Posts by Nathan Morris3

David Garcia21 said:Check section B 7.3.1.3.

Yeah, I see it now! $0.66. It's definitely way better than $33 😉. Thanks for the heads up.

ironcyclist58 said:Yeah, in dollars. But what about in euros?

I think we all agreed that the Federal Reserve counts as foreign currency, even if it doesn't feel that way since it's our main thing and we have those fixed exchange rate policies... Anyway, under current regulations, I guess an individual isn't even allowed to transfer amounts in a foreign currency to another person.

placidmaker6 said:Something definitely feels off here.
In the States, an online transfer doesn't care how much you're moving; most major banks cap those fees at maybe $2.

I just hopped onto the Ally Financial site to check their fees:

https://www.ally.com/sites/ally.h....03.2017_0.pdf

B 5.1 DOMESTIC PAYMENTS IN USD
B 5.1.2. Transfers to other banks – ACH processing: 1.20%; min. $9.00; max. $100.00
(I guess I might be reading this wrong, what's an ACH?)

And I see that since March 2017, international transactions have jumped from a max of $250 up to $0.33 (33%)... I guess my friend got lucky with 😁.
I don't really see specific prices for online banking, so maybe I'm looking at it wrong. It looks like Ally has been hiking fees for a few months now, so maybe the guy just happened to pick an expensive bank. I'd imagine most banks probably just charge a flat fee for net banking.

wiredlynx28 said:Exactly. Banking services abroad are incredibly expensive.
For instance, in Italy (using Intesa Sanpaolo), if you want to pay a standard bill at the counter, you're looking at a minimum fee of $9 plus the actual cost of the transaction. In other countries, it's even higher, just like almost every other service. They even charge you a fee just to have your paycheck deposited into your account.

So, I guess we basically concluded that things are pricey here in America, cheaper in Austria, but there are definitely places where it's even more expensive than the US, and maybe some places where it's actually cheaper than Austria.
But honestly, I'm still wondering why it's so high in the US. I mean, are banks really struggling to stay afloat? (I know they had those issues with the Swiss clients). But compared to what people earn, it feels like way too much—take Ally Financial, for instance—paying $25 fees on a $10,000 transfer via online banking. It's just not the norm in America like it might be in Italy or the USA. I suppose it makes sense that teller services cost more, especially in places where labor is expensive.
And yeah, a lot of banks in Austria have raised their rates lately, but there are enough direct banks in Austria and Germany where you can just skip the big, expensive banks entirely. If the market is open, I guess it's easy enough to find a way around it.

wiredlynx28 said:Where does he live? Because in other parts of the world, fees for those kinds of services are way higher (Europe).
Every bank has a daily limit for cash withdrawals. But generally speaking, anything under a certain threshold doesn't require prior notice. This is strictly for security reasons and tax compliance.
Depending on the specific branch, its location, and other variables, a bank might not have enough liquid cash on hand to cover large withdrawals at any given moment. It’s all laid out in the terms and conditions.

He lives in Austria, but I told him he's being a little spoiled since you can't expect everything to be like it is in Austria. The market there is super liberalized; many banks don't even charge for checking accounts, USD transactions are free, and withdrawing from 99% of ATMs is free (for everyone, not just your own bank). Plus, mortgage rates are around 1% based on LIBOR... the flip side of that freedom is that banks are closing branches and moving everything online, letting staff go, and doing consultations via video calls—they'll probably all end up working remotely from India soon.
The thing about the cash withdrawal limit makes sense, though I think $5,000 (total across all branches) per day is really low. And I see an issue with having to give three days' notice (two business days by noon) if you want to be sure you'll actually get the cash, which seems like a lot to me.
It’s kind of a paradox, honestly—it's cheaper to deal with physical transport, risk fake bills, and waste time and effort with a personal banker... rather than just doing a digital transaction.
He naively thought that transferring USD in a highly integrated economy like the US, especially when using a product the bank advertises on their front page (like deposit accounts in USD), would mean lower transaction costs. But clearly, the bank lures you in with higher interest rates only to hit you with transaction fees when you actually try to collect your money.
He also mentioned that transaction fees are crazy even in the local currency (he said $33 at JPMorgan Chase, probably for that larger amount). Maybe that's why banks in America seem to be doing so much better than in Austria; maybe Americans just have way more money or are used to giving it to banks so they don't care. All the banks have similar pricing, too—might even be some kind of cartel, who knows.
But it's all okay, he was just a bit shocked. It was mostly just a cultural difference and the fact that he hadn't read the four pages of fine print from three years ago. He ended up okay since he got interest he wouldn't have seen in Austria, so he's happy. Besides, he isn't a resident; maybe residents get more normal pricing (at least for USD transactions, which happen often). As far as I know, banks in Austria often charge non-residents more for services (they don't have those free accounts).
And that JPMorgan Chase was originally Austrian (and failed), so I doubt they had low prices back then.
Anyway, are all the banks in America this expensive, or are there some cheaper ones? I'm looking at this bank's fees now, and it says for a USD transaction: 0.75%, max $33. So you transfer $3.25 and pay about $10 in fees???
On topic, I asked him if they ever made him fill out KYC paperwork at Hypo/JPMorgan Chase: he said no, they didn't (since he's a non-resident).

