Posts by Nathan Morris3

Nancy Gomez26 said:It is entirely irrelevant whether those are the identical bars Germany originally deposited or some other set, provided they meet the required standards. That universality is a fundamental characteristic of gold—as a form of currency. Given the current global landscape, perhaps we should be glad they managed to extract whatever they intended to take before any deadlines hit.

As for Ukraine... knowing how things operated there previously, it would be quite a shock if any state gold were actually found in their vaults. But then again, that might be the least of Ukraine's concerns right now.

I suppose the gold quality isn't the main issue here. Maybe the real question hanging in the air is whether this is actually stolen gold that belongs to the Libyan people, Iraq, or some other nation.

Laura Chavez93 said:The government maintains full visibility into your entire income stream through those Joppd forms... it shouldn't be much of a challenge for them to develop an algorithm capable of flagging suspicious deposits ☕
the real question is this: If a bank suspects—based on certain transactions—that someone is involved in terrorism or money laundering, why don't they just notify the appropriate federal agencies (like the IRS or the FBI) and let them handle the investigation?

That's true.

Quincy:

The question is: if a bank suspects someone of being a terrorist or money laundering based on certain transactions, why don't they just notify the right authorities—like the IRS or the police—so they can handle it?

Well, they actually have to do that. Under Section 40, they have to report cash transactions, even without specific suspicion. Plus, there are tons of other indicators the bank has to track and report to FinCEN under Sections 41 and 42. So, the "office" being notified is FinCEN, not the local Police Department or the Department of Justice. The DOJ doesn't really deal with that part directly.

Laura Chavez93 said:Well, if there is reasonable suspicion regarding terrorism or money laundering... are we actually discussing that, or is this about something else entirely? ☕
My information is essentially public record—you could look my name up in a phone book and find half my details, plus a map pinpointing my exact location,
not to mention that 90% of what a bank requests hasn't changed since I first opened my account years ago; the only thing that's actually been updated is my ID number.

I don't think what you're arguing really happens anywhere. I guess the way it works is that if any party—like a bank or the LAPD—finds something suspicious, the info flows from "financial institution -> government agency." A bank is just an information source, I suppose; they aren't an investigative or analytical body. They aren't trained for that, and honestly, they shouldn't be. So, even the data collected by FINRA or the police doesn't just go to private companies. But, they do have the legal authorization to ask private firms for data, of course.
It feels like we're grouping everything together. Like, sure, a bank will have your name, and they actually have a legal obligation to keep that updated, even if nothing has changed. But the idea that a bank needs to know how much cash sits in your accounts at other banks or overseas? The government knows that, but I don't think the government sends that info to banks. That isn't public info, and you can't just find it online. Maybe you could in Sweden, but not in America.

Laura Chavez93 said:The IRS has been sending out SSNs for both individuals and corporations... and since banks are required to collect all that extra info under Section 16—things like addresses, places of birth, and ID numbers—it really doesn't matter whether they get those details from the government or directly from me.
I should point out, all of this is supposedly being done to comply with the USA PATRIOT Act—or perhaps that's just the bank's convenient excuse—so one would think the federal government, having passed such legislation, might actually step up and take some responsibility for the data collection...

I'm kind of confused about this whole SSN thing. Did the LAPD send everyone's SSN to every bank in the country? And what exactly is inside an SSN? I always thought that number didn't hold much personal data, like a birthday or anything. Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't think an SSN was some "secret" thing, since I see them all the time in public business registries. In those records, you see the SSN along with the full name and address, which feels a little spooky, I guess. But just the SSN itself, I'm not sure what that reveals.

I still feel like there might not be any legal authorization for the LAPD to hand over data they gathered during their own investigations to private companies or banks. I'm pretty sure that isn't allowed, maybe.

Just a reminder, all of this is happening because of the USA PATRIOT Act (or that's just the excuse the banks use, I guess), so the government that passed the law should probably step up and handle it.

I don't really get what you're suggesting here. Like, government agencies just handing out personal info to private companies???

