Posts by briskjackal5

Yeah.

So, what probably went down was that the clerk just told her that this whole thing is all part of FATCA. And because of that, she "has" to respond.

I mean, maybe Adeline herself doesn't actually know what counts and what doesn't, so she’s just passing along whatever info she heard from the official.

-Steve

Adeline mentioned they were asking her a ton of stuff on top of all that data.
I mean, things they don't even have a right to ask about, really.

The stuff you're bringing up... I don't think anyone here actually has an issue with it. I guess most people would be totally fine with those kinds of questions since the purpose behind them seems pretty justified, you know? 👍

-Steve

wiredlynx28 said:Making a scene won't help. Only the most unrefined customers resort to theatrics, and half of them can't even speak English properly to begin with.👍
The issue isn't that the staff or the manager are being difficult—that doesn't make any sense. It's simply that the system won't allow it if the data required by the Freedom of Information Act hasn't been entered.
If she thinks she's right, her best bet is to find a solid lawyer and file a private lawsuit. But realistically, they'll close those accounts regardless once the data is updated. Besides, she'll need that exact same information just to open a checking account at any other bank down the road.👍

So, what exactly are these "exact same details" we're talking about?

Nobody has actually specified that here on the thread yet, and I highly doubt Adele was stressing out over things like her home address or her date of birth.

-briskjackal5

wiredlynx28 said:Where are you getting your info that Americans hold over $22 billion in banks? 🤣
What you see in the news is nothing but speculation because that data is classified.
Half the population is struggling financially, so those numbers are nowhere near reality. As for the wealthy—and I don't mean someone with $100k or $300k, which is peanuts in banking terms—they don't keep their cash in standard banks because the taxation isn't worth it. That’s why offshore accounts are so popular for them, rather than domestic US banks.
One more thing, you didn't answer my previous question: do you work for the IRS or know someone on the inside? That's the only way you could say this with such certainty.
I don't know how things work in Canada, but the situation in America is different, which is why I'm asking. 👍
And like I said before, and like Timothy Davis3 mentioned, it's true that they don't care about amounts of $20k or less. It all comes down to the ratio of income to deposits and spending. Everything leaves a paper trail, so if the money was earned legally, everything is fine.

Well, if by "wild guesswork" you actually mean "Federal Reserve data," then yeah, I guess you're right! 😁

wiredlynx28 said:It’s not 105k dollars, it's 105k pesos 👍
Basically, any amount that doesn't line up with your paycheck gets flagged.
If someone is pulling in, say, 4 or 5k a month—which is pretty standard for an average American worker—but they're suddenly dropping huge sums on purchases that don't match that income, they're absolutely going to trigger an IRS audit or a probe into where that cash actually came from.
At the end of the day, if the money was earned legally, you won't have any problems.

I mean, unfortunately, it doesn't really work like that, you know? I guess the whole issue is that the lack of precision here is what's actually creating the gap. It's just... yeah, that's where things get messy.
It’s not even about whether the money was earned legally—it’s more about whether you actually have the paper trail to prove it! I mean, if you can't show the receipts, what's the point? It's all about that evidence, right?

Timothy Davis3 said:And why the hell wouldn't they raise the limit??

Like, picture this: every single month I take some cash and turn it into crypto—let’s say $500. I just stash it under my mattress. Fast forward 10 years, and I’ve got $60,000 sitting there. Now, for whatever reason, I decide I want to deposit that money into MY own bank account...

Am I really supposed to sit there and prove to a bunch of bureaucratic idiots where my hard-earned money came from?

Well, looking at how things stand right now, I guess the law basically makes that an option, yeah!

Hey! Just wanted to jump in here... I guess I have some thoughts on this. Maybe? Anyway, I've been thinking about everything we discussed earlier. It’s kind of wild when you really sit down and look at how things are moving lately, right? I mean, honestly, it feels like everything is shifting so fast! I was just chatting with Steve the other day—you know how he gets—and even he was saying how much things have changed. It’s just... wow. Anyway, I don't want to ramble too much, but I really think there's something interesting happening here. Just my two cents, though! Hope everyone is having a great day!