EDIT: looking again, sending $20,000 from JPMorgan Chase to an Austrian bank costs him $100, while sending it from an Austrian bank to America would cost $50 (so $25 each way). There can be pretty big differences like that.

Drew Castillo5 said:Moving away from the main thread for a moment: relying solely on digital payments essentially hands over a complete roadmap of your life to third parties. To put it bluntly, if you have a habit of buying excessive amounts of junk food, that data exists, and an insurance provider could easily hike your premiums because they’ve flagged you as a high-risk liability. There are endless ways this kind of surveillance can be weaponized.
Furthermore, money sitting in a bank account isn't truly yours in the absolute sense; at any given moment, a central authority can decide which priorities take precedence regarding transaction processing. In my specific line of work, there are actually scenarios where I wouldn't mind that level of automation. I once had a client end up on medical leave with insufficient income, leaving me unable to collect payment because their basic survival needs took priority—which isn't my burden to bear, but an automated system would have settled the debt instantly.

So, a buddy of mine was venting to me today. He wants to move 20,000 United States Dollars from JPMorgan Chase to an account at another American bank, and the bank tells him: "Sure, but it'll cost you 100 United States Dollars ($250)." Yeah, you read that right. The bank wants 100 United States Dollars just for a computer transaction. My friend lives abroad, so he's used to that being free, and he was livid... after about 30 minutes, he calmed down and said, fine, I'm not giving them that out of spite, I'll just withdraw the cash and hand-deliver it to the other bank. Then he calls them back, and they tell him: "Oh, hey, if you want to withdraw more than 5,000 United States Dollars, you have to give us two days' notice by noon."
I don't even know who's crazier here—my friend, who thinks walking around town with all that cash is a good idea (maybe he'll get reported or robbed?), or the bank, charging that much for a digital transfer and making it such a headache just to access your own money. In the end, we'll have people in the 21st century counting bills at a teller window like it's a Western movie, hoping they don't get jumped. And the guy just wants his money: either pay 100 United States Dollars or stuff his pockets. It's gross.

Once cash disappears and everything is digital, we'll be totally at the mercy of bank fees. Actually, I guess we already are.
Anyway, is a 0.5% fee for a transaction within the US (in United States Dollars) actually normal?

neondriver5 said:Good grief, what an absolute circus over absolutely nothing. 🤦
It’s almost as if they were just sitting there waiting for someone to come along and grill them.

I guess your comment isn't really helping much. We're just trying to figure out—and share what we know—if the bank is actually following the law or not.
Maybe it doesn't matter to everyone, but it matters to some of us. Is that a problem?

Laura Chavez93 said:I was at JPMorgan Chase earlier today, clearing out nearly everything from my account—so if they feel the need to freeze anything, let it be the measly hundred dollars or so left sitting there... The teller had this sudden urge to update my personal information while I was mid-transaction 🤣 though I told her I'd take care of it some other time ☕
The atmosphere at the counters around me felt less like a bank and more like a police interrogation: one woman was grilling a guy about whether he held any other citizenships or what exactly he needed the account for... honestly, it was absurd 🙂

Yeah, totally wild. I guess in a few years we won't even have cash left, and they'll probably track every single cent we spend.

rowdypilot19 said:JPMorgan Chase isn't asking for any of that at all, not from their long-time clients or anyone just starting out.

