corporations can’t debank people, how do they handle unusual cost/risk? With pricing, of course. If porn and crypto transactions pose extraordinary financial risk, then allow pricing based on actual financial risk.

AnAfrican 2y ago
>Finally, if corporations can’t debank people, how do they handle unusual cost/risk? With pricing, of course. If porn and crypto transactions pose extraordinary financial risk, then allow pricing based on actual financial risk. And you're absolutely certain that powerful and vocal crypto people won't claim that this special pricing is discrimination as they're doing now with debunking ?
- pjdesno 2y ago
  Look at the mortgage and credit card markets. Most lenders don't discriminate via pricing - they accept or deny individual applications. The market discriminates via pricing, as higher-cost providers are willing to loan to customers who pose more significant credit risks.
  - efitz 2y ago
    Mortgage market works as you describe. Credit card market works very differently - if Visa and Mastercard debank you, then you are effectively excluded from the market.
2y ago

marcosdumay 2y ago

The law seems to be punishing people based on secret judgements over sealed "non-accusations". Sorry, but no, I can't see why a country would want a law like this. Honestly, my country had a dictator impose a Constitution that made sure every person had access to banks over 200 years ago (we haven't had a democracy at that point, but nobody even discussed it since, because nobody disagrees). I also can't understand how come the US treats that system so frivolously.

DrillShopper 2y ago
This is all tied to the war on drugs and laundering of drug money (post-9/11 it become about terrorism as well, but again, more on drug money being funneled into terrorist groups) There are enough people in the US that think that the mere existence of drug users is an indictment of society, so any action taken to limit the ability of people who sell drugs is justified. You also see this with asset forfeiture laws. So the reason these laws exist is the people against drugs, unable to see that the war on drugs has been lost for over 20 years at this point, want to impose more and more draconian restrictions around them which just fuels the power of cartels and criminal gangs selling drugs. If the war on drugs worked then why can you get them in every high school and prison in the US?
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  You fight money laundering by letting people use the banks, have the banks record everything, and using the records on court to get the money back. You may have something about limiting international transfers, but forcing people out of the banks is contrary to the goals of a criminal investigation.

TacticalCoder 2y ago

> What do others think about this? Stop with the Al Capone, totally dumb, angle: instead of arresting him for his actual crime, they arrested him because he didn't pay his taxes. Something dumb like that. And everybody applauds as if it was so brilliant. It's not. What I think is: arrest people for the actual crime they commit... and leave honest people the fuck alone.