3 ms·

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
        kasey_junk 2y ago
        We don’t need to invent a mechanism for banks to share bad customer data between each other. There is a whole ecosystem like credit bureaus for bank accounts. But sars being secret has nothing to do with that.
    - mandevil 2y ago
      FINCEN (and others who have search access to it, which rounds to most Federal Government criminal investigators) can see all SARs filed. Banks (and other financial institutions obligated to file a SAR- like casinos!) don't get to see what any other institution has filed. The point of a SAR is to provide a data point for an investigator, not to create a black-list of unbankable people.
mppm 2y ago
There is a right for a personal bank account only.
- tredre3 2y ago
  Which is already a big improvement over the situation in America. Being cut from the savings/investment/loan system would certainly suck and be unfair if you did nothing wrong, but much less than losing your basic bank account. That's where you receive/cash your pay, tax refunds, any government benefits, write checks (for things that are still paid that way by default), make transfers, etc.
  - mppm 2y ago
    That's true, and it's certainly better than nothing, but engaging in some legal business activity is also one of the basic personal freedoms in the Western value system, one that is trampled on very badly by the recent rise of draconian banking regulations. For businesses, the banking situation in the EU is actually worse than the US right now. It depends on the country, but in some places small businesses basically have to go begging around, hoping that some bank will take on the "compliance risk" of opening an account for them.
  - sneak 2y ago
    I disagree. Bank accounts aren’t the solution; regulating the end use cases (ie businesses that don’t accept cash) is a much better option for society.
    - Muromec 2y ago
      If anything, the government out here discourages using cash and not the other way around

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
      - kasey_junk 2y ago
        We don’t need to invent a mechanism for banks to share bad customer data between each other. There is a whole ecosystem like credit bureaus for bank accounts. But sars being secret has nothing to do with that.
  - mandevil 2y ago
    FINCEN (and others who have search access to it, which rounds to most Federal Government criminal investigators) can see all SARs filed. Banks (and other financial institutions obligated to file a SAR- like casinos!) don't get to see what any other institution has filed. The point of a SAR is to provide a data point for an investigator, not to create a black-list of unbankable people.

mppm 2y ago

There is a right for a personal bank account only.

tredre3 2y ago
Which is already a big improvement over the situation in America. Being cut from the savings/investment/loan system would certainly suck and be unfair if you did nothing wrong, but much less than losing your basic bank account. That's where you receive/cash your pay, tax refunds, any government benefits, write checks (for things that are still paid that way by default), make transfers, etc.
- mppm 2y ago
  That's true, and it's certainly better than nothing, but engaging in some legal business activity is also one of the basic personal freedoms in the Western value system, one that is trampled on very badly by the recent rise of draconian banking regulations. For businesses, the banking situation in the EU is actually worse than the US right now. It depends on the country, but in some places small businesses basically have to go begging around, hoping that some bank will take on the "compliance risk" of opening an account for them.
- sneak 2y ago
  I disagree. Bank accounts aren’t the solution; regulating the end use cases (ie businesses that don’t accept cash) is a much better option for society.
  - Muromec 2y ago
    If anything, the government out here discourages using cash and not the other way around