The Federal Reserve hasn't been asking either, or at least that's what my brother tells me, I guess.

The Federal Reserve? You mean Wells Fargo?

A colleague of mine reached out—he’s already got some inquiries open with the Federal Reserve and Zabiti, so he’ll get back to me. He mentioned that the Federal Reserve is actually responsible for overseeing the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act... and I think the IRS handles the FATCA stuff. He asked the Federal Reserve about potential account freezes if those questionnaires aren't filled out. I guess I'll let you know once I hear more.

unrecognized entity

I guess I'll just be here, hanging out. Maybe! Nathan Morris3 says: I guess Hypovereinsbank—which is basically JPMorgan Chase—is asking clients to fill out the exact same questionnaire that Zaba does, and nobody seems to be complaining about it over there. I think they're doing the same thing in Italy, too.

I don't really recall N26 asking me for my payroll info back in the day. I haven't exactly studied German law, so maybe they're required to ask, but I'd assume there's some kind of rule about being reasonable. It shouldn't be like what happens here at Bank of America—where you open an account with maybe $300 in annual turnover and they claim they legally have to demand your entire world income just to make sure you aren't laundering money or funding terrorism. I guess it's just weird.

The law says:

Maybe some kind of money laundering or terrorism financing risk assessment, I guess.
Article 7.
...
When it comes to analyzing and assessing risk—you know, that whole process for determining risk ratings mentioned in section 2—both the entity and the regulatory body from section 83 have to pay attention to what makes that specific business tick. I guess they really need to look at things like the size and makeup of the firm, the scope and type of operations, who their clients are, and the actual products they’re putting out there.

So, I asked my bank why they’re demanding my global income details for a business that barely pulls in a few thousand bucks a year. It feels like it has nothing to do with them. They basically told me they "can't" skip those questions because customizing the process would be too expensive or complicated, so they just send everyone the exact same form with the same mandatory fields. Honestly, that logic bugs me, even if it doesn't bother most people.

unrecognized entity:

I guess I don't really get why American banks aren't trusted enough with big deposits. It seems like so many Americans just move their money over to Austria instead, and I suppose the IRS absolutely loves when they do that.

I live in Austria. Everything has been coming to light since 2018 anyway, so they'll definitely be looking into anything that seems suspicious. A few years back, America had some pretty crazy laws that basically banned having accounts at foreign banks without permission from an unrecognized entity, but that isn't illegal anymore.
Bank of America used to be pretty interesting because they offered better rates on deposits, but I guess that’s not really the case anymore, so it feels less appealing. Plus, privacy seems a bit weaker now—they were even asking about "intimate" household details until recently, I think—and there's just more risk. Even with deposit insurance, you're still stuck dealing with currency risk, maybe.

George Lewis9 said:You can dig up all sorts of stuff. Beyond just salaries, you can see if an individual or a company has outstanding debts—which is handy if you're renting out an apartment and want to check if they'll actually pay the rent.🙂

And honestly, nobody complains about it being a "privacy violation."

I guess it's about time to start leaving a trail, unless you're actually a journalist or something. Maybe then the person you're watching will actually realize they're being watched. 😁.

Swedes have such a different culture. They're moving toward a cashless society so fast that soon there won't be any physical money left at all. Every single transaction leaves a trail, and they seem totally fine with that level of transparency—everyone knowing everything about everyone else. It only really works if that openness is absolute and everyone is on the same page, even the neighbors. I guess they’re just wired differently, and I won't get into whether that should be the global standard or not (it probably fits their way of life, though). But the point is, over there, it's all perfectly legal. It's the same in Austria. Here in America, it isn't, and it's honestly kind of wild how much people here just sit back and accept things. Whether it's annoying paperwork from a bank or much bigger issues that everyone agrees are important, people just don't seem to want to push back.

wiredlynx28 said:Precisely.