Laura Chavez93 said:Fair enough, but the law states that banks collect this data without specifying the exact source... if Congress passed the law, then that statute mandates that both local municipalities and the IRS receive those records—it isn't just limited to me.
I fail to see why the Bank refuses to transmit that information digitally. Everything is readily available through the government portal in PDF format; it could easily be sent via email, yet the Bank insists it’s simply not possible 🙂

There isn't any legal authorization for the LAPD or FINRA to pass data along to banks. I mean, should government agencies really be sending info to private financial firms? Are you sure you'd actually want to give them legal authorization for that? I guess it could be pretty dangerous, maybe even setting a precedent that opens a whole Pandora's box.

Laura Chavez93 said:Writing this as if it were my own thought... essentially, if banks already possess every scrap of data they need, if the IRS can unilaterally investigate every single transaction, and if the Police Department can obtain a warrant based on suspected criminal activity...
Why does a place like Chase demand that clients physically visit a branch to fill out questionnaires or answer endless questions? If you don't comply, they send out circular letters threatening to freeze your funds... why go through all that theater if it's completely unnecessary?

I guess I feel like we're just talking in circles because maybe we aren't even on the same page. If you ask the bank, they’ll just point to the law, specifically section 26, subsections (1) and (2). And honestly, they'd be right. But the tricky part is how they conveniently forget to mention subsection (3), which states:

(3) The obligated entity must ensure that the scope and frequency of the measures described in subsection 2 of this article are adjusted to the risk of money laundering or terrorist financing to which the entity is exposed during a specific transaction or while doing business with an individual client, in accordance with the provisions of section 7 of this Law.

So, I suppose that's where things get a bit gray, like a chicken and egg situation. I’d say the bank just takes the path of least resistance and doesn't really care about being moderate with how much info they collect. Probably because hardly anyone complains, I guess.

Anyway, you still have to look at the bank's actual obligation, especially since the Police Department can access that data regardless. The law is what it is, and it really does mandate that the bank performs certain oversight. Of course, a bank isn't going to say, "we don't care about the law since the Police Department can do it anyway." The law says the bank has to conduct this control, so there's no real debate. It's just called compliance.

Bradley Perez91 said:First things first, you're confusing the most basic concept here—Banks aren't the Police.

It isn't the Banks monitoring your accounts; it's the IRS (or whatever other federal agency has jurisdiction).

A Bank's primary function is sales. That is its core business. Its main goal is figuring out how to make money off the funds you've handed over to them. Everything else falls outside their scope.

If a Bank happens to monitor your account, they're doing it because a government agency ordered them to based on facts that are completely irrelevant to the Bank itself...

...but to be precise, it's not really the Bank "monitoring" anything. They don't have a handful of tax agents sitting in some office on the Bank's payroll doing the government's dirty work...

The Bank simply provides access to the IRS, the courts, or whoever else comes knocking with a subpoena...

...and under current rules, the IRS can audit your account without even asking the Bank for permission, because they have the software access to jump straight into the Bank's system and see whatever they want.

..just like how a federal agency can freeze any account at a Bank without even consulting the institution where the individual's account is actually held.

By the mere act of opening an account, you've already given the Bank permission to handle all your data—your transactions, your spending patterns, targeting you with products based on your preferences, your creditworthiness... When exactly did you think you signed away those rights? When you signed the standard Account Agreement or whatever other product contract you thought you were just signing?

I don't have a proposal. This reality doesn't affect my life one bit.

I'm just commenting on your comments regarding this topic. 😁

I wouldn't say that. Nobody actually said banks are cops, I'm just saying the banking law gives them certain control over customers. It's really nothing more than that, so there's probably no need to invent new terms like "police."

A Bank might eventually show info to the IRS, a court, or whoever else asks for it...

Banks, accountants, notaries... they all have a legal duty to report suspicious activity.

By just having an account at a Bank, you've basically given the Bank permission to handle all your data (transactions, patterns, product offers based on preferences, etc.). When exactly did you sign that checking account agreement or whatever other product you think you signed?

To be honest, I haven't checked the general terms and conditions at Zaba. It's definitely possible it says they can analyze your transactions. I don't really have any other explanation for why banks look at that data; maybe they even overstepped their bounds. Do you have an idea why?

I don't have a suggestion because that fact doesn't bother me one bit...

I'm just reacting to how you guys are talking about this topic.

Well, you were the one who asked: "where in the law does it say a teller can take and copy my ID?", and now you're saying it doesn't affect you? But my answer to your question clearly *does* affect you if you're replying. Sorry, it kind of sounds like trolling to me.