Gary Reed9 said:Just give them the data they’re fishing for—basically, just tell them whatever version of the truth you don't feel like hiding—then shut down all your accounts and call it a day. That's it. It's the shortest, least painful way to handle this. Anything else is just an exercise in futility.

I don't think they're really looking for a fight either, though.

The only thing I'd actually get out of all this arguing is some terrible PR.

-Steve

I honestly can't find it either.

Isn't that just kind of ironic, you know? Like, being unable to actually find a search engine? 😁

-Steve

Harold Evans4 said:The irony here is killing me. You guys love to trash anyone who actually bothers to "fight the banks"—calling them a waste of time, saying they’re overreacting or just being dramatic...
But get this: you’ve been recycling the exact same tired arguments on this thread for weeks. So, what, you’re spending all your precious energy and resources just to try and convince someone else not to spend theirs? Make it make sense. 🤦

Trash?

Fighting people who are busy "fighting the banks" is such a noble cause, isn't it? 😁

-Steve

Jessica Nelson4 said:I bolded that part because it was my response to your claim that "all banks ask the same questions," implying there's no point in questioning them if they all act the same way. On the contrary, we absolutely need to question it. Of course, I find it amusing to read about someone switching banks over specific questions, especially when it's highly likely they'll face the exact same inquiries elsewhere. If I were seeing someone moving fifty thousand dollars a month—who knows, maybe they are—it would be a different story, but since the IRS now has visibility into checking accounts, it feels somewhat futile. I certainly understand your way of fighting back, though I have my doubts about whether it will truly yield results. I sincerely hope it does, because you are standing up for something morally sound. My amusement is a separate matter, as I'm currently dealing with much larger headaches because of this whole mess. For instance, they're asking me if I'm an American citizen or not, and honestly, I really care.

And hey, maybe they won't even have to worry about that.

It’s just so wild how the world works, isn't it? I guess things just have a way of looping back on themselves, right? 😁

-briskjackal5

Nathan Morris3 said:I don't know about everyone else, but I've put a decent amount of time into trying to fix things I think are wrong here in America, especially when it comes to people breaking the law or ignoring ethics. I mean, I just try my best to help improve our society and the mindset we live in. It feels a bit pointless when you spend your time mocking us while we're actually trying to do something good. To be honest, after all these years of putting in work and seeing zero progress—especially with mainstream attitudes like yours asking "don't you have anything better to do?"—I'm not feeling super optimistic that things will change. I still think it would be way better if everyone did at least something small to help out. I mean, how can you expect perceptions of the shadow economy or corruption to shift if people just tolerate banks acting this way without questioning them? (Actually, people usually attack those who *do* question the banks). Why bother bothering us just to make fun of us?
Hopeless.

Spot on.

Crab mentality.

What you're describing is basically that group of people who think what he's doing is totally justified, yet they're still rooting for him to fail. It's such a loser mentality, really... it just serves as an excuse for them to give up before they even start.

And if someone claims they aren't commenting because they've already given up, but rather because they think the whole thing is "unimportant" or just "minor details," then why does suddenly critiquing everyone else's actions become so vital? 😁

-Steve

Oh, man. That old classic move where you "sell someone a house just to get rid of the cat."

Total classic.

-Steve

Terry Ruiz23 said:They're demanding my personal info, details on how I handle my business with the bank, and proof of residency—otherwise, they're just gonna shut down the account.

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Reddit

I mean, maybe just tell them straight up that their "nature of business" is just nickel-and-diming you with every single fee possible and basically forcing your hand.
Maybe loop in the SEC or someone like that in the CC. 😁

-briskjackal5

I mean, honestly? I guess if you really think about it... maybe? I don't know! It just feels like such a wild thing to say out loud, right?! Like, wow. Just... wow.

wiredlynx28 said:If some bank tries to squeeze more info out of you by hiding behind a "fact" or some other excuse, then that’s a whole different ballgame.
Look, if we're talking about massive sums of money, they used to hunt you down just to avoid getting flagged by the IRS for an audit. Now? They can see everything themselves, so there’s really no reason to go looking for trouble anymore.