@ Nathan Morris3

Bank of America (JPMorgan Chase) uses the exact same questionnaire as Chase.👍

I have an account at Bank of America too, and honestly, nobody has ever asked me anything, not even at the three other banks I used back in Austria.
I guess it isn't really about whether they ask or not, but more if the questionnaire follows the Law or doesn't.
We have anti-money laundering laws here in the US too:

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/anti-money-laundering-compliance
https://www.fincen.gov/resources/statutes-regulations

, and there's Article 6 which says something about "gathering data on the source of funds; this might include info regarding... income."
Maybe, combined with other sections and just common sense, if you only move $300 a year through your account, a bank probably won't bother you with stuff they aren't legally required to ask. But even if they did—I suppose that would be legal since the law allows it, so there's not much to complain about. Still, like I said, in my several decades living in America with all these accounts, no bank has ever requested that info from me because, even with relatively large amounts, I don't think there's any reason to suspect I'm doing anything shady (though they might tighten things up, since this new Law is only a few months old). Americans seem to monitor foreigners more, maybe mostly those from Middle Eastern countries (I know of a few cases).

George Lewis9 said:Look, here’s a bit of perspective from my time abroad: the data this bank is digging for—all those photo uploads—is basically identical to what I had to provide when I opened an account back in Sweden. Citizenship, residency status, dual citizenship questions, whether you're an American citizen, income levels, employer details, how often you wire money internationally and in what amounts, phone number, email—it’s all the exact same stuff. It makes me think the regulations are pretty much standardized across the entire European Union.

Actually, they aren't. In Austria, they don't ask for nearly as much, though I guess banks might want more from non-citizens.
Sweden is just super transparent, you know? You can actually look up how much your neighbor makes online through the IRS website over there, so I guess privacy isn't quite the same thing in Sweden.

wiredlynx28 said:It might sound harsh, but let's be real: an individual standing up against a giant like Bank of America is an uphill battle.
Especially when dealing with matters like this.
Honestly, you're better off just paying for a vacation or something similar rather than sinking money into legal fees and wasting precious time on a fight where the person suing the bank usually ends up losing everything.

Steven Rivera76, don't let it get you down, I think it's really important for citizens to start standing up for their rights. Actually, I'll tell you what—I'd be happy to cover your initial consultation costs with a lawyer. I can send you the cash ahead of time via Western Union, which I assume would be around $50 (though maybe check first so you don't bankrupt me 🙂 ). At least that way you can get some basic info from a pro.

Steven Rivera76 said:I suppose my writing is incredibly unclear. ☕

I want to file a report against JP Morgan Chase because of a circular letter stating the following:

If you do not update your legally required information shortly, we will be forced to limit your business relationship, which means you will be unable to conduct transactions through your accounts. The suspension of transaction execution includes, for example, cash withdrawals at ATMs and branches, transferring funds from accounts, and using the Bank's debit and credit cards.

Naturally, I sent a formal complaint to JP Morgan Chase as well, but they haven't responded.

I guess they might get back to you soon, but maybe don't get your hopes up too high. You'll probably just get an answer like the one I got, where they just parrot "due to legal obligations..." and don't actually address your specific question.
I don't know how strong your finances are, but if they are, I'd suggest maybe checking with a lawyer who could tell you if the bank really has the right to pull this kind of confiscation. I mean, you might have grounds for a lawsuit.

From what I've read, the Law the bank is citing doesn't even regulate the relationship between the entity (the bank) and the client (you). And while a bank does have the discretion to end a contract with you, this whole thing about confiscating money makes zero sense. Sure, a bank has to report suspicious activity—maybe even your refusal to provide info—but blocking you from your own money? No fucking way.

I ended up leaving both Chase and Wells Fargo, so we'll see if that causes issues with my other banks. If I end up in the same boat as you, I'm definitely going to a lawyer, especially since the interest on my money would be pretty decent to recover.

Anyway, I guess we need a legal precedent here, since it seems like the Federal Reserve, the FTC, and the Police Department aren't doing anything. Maybe consumer advocacy groups are working on something, I'm not sure (maybe try contacting them?).

Steven Rivera76 said:So what, we shouldn't even discuss banks anymore? Should we just report them immediately?

Nobody is answering my question: has anyone actually received a response from the bank regarding their complaint? I was planning on waiting for their reply before filing further reports. Does that make any sense?

Sent from my iPhone using Reddit

What are you complaining about exactly? I got an "answer" to a complaint once about them asking for info outside of a Legal Obligation, but I think I already posted about that.
What would you specifically complain or report about?

I guess she might be the host? Maybe just a presenter. Nathan Morris3 says:
I guess we should be a bit more precise here. This isn't really about a bank closing an account at their own discretion, since the client was actually told why it happened this time. Discretionary closure is more when a bank just shuts you down for their own reasons—maybe they just don't want to do business with someone anymore—and they aren't even required to explain themselves.

