5 ms·
Inactive bank accounts to be seized in Australia
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- feralmoan 13y agoConvict hangover, being a victim is part of its identity?
- i386 13y agoThat's offensive and just goes to show how little you know about us Australians.
- sjtrny 13y agoHey leave him alone. It's not his fault he's ignorant, he's from the US after all.
- feralmoan 13y agoI'm Australian actually, and answering the question as an Australian (but maybe not a "real Australian", am I right?) about how I feel about Australia. Think of it as tongue in cheek if it makes you feel less offended. How would you explain the countries self flagellation? I see a lot of these headlines from abroad and am pretty certain no-one is lifting a finger to help themselves. Is the bureaucratic process simply too big and complicated to navigate (it's not, btw), do people feel they don't have any power or what? The government doesn't have any right to that money, and '3 years' is just as arbitrary as many other ridiculous laws and policies recently passed and quantified with '(un)reasonable' or '(un)necessary' or 'x' number that the Australian government uses exclusively to service its own revenue deficit. Australians must just like being punished, I have no other explanation.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- btn 13y agoUS states do have programs for transfering inactive/abandoned bank accounts to a treasury (and for claiming those monies back): http://www.helpwithmybank.gov/get-answers/bank-accounts/inactive-accounts/bank-accounts-inactive-accounts-quesindx.html http://www.helpwithmybank.gov/get-answers/bank-accounts/inac...
- philfreo 13y agoYeah, there are definitely similar policies in the US. Not sure if its per state or what, but I've gotten a letter like this.
- frenchman_in_ny 13y agoYep, it happens. It's called escheatment [1] [2] [3]. Why the uproar? What's "supposed" to happen with accounts that have been abandoned (dead owner, no family/will/estate or whatever other scenario that could exist)? [1] http://www.sec.gov/answers/escheat.htm http://www.sec.gov/answers/escheat.htm [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escheat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escheat [3] https://customerservice.sovereignbank.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3048/~/what-is-escheatment%3F https://customerservice.sovereignbank.com/app/answers/detail...
- incompatible 13y agoBut you'd think in that case that any sign of activity on the part of the owner would be enough to determine that they aren't dead. E.g., logging in to online banking or answering a phone call from the bank. Now with this new Australian regulation, I'll have to remember to put some activity through accounts that are just savings.
- kondro 13y agoThe worst part of the legislation is that interest and fees are not considered "using" the account. *You must physically deposit or withdraw funds from the account.
- josephagoss 13y agoLets see them try to seize inactive Bitcoins.....
- hippich 13y agoif 51% of network agree with that, this can happen too. agree = download and use client with this "feature"
- dmix 13y agoYes, that's the whole point, 51% percent of the network would never have an incentive to do that. If they did, it would destroy the value of the currency. Self-destruction with no benefit. If people lost trust in BTC there are competing crypto-currencies/state currencies. Destroying liquidity.
- jonemo 13y agoWhat happens when you are in prison or a coma for over three years? Once you are back, do you have to go through the several-month-long process recovery process? How do you pay the bills during that time? Do they pay you interest if you successfully reclaim the money? What's the point of this legislation anyway?
- gregsq 13y agoThere's no point but to utilise any reserves laying idle. There's essentially negative interest rates on a lot of these accounts. I don't have an Australian bank account, but someone I know who does discovered that her account pays no interest unless some transaction worth at least a dollar takes place once a month. With charges, this is negative. Better on the governments balance sheet rather than the banks. What are the savers doing with it anyway it seems.
- brc 13y agoSurely you aren't serious? Better on the governments balance sheet than a private citizen? Really?
- jacques_chester 13y ago> What's the point of this legislation anyway? To improve the on-paper budgetary situation for the Commonwealth. That's it. The money seized goes, per the Constitution [1], into Consolidated Revenue in the first instance and that makes the books look better. For the same reason, they're now grabbing unclaimed superannuation accounts and requiring many businesses to pay tax monthly instead of quarterly. Most of the money will eventually get paid back out. But in the meantime it pumps up the forward estimates. If this were being done by the directors of a corporation, ASIC would be down at a courthouse right now pressing charges. [1] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s81.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s...
- jser 13y agoMoney now has an expiration date, like air miles?
- sjtrny 13y agoIs this a karma grab? This was doing the rounds online shortly after it was announced in February. Anyway it seems likely to only affect people who are wealthy enough to have large reserves of cash with nothing happening to it. When you think about it, most people only have 1 or 2 accounts. And these accounts usually have fairly regular activity occurring.
- fuck_you 13y agoYes, it's a karma grab. I really want the karma. I'm hoping it's going to be turned into a new crypto-currency. I'll then be rich. At which point, I'll be able to fund a karmacoin exchange in international waters, and invite Kim Dotcom to live with me. He'll be selling patents to large internet companies, and I'll have control over the world reserve currency. But damn it, you've foiled my plans!
