4 ms·

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.
  - miohtama 2y ago
    In the EU, there is a right for a bank account. But this right does not cover anti-money laundering excuses to debank a person.
    - liontwist 2y ago
      So it’s effectively a jail sentence, and that’s fine for people who break social rules, but we have built up a whole justice system for applying them. When government pretends taking away your bank is anything less serious, they just want to sidestep due process.
      - miohtama 2y ago
        It's not government taking it away. It's a bank taking it away because they do not want to spend time and money to resolve the situation. The legal risk is high where as there is very little upside for retaining the customer relationship.
        liontwist 2y ago
        So what would happen if were in that situation and then went to another bank?
        kasey_junk 2y ago
        Banks can only share sars in very limited circumstances. If you went to another bank they, in almost every case, would not know that your previous bank filed a sar.
        Muromec 2y ago
        The bank will however ask why you are switching to them and telling “my account was closed without explanation“ will make them think twice
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  Which is the root problem, and the solution is a constitutional amendment guaranteeing an inalienable right to an electronic money account one can send and receive money from. “Banks” don’t really have a point in a cashless society (the government can operate a database just as well), but it seems the government wants to the ability to persecute selected people or populations with plausible deniability. So they use the ability to get banned by big business as a proxy.
  - wbl 2y ago
    Who would provide credit and do maturity transformation? Maybe you end up with duration matched funds everywhere but I think that's unlikely for regional banks.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      Why is credit and maturity transformation needed for electronic payments? If people want to borrow money to pay for something (credit cards and the like), that can be its own thing that the government is not involved in.
- latedoomer 2y ago
  It can be incredibly stressful even right now. I had my bank freeze my accounts because they believe I deposited a fraudulent check (I hadn't). They were incredibly unhelpful during the entire process necessitating hours on hold, going to the branch multiple times and eventually they threatened to close all my accounts. Took about a week to get sorted while I had no access to my funds, including direct withdrawal bills like my mortgage payment. And you are correct... I had no rights. They had all the power, and they knew it and acted accordingly.
- NullPrefix 2y ago
  Countries in EU have a hard limit on cash transactions. Buying a car for over a few grand and it has go through bank. Renting a flat, even if you pay monthly, the tax man considers the whole duration as one big business deal, so the rent has to go through a bank
btown 2y ago
But the SAR itself, from how it sounds in the OP, is not the trigger that makes a person/business unbankable across the entire banking system - only at that single bank. The OP article makes a reasonable point that administration officials can and do exert pressure on banks to withhold services to certain industries like debt collectors. And there indeed is a slippery slope there, and one that VCs with significant exposure to crypto are motivated to highlight. But “withholding evidence,” and the SAR secrecy specifically, doesn’t seem to be a mechanism by which that happens. I’m far more concerned with what might cause an individual to lose access to all banks than what might cause them to lose access to one.
- psychlops 2y ago
  We are headed towards very few monolithic banks in the near future. I imagine that if one debanks a client, they will all do so for the same reasons.
glitchc 2y ago
But debanking is not a criminal charge. The US has thousands of banks, surely one of them would take your business.

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.
- miohtama 2y ago
  In the EU, there is a right for a bank account. But this right does not cover anti-money laundering excuses to debank a person.
  - liontwist 2y ago
    So it’s effectively a jail sentence, and that’s fine for people who break social rules, but we have built up a whole justice system for applying them. When government pretends taking away your bank is anything less serious, they just want to sidestep due process.
    - miohtama 2y ago
      It's not government taking it away. It's a bank taking it away because they do not want to spend time and money to resolve the situation. The legal risk is high where as there is very little upside for retaining the customer relationship.
      - liontwist 2y ago
        So what would happen if were in that situation and then went to another bank?
        kasey_junk 2y ago
        Banks can only share sars in very limited circumstances. If you went to another bank they, in almost every case, would not know that your previous bank filed a sar.
        Muromec 2y ago
        The bank will however ask why you are switching to them and telling “my account was closed without explanation“ will make them think twice
lotsofpulp 2y ago
Which is the root problem, and the solution is a constitutional amendment guaranteeing an inalienable right to an electronic money account one can send and receive money from. “Banks” don’t really have a point in a cashless society (the government can operate a database just as well), but it seems the government wants to the ability to persecute selected people or populations with plausible deniability. So they use the ability to get banned by big business as a proxy.
- wbl 2y ago
  Who would provide credit and do maturity transformation? Maybe you end up with duration matched funds everywhere but I think that's unlikely for regional banks.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    Why is credit and maturity transformation needed for electronic payments? If people want to borrow money to pay for something (credit cards and the like), that can be its own thing that the government is not involved in.
latedoomer 2y ago
It can be incredibly stressful even right now. I had my bank freeze my accounts because they believe I deposited a fraudulent check (I hadn't). They were incredibly unhelpful during the entire process necessitating hours on hold, going to the branch multiple times and eventually they threatened to close all my accounts. Took about a week to get sorted while I had no access to my funds, including direct withdrawal bills like my mortgage payment. And you are correct... I had no rights. They had all the power, and they knew it and acted accordingly.
NullPrefix 2y ago
Countries in EU have a hard limit on cash transactions. Buying a car for over a few grand and it has go through bank. Renting a flat, even if you pay monthly, the tax man considers the whole duration as one big business deal, so the rent has to go through a bank

btown 2y ago

But the SAR itself, from how it sounds in the OP, is not the trigger that makes a person/business unbankable across the entire banking system - only at that single bank. The OP article makes a reasonable point that administration officials can and do exert pressure on banks to withhold services to certain industries like debt collectors. And there indeed is a slippery slope there, and one that VCs with significant exposure to crypto are motivated to highlight. But “withholding evidence,” and the SAR secrecy specifically, doesn’t seem to be a mechanism by which that happens. I’m far more concerned with what might cause an individual to lose access to all banks than what might cause them to lose access to one.

psychlops 2y ago
We are headed towards very few monolithic banks in the near future. I imagine that if one debanks a client, they will all do so for the same reasons.

glitchc 2y ago

But debanking is not a criminal charge. The US has thousands of banks, surely one of them would take your business.