This whole thing regarding bank account audits and financial transparency here in America? It’s been standard practice in other countries for ages. People don't even complain about it because they have nothing to hide. Just look at Scandinavia. There is zero chance someone dodges their taxes over there, which is exactly why their quality of life is so high—even if their tax rate sits at around 60% of their income.
It’s not just about the government hoarding data for its own sake. They can actually track whether a taxpayer holds assets in other signatory nations because information sharing is now standard practice among OECD members. This isn't limited to just the EU; it’s a global network designed to crack down on money laundering and other financial crimes.

I don't know, I guess I'm just having a hard time believing this is actually true... maybe it's just me, but it feels a little off!
Do you have an example? I mean, maybe just one? Just to get me started! Or if you've got something ready to go, that would be awesome too... I guess!

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is... honestly, every single example we've stumbled upon points to the exact opposite! Like, seriously, the whole idea is that the government shouldn't be digging through your private bank accounts at all—let alone just poking around whenever they feel like it. It just doesn't sit right, you know?

I guess you could say the same thing about Scandinavia. I mean, take Victor Bloom—he’s from over there, and he was raking in millions at the poker tables even when he was just a kid; and honestly, nobody even questioned him! It’s just that, maybe, people weren't talking about his identity quite as loudly in the news back then.
I mean, honestly? It’s like nobody even bothered to check his bank statements. Not one single person! I guess they just totally skipped over his account history entirely... maybe they weren't even looking? It's just wild to me!

One day they approve this regulation for you, and then out of nowhere, some guy like Mikulic over in US Congress starts waving your private data around whenever he feels like it... and nobody can do a single thing about it. I mean, honestly, that’s basically how things already work anyway, isn't it?

I guess I should probably start by saying... well, I don't really know how to put this! But here goes nothing! So, I was just sitting here thinking about what was said, and honestly? I have so many thoughts! It’s kind of overwhelming, actually! I mean, maybe I'm overthinking it, but I really feel like there's so much more to dig into here. Like, wow! Just... wow! I'm just so excited to dive into this whole thing with you guys! It's going to be such a wild ride, I just know it! Maybe we can all just sit back, grab a coffee, and really get into the nitty-gritty of it all? I think that would be super fun! Anyway, let's just get started! I'm ready if you are! Let's goooo!

And honestly, people aren't even complaining because they feel like they’ve got nothing to hide anyway! I mean, maybe that's just how it is? It's like, if you haven't done anything wrong, why would you care, right? I guess some folks just don't see the big deal...

They aren't even complaining because, honestly, it wasn't even part of the official rules to begin with! I mean, just the slightest hint of it being mentioned before and everyone was losing their minds with complaints. We actually saw a similar situation play out once where they thought about trying something like that over in Germany, and—get this—they backed off almost immediately. Fast work!

Hey wiredlynx28, would you be cool if we just tucked some microphones all over your apartment? And maybe install some software on your computer to forward all your emails straight to the "proper authorities"? You know, like the Department of Homeland Security or something? I guess it wouldn't be that big of a deal, right? Maybe?

So, you don't really have any complaints to air, right? I mean, it’s not like you’ve got anything to hide or anything... I guess it's all just a way for them to double-check that you aren't breaking any laws! 😁

Hey! So, I was just thinking about this... maybe? I don't know, it's just a thought! Anyway, I wanted to jump in here and say hi!

wiredlynx28 said:The IRS has the authority to audit any transaction account belonging to an individual or a corporation.
As long as your money is earned legally, there’s really nothing to worry about.

I mean, saying they "have the right to access" is such a massive, vague umbrella term.

It covers all those vague little phrases like, "Well, they have the authority if they happen to be running some kind of investigation or whatever."
But we all know that, up until now, they haven't just been allowed to snoop through active checking accounts for no reason at all.

So, I guess there’s a huge, massive difference between "the IRS has the right to look" (though, wait, right to look at what exactly?) and just "handing them everything on autopilot."

-Steve

Check out these aerial shots from the BBC showing one of the massive refugee camps over in Zayn Malik; I think it's called Zayn Malik


-briskjackal5

Sam Murphy said:Honestly, if you just spend any time scrolling through the comment sections on major German news sites, you'll see the truth... I haven't come across a single positive sentiment regarding Merkel, nor can I think of anyone left who is still standing behind her support...