I think you might be wrong. Maybe.

"
Maybe it’s just discretion? I guess that’s how it works.
I guess managers have the right to decide on their subordinates' key issues whenever they feel like it, maybe.
I guess there’s some kind of legal leeway when it comes to how the law and formula are applied, maybe? Like, if the law doesn't explicitly limit it, there might be some extra freedom there, I suppose.
"

So, I guess it doesn't really matter if the bank gave a fake answer or just nothing at all. Discretionary rights are defined by the actual process, not just some excuse or reason they come up with.

If you need help with the Zabi formula, maybe just ask someone over at Zabi? I guess it all seems pretty straightforward to me, but if not, you can always grab some help from one of the staff members. 👍

So, I told you I actually asked, and I got an official response that cites articles saying something completely different from what the bank claims. When you try to confront them with the law and formula they’re using, you just get a reply like, "it's bank policy, sorry we can't meet your expectations," which basically means "take your business elsewhere if you don't like it." I guess it's just the same story with all the banks.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "seeing clearly." I guess you mean looking at the law and formula and realizing there’s just no basis to ask for income data that isn't part of the actual business deal with the bank? It's good that you finally admitted it, I suppose, but the way banks treat people worries me a bit. Inventing ways to twist the law just to push clients toward something feels... well, maybe a little manipulative.

wiredlynx28 said:Like I said.
To those of you arguing otherwise: just wait until they freeze your accounts and cut off access to every single service you use at JPMorgan Chase. Once they terminate your entire relationship with the bank, then feel free to come back and talk. 👍

You keep dodging the actual issue with the forms. You won't give any real reason why JPMorgan Chase claims they need this data when the write differently law clearly says otherwise. You're just defending the bank without any logic, so... what's even the point?

I mean, we all know a bank has the discretion to close an account—that's not really the debate here. It doesn't make lying okay, I guess.

slypanther333 said:@wiredlynx28
Based on what you've been saying in other posts, I think you mentioned you don't actually work at Zaba. So, are you just a customer using their online banking then? I'm asking because I'm a bit confused how you know there's a "do not wish to answer" option for things like dual citizenship, since nobody mentioned that before your post and it isn't visible in any of the screenshots...

@wiredlynx28
If you take a slightly more careful look at the form itself, there's hardly any question that isn't essentially mandatory. Only three specific items include a "more information" link that pops up a window explaining the legal basis for the request—you know, citing stuff like federal law or the FTC—but for everything else, there's nothing. In your expert opinion, does that imply Zaba doesn't actually have a legal leg to stand on when asking those other questions? Because if they do, why wouldn't they list the authority right there next to the others like they did for those three? I realize you can't give me a definitive answer since you don't work at Zaba (right?), but I'd love to hear your take since you seem to know your stuff...

I guess she might be at JPMorgan Chase.

I guess @Voditeljica1 might have something to say about this. Maybe.
If you take a closer look at the form, it feels like there isn't a single question you can skip. But then, only three of them have that "more info" link that pops up a window explaining the specific legal basis—you know, citing things like federal law or FactSet. In your expert opinion, does that mean Wells Fargo doesn't actually have a legal reason to ask the rest? If they do, why wouldn't they just list the authority for those too, like they did for the first three? I know you can't give me a definitive answer since you don't work at Wells Fargo (right?), but I’d love to hear what you think, given how much you know.

I guess FATCA only really matters if you've got over $50K sitting in your account. If you don't, there probably isn't even a reason for them to be asking all those other questions, maybe.

I think I posted the link earlier:
I guess this Treasury report might be worth looking at. Maybe there's something useful in here if you have the time.

Maybe some accounts just don't need to be identified or reported? I guess there are certain ones that aren't required to be reviewed at all.
Subject to subparagraph E(2) of this section, an unknown...
Maybe an account where the total balance stays under $50,000 as of... I guess.
June 30, 2014

So, it says explicitly that you don't need to, but banks act like it's written right there in the contract... maybe they just assumed it was a typo or something? I guess.
I've got accounts in a few different countries, and honestly, what banks are doing here in the US—and people aren't even complaining—is just totally surreal. It's like something out of Monty Python, I guess. 😉