Bradley Perez91 said:Are you worried about admitting your transaction history to them—which they already know about anyway—because then they might, I don't know, what? Accuse you of swiping your card too often? 🤣

..or are you actually worried about identity theft (via the Bank or some questionable teller) using data that can cause way more trouble than just knowing your spending habits? 🤣 🤣

Man, there really are all kinds of people out there. 😁

No, I don't think you quite get what I mean. Let's say you don't give the Bank information about your transactions. Then the Bank tracks your activity, decides you look suspicious, and reports you to the Police Department. The Police Department hits you with some fine. I guess in that case, you might actually be able to sue the Bank because they were digging through your past transactions without permission. Sure, the Bank can access that data, but I don't think that means they can just use it whenever they feel like it. By them asking and you answering, it's like you've basically given them consent to use that info, so they probably covered their bases legally.

..and aren't you afraid of identity theft (from the Bank or some shady teller) where they could do way more damage than just knowing your spending habits?

Who says I'm not scared? I guess I'm just saying this stupid law exists, and well, it exists because representatives passed it.
What I'm getting at is that the law requires banks to update their records. So, they have the right—and the obligation—to update ID info too. I mean, sure, there could be abuse if some teller wants to steal your data, and I suppose there isn't much you can do to stop that. Even if she just copies your ID right in front of you and gives it back, she still has that copy to use however she wants.
What would your actual suggestion be, though? Like, how do we meet the legal requirement but only on your terms?

urbanhawk28 said:Well obviously, it isn't a problem for Germany or Austria, but it is for America, Spain, or Greece. So, if you think it's perfectly fine for 30% of food to be tossed while 20% of the population struggles to make ends meet, then you've lost your mind.

Of course, when they're drafting legislation in the major power centers, the priorities are always the same: a) corporate profits and maximizing market penetration in puppet colonies, and b) ensuring constant debt repayment to the banks, rather than the actual well-being of the citizens.
Even so, real nations—not these banana republics—like France, have pushed back by either criminalizing food waste or implementing a zero percent tax rate, similar to how Great Britain, Denmark, Sweden, and Spain have handled it.

Bottom line: anyone who actually wanted to change things could have done so long ago. For our government, it's just not a priority. Our priority is someone else's massive profit margin. Our elites know their power depends far less on the people they represent, since most fools still vote based on ideology regardless of what's actually being done. They're more concerned with the true centers of power, acting essentially like local colonial governors.
We finally need to start asking ourselves who these people are sitting there representing us, and whose interests they are actually serving. It would be good if people got a clue before the last person from the Heartland buys a one-way ticket to Ireland.

Is there really nothing wrong with Germany? I mean, it's definitely an issue. I guess I remember this being such a huge topic back around 2012. Do you honestly think a hungry German is feeling any less empty than a hungry American? Maybe not.

Quincy Jones:

Quincy Jones: It’s also just wild to see food being tossed out like that instead of giving it to people who actually need it, I guess. I mean, if you think it’s okay that 30% of our food just goes to waste while 20% of Americans can't even make ends meet, then maybe you've lost it. I guess.

I say it’s crazy to waste food, then you hit me with, "if you think wasting food is okay, you're out of your mind." I guess maybe you're just some illiterate troll or something? Sorry, I really don't have the energy for an argument.

Quincy Jones:

I guess when they're drafting laws at the European Union level, the big power centers mostly care about corporate profits and moving products through those puppet territories. Maybe they also just want to keep paying off those countries' debts back to their own banks instead of actually looking out for the people living there. And honestly, even real countries—not just some disorganized mess—have figured this out. I guess places like France have stepped up, whether it's by making food waste illegal or cutting taxes to zero, kind of like how they do it in the UK, Denmark, Sweden, or Spain. Maybe that's the way to go.

It's all pretty recent stuff, which is why I mentioned we've seen some real movement on this lately. I guess that's a good thing, maybe.
I guess you might be overthinking it a bit and making it sound more dramatic than it really is. There are actual tax laws that dictate what counts as a donation versus a deductible business expense, not to mention all the VAT regulations. I mean, sure, it’s obviously in the food industry's interest to toss stuff, but we should probably look at the whole picture. On the flip side, you have a baker who writes off unsold goods to lower their taxes, only to sell them under the table and screw over everyone else paying their fair share.