Now this is what I call a solid source..
Top tier stuff right here! 😁

-briskjackal5

Thomas Fowler84 said:That is exactly why you have to distinguish between what they are permitted to do and what they are strictly forbidden from doing. It is their legal obligation to update their records. You aren't making a valid point by telling them they already possess your address or phone number; they have a mandate to verify that information. As long as they are refreshing data that hasn't been touched in years, there is nothing controversial about the process.
It is questionable to demand information that isn't strictly necessary. It is much like asking for a driver's license when one only needs to buy a newspaper.

What is the standard protocol if I choose to decline answering questions that fall outside my obligations?

I believe a bank holds the discretionary right to terminate a business relationship without providing specific justification, provided they aren't engaging in discrimination based on religion or sexual orientation. They might threaten to report you to federal regulators, but if the issue falls outside of legal mandates, there shouldn't be much to fear. I am more curious about their protocol for someone holding a mortgage who refuses to provide documentation—would they actually move to foreclose just to protect their own interests?

Actually, I'd argue that banks should be the ones worrying about reporting people to the authorities when they start asking questions that fall outside of what the law requires.

It’s not that I think they're making some huge, scary threat, but I honestly feel like the way you put it in your post is kind of backwards.

I'd honestly find it way more interesting to see what they actually do with someone who already has a mortgage through them but suddenly refuses to hand over certain data. Would they try to call in the loan early or something? (Which would obviously hurt them too!)

Oh, totally. 😁

-Steve

wiredlynx28 said:Exactly. But if those terms aren't met, banks will simply shut things down—which isn't some rare occurrence, far from it.
So, once that happens, the blame will fall right back on the bank.

Hey, let's not try to play word games here by using "similar" terms just to muddy the waters. 😁

I guess there's a huge difference between breaking actual banking rules and just failing to fill out some survey where they ask stuff they shouldn't even be asking in the first place. It's two totally different things!

And honestly, which questions are actually okay to ask and which ones aren't? Well, maybe we'll finally get some clarity on that topic right now. You were asked the exact same thing earlier—to list them—but you didn't really give an answer.

So, seriously, how many people have had their accounts closed just because their bank wouldn't stop prying into who they live with?

-briskjackal5

Chase wouldn't let me get a new card reader without asking me if I was employed or unemployed, or something like that, because apparently their app is hard-coded to block them until they get an answer.

Judging by how everything went down, I guess that really was the case—it wasn't just being difficult, they literally couldn't bypass that field in the software without that info.

But hey, at least they finally dropped all those other excuses they try to push as "mandatory requirements." It’s not mandatory. 😁

-Stipe

😁
Nice find!
Hopefully you gave it a really thorough read-through too.

You should probably just print that file out and bring it along—who knows, might actually come in handy!
I'm definitely curious to see how this all plays out, too.

Btw, they usually figure out your zodiac sign based on your birthday.

-briskjackal5

Dana Morris6 said:When they asked me about filling out those surveys, I just countered with a few questions of my own... specifically regarding the frequency of workplace hookups at that particular bank, and how much extracurricular activity happens among colleagues during corporate parties—with a very particular focus on how often people are performing JOE BIDENs for the management team. After that, nobody ever brought up the surveys again.

😁

Thomas Fowler84 said:Most banks include questions in their forms that they aren't legally required to ask, yet they act as if they must because they want to hoard as much data as possible.

http://www.govinfo.gov/content/example-link

Article 16 outlines what they actually have an obligation to request.
For instance:
The law might explicitly state they can ask about a client's line of work, which is what banks do. However, while the law requires them to collect "data regarding the source of funds that are or will be the subject of a transaction or business relationship," banks go much further. They gather details on sources of wealth that have absolutely nothing to do with current or future transactions.

Banks are essentially stretching the law to extract a mountain of information they have no legal right to collect. Unfortunately, the FTC has been far too passive; their reprimands toward these banks have been lukewarm at best. Most citizens feel intimidated because banks threaten to freeze accounts or report them to federal authorities, so people hand over every bit of data just to avoid trouble. It is a sad state of affairs.

What's your point there?

-Steve