- kintamanimatt 13y agoSeizing money out of a customer's bank account is really quite reprehensible. It's quite easy to imagine a situation in which someone has a savings account for a specific purpose that they have the discipline to not touch (e.g. an "oh shit" fund), and then suddenly find that money has been stolen one morning by the government. Indeed, I've had a number of savings accounts that have been for specific purposes that have neither grown nor shrunk, untouched for years because there has been no necessity. The only situation I can think of in which it's somewhat ok for the government to raid a citizen's bank account is if the customer has been uncontactable for a number of years and cannot be found after a diligent search. Bar this, it's just theft.
- Maxious 13y ago> The only situation I can think of in which it's somewhat ok for the government to raid a citizen's bank account is if the customer has been uncontactable for a number of years and cannot be found after a diligent search. "ASIC's Unclaimed Monies Unit regularly sends letters to people and companies whose names match our records." There are also private companies (Dun and Bradstreet etc.) who scrape the records and try to contact owners for a finders fee.
- kintamanimatt 13y agoOh, well, that's a bit better. The article would have the reader believe that it's an automatic government seizure program and that the bank account holder only gets to find out their funds have been stolen when the money is already gone.
- brc 13y agoI had money seized under this change. I did not receive a letter from ASIC. All I got was an email, which I skim-read and filed as being ok. There was two months from announcement to seizure. It is NOT ok.
- tfm 13y agoTo clarify, seizing of "inactive" funds already occurs -- the change next week shortens the timeframe from 7 years inactivity to 3 years. The money can be subsequently reclaimed through tedious paperwork. This is pretty standard stuff internationally speaking (U.S. seems to have a timeframe of 3-5 years depending on the state, U.K. is 15 years, Canada has a more generous timeframe of 30 years, or 100 years for amounts over a grand!). The responsible thing for your bank to do would be to notify you at the 35-month period. Not much good if you don't keep your contact details up to date, but if it's something like a investment or trust account then that might be the one address you'd like to try to keep accurate. THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SOUND FINANCIAL ADVICE, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO KEEP YOUR BANK STATEMENTS FORWARDING TO THAT EXPIRED P.O. BOX AT YOUR ALMA MATER
- brc 13y agoNot 'to be seized' - 'have been seized' I had an account confiscated -stolen -emptied - whatever you want to call it. This was an e-trade linked account. They sent me a warning so I wet in and checked that it was active -login, checked the account, regular interest deposits, all good,there. Wrong. I had to make a personal withdrawal or deposit in order to 'activate' the account or it was deemed inactive. All because I haven't bought/sold anything for 3 years in that particular account ( though I have in other accounts in the same e-trade account) Now I have to apply to a govnemrnt agency to get my money back, the wait time is 6 weeks plus. It's absurd, shocking, disgusting. In the news is a pensioner who had been saving up for medical bills. Goes into hospital for major surgery, comes out afterwards and finds all his saving gone $22k. The inactive period is 3 years. In other words, since the LOST finale aired. It's not that long. Most countries have a provision to seize unclaimed monies. But three years? What on earth is the justification? Because they can't balance a budget? If the government came into your house and took any jewelry that you hadn't worn in three years, most people would revolt. But apparently. Only in the bank is use it or lose it. So much for savings being the necessary per-requisite for capital formation. /rant For what? The current treasurer and government disgust me.
- incompatible 13y agoI didn't realise that it applied to every account individually at a single bank. I'd have thought transactions through any particular account would be enough to show that none of the accounts are "lost". Any other activity such as logging in and checking the balance should be sufficient too. Otherwise, it seems that it's just a government cash grab.
- brc 13y agoYes, any reasonable test of an active account for an online account should be a recent login. But that's not the test- you have to withdraw or deposit money. I suppose we could call it 'banking theatre'. 'dance, taxpayer, dance! Jump through these arbitrary hoops or we'll take your cash!'
- 13y ago
- femto 13y agoThis story is sensationalism at its best. The full story is that inactive money is currently held by the banks and transferred to ASIC after 7 years of inactivity. The owner of the account doesn't lose their money, as ASIC advertises the details of all inactive accounts in an effort to locate the owners and return the money to them [1]. The new law changes the period to 3 years. As you can imagine, the banks are spitting chips, since they get 4 years less use out of the money. One can argue that the change is good for people who have genuinely lost their account, as the inactive account gets visability sooner and is more likely to be reunited with its owner. It will be a nuisance for people who do want to leave an account untouched for a long time, as they will have to interact with the account every three years. [1] https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/tools-and-resources/find-unclaimed-money https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/tools-and-resources/find-uncla... --- edit: spelling
- Maxious 13y agoThis is even better for consumers and even worse for banks - no monthly account fees and automatically adjusting interest rates once the money is sent to ASIC. Reactivating the account and getting your money back isn't hard either - you just find the unique identifier online https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/tools-and-resources/find-unclaimed-money#claim https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/tools-and-resources/find-uncla... and take it to the bank.
- incompatible 13y agoIf you shop around a little, you'll find banks in Australia that don't charge account fees. And I'm not convinced that ASIC will pay decent interest rates, since the government cash rate is lower than typical bank rates for deposits (again if you shop around a little).
- jacques_chester 13y agoI have a personal account with a credit union that is fee-free. It's not that difficult to arrange. Here's my complete, step-by-step guide to getting cheap basic banking services: 1. Avoid the Big 4 Banks.