There are different models over in Europe, but most are less than a year old—maybe two at most. Like that one setup in France with those massive supermarkets over 400 square meters (even though we're only talking about 5% food waste). I guess I don't really see it the way you do on this topic; it’s not like America has been lagging behind the rest of Europe for decades. Still, I suppose we should probably adopt the models from those more advanced European Union countries, even if most of them aren't actually that far ahead.

Quincy Jones:

I guess people who wanted to get things done could have acted on it a long time ago. Maybe.

I don't think that's quite right. From what I gather, those major hurdles in the European Union laws weren't really cleared until around 2013. So, maybe that's why things only started looking up recently.

Quincy Jones:

Our country isn't even the priority here; it feels like everyone's just chasing someone else's massive profit margins. I guess our elites realize they don't really need to answer to us, since most people still vote based on party lines regardless of what actually happens. It’s more like they're acting as local governors for actual power centers elsewhere. So, maybe we should finally start asking who these people actually are and whose interests they're serving. It would probably be good if people realized this before the last person from the Midwest packs up and moves to Ireland.

Sorry, but I think your tone is a bit much. I totally get why you're passionate about this, and I support the cause, but I don't think problems get solved with rhetoric like that (even though I'm not saying you're wrong).

Bradley Perez91 said:Does the law also say someone can vanish with your ID in five minutes? How are you supposed to know what a teller is doing with your driver's license in the back room? 🤣 🤣

When they ask you to confirm something they already know—which they have the legal right to ask—that's when it gets annoying. But once your ID is involved? Man, God help you if something goes wrong. They scan it, they copy it... it's all the same at this point. 🤣 🤣

What do you mean, "what she did"? Like, what could someone actually do with an ID? Are you worried she’s going to tuck it into her cleavage or perform some weird Voodoo ritual with it? I guess... they have a right—actually, a duty—to update documents. It’d be polite if they just explained things clearly and said, "Hey, we need to scan this." Or they could just let you hand them a photocopy if you aren't comfortable letting them touch the original.

when they ask you to confirm stuff they already know (which they have a legal right to ask), then it's a hassle. But when it comes to an ID, man, God forbid there's an issue... just scan it, copy it, whatever.

I’m a stickler for the rules. A lot of things in the law seem pretty stupid to me, but I think that battle is fought on a different front. I just watch what banks do and follow what the laws actually say.

The reason they're asking about your transaction history might be tricky, so I guess I didn't push it. Part of it is because you aren't giving the Bank any info they don't already have, but also maybe there's some part of the law I'm not aware of. If you've ever traveled to the USA, you might've noticed they ask if you plan on engaging in terrorist activities. Yeah, we all laugh when we read that, but the whole point is to get YOU to provide that information, even though the NSA probably knows more than you do anyway 😁. They don't want to end up in court having you challenge their right to read your emails or track your moves. If you mess up after saying you wouldn't, well, you're guilty by default.
It could be similar with banks. Sure, they obviously know your transaction volume. But if it's about data analysis and looking for anomalies, the question is whether a bank even has the legal right to poke through your transactions and do profiling. In a legal dispute, you might try suing a bank for illegal profiling. But if they get that info directly from you, you can't really cause them trouble later. That's just my take, I guess, without being 100% sure if that's their actual motive. It's just based on a lifetime of dealing with personal data and laws.

Since we're talking about funds that ARE part of the business relationship with the Bank, I assume they have a legal right or obligation to ask for that data. And of course, if you tell them one thing (though I don't know why you would if you know they already know) and they check and see something else, then maybe a red flag goes up.

David Garcia21 said:Take a look at the FEC's ruling on NGOs copying each other. It’s all just a show—it doesn't even matter if banks were involved or not.

They aren't wrong—only the people doing business with that Bank have any skin in the game. They can ask whatever they want, but you have every right to stay silent if you feel they're overstepping. They have their interpretation of the law, and you have yours. If there's a fight, let the FEC, the Federal Reserve, or eventually a judge decide who's actually right. 👍

If you don't have zero income or nothing to report, just put "do." $2.75(Or whatever number happens to be there). That includes... $0.00 🙂 Forget what the Bank says. You clearly know better than they do. Don't listen to them. ☕

The whole argument started because the Bank claims this data is mandatory and that the law forces them to collect it. From our perspective, a few of us think that's just wrong, so we're trying to fight it through higher authorities. It isn't about us specifically (I guess most of us have already left Zaba anyway), it's more about doing a service for society, you know? Like, forcing Banks to actually follow the law. Maybe it's just a symbolic thing that doesn't matter much, but if every citizen got involved in these little "details," they might be surprised by how much could actually be fixed.

They have the right to ask whatever they want.

Well, it's not really about what they can ask, it's that they're citing a non-existent section of the Law and claiming an obligation that simply isn't there. If they had just asked the questions without telling people they were legally required to answer—you know, making it clear the response was voluntary—then no big deal. Or, more accurately, they should have specified it was regarding income tied to their business. But no, Banks are just too comfortable and don't care about collateral damage. They act this way because, I guess, nobody seems to complain. Though, if you compare the questionnaire from a couple of years ago to this one, you'll see there has been some progress.

Look, you have the right to not answer anything you feel violates your rights. They have their interpretation of the law, and you have yours. Who's right? Well, maybe the FEC, the Federal Reserve, or eventually, a court will decide.

Of course, but why does it feel like a few of you are mocking those of us trying to actually do something about it? I'm just reporting here on the stances taken by the FEC, the Federal Reserve, and all that—I don't see why that would bother anyone, I guess.
And no, the Bank still hasn't offered its own interpretation of the Law. Not even after more than a year. If a Bank avoids answering a question by responding to something else entirely, that isn't "interpreting the law"—it's just dodging the question. I have copies of the whole correspondence, and looking at the question versus the answer... I honestly wonder how someone can act so clueless. And I wonder why the Federal Reserve is being so slow. It's almost sad to read how the Federal Reserve claims the FEC is responsible, while the FEC says it's the Federal Reserve. Oh, and the Federal Reserve also claims the Police Department handles FATCA, but I won't even mention FATCA right now because the Bank has sort of backed down in the meantime. Once you go through something like this, it becomes pretty clear why things are the way they are in America.

Also, I don't know about your experience, but mine is that people are pretty intimidated by Banks. Especially those planning to buy a home or a car and knowing they'll need a loan soon. People are scared of getting on a "black list," whether it's from a Bank or the government. Everything boils down to "whatever, I don't want to make enemies." Things have improved slightly since people started banding together and hiring lawyers, but I guess that general fear of Banks is still around.

If you don't have zero income or "no income," maybe just write "up to $2.75" (or whatever number is listed there). Even if it includes $0.00 🙂. And honestly, just ignore what the Bank says. I mean, you probably know better than they do anyway. Don't listen to them.

But how does that actually help stop the Bank from extorting data on other clients they shouldn't even have access to? I'm not sure if you've really grasped why we're even arguing with banks here. I get the impression you think this is just about me or a friend trying to hide our income, but that's not really the point at all. It's more about the fact that when you see someone cutting corners or ignoring the law and hurting everyone else, you should be able to actually do something about it.

urbanhawk28 said:What kind of pack of mindless, sellout hyenas could possibly pass a law that imposes a 25% tax on food donations meant for the homeless and the poor?
What kind of twisted mind comes up with this, especially when 43% of our youth are unemployed because there are no new jobs being created, the national unemployment rate sits at 16%, and we toss about 30% of our food annually—roughly 90kg per person... Furthermore, all that food ending up in landfills accounts for about 15% of global methane emissions, which apparently isn't an issue; the only concern is CO2 from citizens' private cars, which is 1,000 times weaker as a greenhouse gas.

Maybe science should provide the answer. Perhaps after the passing of all these "representatives" who spent years pushing and defending this law, their brains could be harvested and studied—much like Einstein's brain—to find the physical deformity or neurological defect that caused such insanity, so it could be identified and aborted early next time...

Of course, the logic is purely capitalist: by allowing the idle to survive comfortably, they demotivate people from selling their labor indefinitely, thereby ensuring the country remains uncompetitive in terms of providing a workforce of cheap slaves.
So, welcome to capitalism—this is just another logical consequence.

Biden's so-called "progressive" administration, following the lead of other nations after the 2008 crisis, spent their entire term "preparing" this food donation law and keeping it tucked away in a drawer, likely as part of Linić's efforts to ensure that everything that crawls, walks, or moves in this country contributes to the state. It seems if something doesn't generate sales tax for the government, it's considered "non-functional"—ranging from the lady at the local farmers market to the guy living on the street; everyone is expected to "function" and pay their share according to their means.
On the very last day of the term in late 2015, right before Linić was ousted, the tax was finally scrapped. However, they still slapped a cap on the value of donated food at a maximum of 2% of turnover, presumably so the beggars wouldn't get too emboldened and end up living better than, say, a Walmart cashier earning a standard average wage of $667
.
Yet, most donations supposedly come from individual citizens, while major retail chains mostly boycott them since they have to process any goods for donation a few days before the expiration date; you can't donate stuff past its prime because that's illegal, and naturally, that cuts into their potential profits. In terms of volume, only players like Walmart and Hershey's make a significant impact, while foreign chains generally opt out of donating.
Meanwhile, in France, which is in a much stronger economic position than the US, wasting food is actually a punishable offense.

So, knowing that this country has become an Eldorado for capitalists—who, in a nation that claims to be deeply religious and governed by a pious administration, ignore both Sundays and national holidays while tossing food in front of the 20% of citizens whose only friend is a dumpster—what do you think? Is this country just one giant corporate-kleptocratic-sellout banana republic that is rapidly reaching its expiration date—as evidenced by the endless lines of people fleeing the country daily—or do you believe it actually justifies its continued existence?

The last time I checked this topic a few years back (there was a case in Germany), it turned out those rules are set at the European Union level. Basically, individual countries can't just decide to scrap Sales Tax on food or make their own exceptions because the European Union pushes for a unified Sales Tax policy across the board. I remember that interesting story about a bakery in Germany that wanted to give bread to the homeless. I guess there's some logic to it to prevent abuse, but man, it's crazy to throw food away instead of giving it to hungry people. I think things might be shifting slightly, but honestly, it probably has more to do with the European Union than with America. Since America follows these standards, we have to stick to the laws. I mean, you see the exact same situation in Germany and Austria too.

David Garcia21 said:Just tell them what your average monthly income is that actually flows through that specific bank. That is strictly part of your business with them. If it's $0.00, put $0.00. If it's $33, put that amount. Everyone lives happily ever after at 👍

So you're saying there's a legitimate reason to suspect the Bank isn't following the law, like they're pulling client info they shouldn't even have access to. And your fix is to just tolerate it by giving them wrong info? Is that just how things work in America, where we just ignore bad behavior? How is my lying supposed to actually help anyone in the US?

Anyway, when I dealt with that form, it was a required field, not an "$0.00" category. And the Bank insisted I had to enter income that didn't even have anything to do with them.

neondriver5 said:Here’s yet another example of people just talking nonsense without any basis in reality (I really don't have the energy to dissect rame3's posts—he actually found the very articles JPMorgan Chase is citing, yet he still clearly doesn't get it). Do you honestly think other banks aren't going to demand updated information from you too?

In my opinion, it would probably be best if you all avoided dealing with any financial institutions altogether. Like I’ve said before, they're all basically run by Masons, the CIA, or some shady deep-state cabal. The paranoia is unreal.

I guess I don't get why the tone is so negative. If you actually understand why the Bank is citing a part of the law that isn't even there—like claiming they have to investigate sources of funds that aren't even part of their business with them—then maybe you could explain what the actual issue is? You've got links to the law a few posts up, so maybe give it a shot. I haven't found it, the Bank hasn't either, and neither has the Federal Reserve... who knows, maybe Machete is just smarter than all of us.

Bradley Perez91 said:Where exactly in the law does it say a teller has the right to take and photocopy my ID?

..so....the issue is they ask for your income details (they already know them, but they need your official confirmation/signature), but when it comes to your driver's license, the clerk can basically do whatever they want as long as you ask nicely.🤣 🤣

Article 26. (1) 4. mentions "monitoring and updating collected documents and customer data..."

So, I guess it looks okay on paper. But like Laura Chavez93 said, they really should handle this more politely and maybe give the client some actual info. I don't know, though—you probably can't legally go after them for it.

David Garcia21 said:I followed it—and the level of sophistication in those questions is actually decent. 🤦

They’re citing a real statute. Period. You found it yourself.
The response is likely just because they can't believe how ridiculous the question is. 🙄 If you look at that questionnaire, there are pages specifically asking for sources of funds that aren't related to the bank's business—and yes, you're required to answer. Maybe I missed that bit...

Anyway, keep fighting the good fight.🍿

Haha, don't worry, it didn't get totally vulgar 😁.
Though, I guess when you ask them the same thing three times and they just give you some random answer that has nothing to do with what you asked...

Quentin:

They're citing an article that actually exists. Right? You can find it yourself.

Bank of America claims there’s a specific section in the law defining this obligation, but that section just isn't there. They cited (I guess randomly?) some other part that talks about something else entirely, something that doesn't even relate to the request. But what they claim is written... it just isn't.

Quentin:

The response is like that because they probably can't believe how silly the question is 🙄 On those forms, a few pages back, aren't they asking for sources that aren't related to business with the bank—and saying the answer is mandatory? Maybe I missed that...

Well, here it is: "average monthly income, regular: ". Income isn't really part of the business relationship with the bank, but they still insist on an answer. When asked why, they say maybe it's required by law. If you ask where that's in the law, they won't answer (or they give an answer to a question you didn't even ask). And so on, X times.

Quentin:

Anyway, keep fighting the good fight.

We'll keep at it, thanks 😉
But I guess it's not really much of a fight; our colleague seems more entertained watching banks trip over their own feet, I suppose. And maybe he enjoys seeing them change their forms after his complaints 😁.

David Garcia21 said:Mysterious? Please. Article 16, Section 1, Clause 10 is right there in the statute. How are they citing a section that doesn't even exist?

I guess you might have missed what the actual question to the bank was. The point was, "on what grounds does a bank have to investigate sources of funds that AREN'T, and will never be, part of their business?" The bank keeps pointing to Section 16(1)10, claiming it says they have to check funds that aren't part of their transactions. But... that section just isn't there. They're basically citing a non-existent part of the law. Maybe they're just playing dumb or maybe they haven't actually read it—I honestly don't know—but it definitely doesn't say what they claim it says. And I'm not sure which amendments you're thinking of, because that specific section hasn't changed at all.

I have accounts at more than nine different financial institutions (banks and brokers) across three different states. Maybe it's just me, but the Democratic Party and Chase were the only ones acting all high and mighty, acting like they knew the law better than everyone else.

David Garcia21 said:Why don't you go dig up the latest legislative amendments yourself?

Why the mystery? I mean, weren't those last changes just some minor stuff back in 2012?
Maybe you could mention what specifically you're thinking of.

David Garcia21 said:Besides, if you actually know how to read, you'll find that specific law, section, and subsection and realize that 😵

We're talking about America here, so maybe just read the law.

https://www.congress.gov/search

I think I posted the link to the FTC a few pages back.

neondriver5 said:If it’s actually important to you, then go ahead and study it. This isn't The New York Times.

The outcome will be identical if you try to wire money to high-risk regions like North Korea or some shady offshore tax haven. The bank just cites a specific legal clause and that's the end of it.
But obviously, none of you have a clue what you're talking about; you're all just banging on the keys like a toddler on a piano.

As neondriver5 pointed out a few lines ago, people like you are a rare breed—and you shouldn't necessarily take that as a compliment.

It feels like you haven't been following this thread from the start. The issue is that the bank is citing a section of the law that doesn't even exist. You have The New York Times online; you don't need to be an expert, you just need to know how to read. I'm not sure what high-risk countries have to do with this, and I don't think anyone else is having issues with that.

The bank is citing a law they clearly haven't even read, acting like they just don't care about the law. Maybe that's fine with you, but some people aren't okay with it.

Oh sure, you guys obviously have no clue what you're talking about, just banging on the keys blindly.

You’re just telling people they "have no clue" without providing any actual proof or arguments, probably hoping someone will bite and argue with you. I don't really get what the rush is, but maybe stop trying to provoke everyone. Complaints have already caused Chase to slightly tweak their questionnaire, though it's still pretty messy. I mean, being childish isn't really helping your case.

Like the user mentioned a few lines ago, there aren't many people like you, so you shouldn't necessarily take it as a compliment.

Yeah, someone always jumps in with those childish provocations, but it looks like nobody is biting, which is fine. I guess it's best to just ignore trolls, if you agree 😉. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't curious why it bothers you so much that not every citizen follows bank rules without questioning them, and then you just resort to insults, but honestly, I doubt we'll ever get an answer to that.