Posts by Nathan Morris3

wiredlynx28 said:@ Spinster

You know that feeling when a client switches from another bank? Usually, they aren't leaving because things were going great there—they're fleeing a bad experience. I think that tells you everything you need to know about why people move.

Regarding your Google search: if you're looking into how other banks are performing, try searching in English or asking around. Reach out to anyone you know working in the industry. JPMorgan Chase has been struggling for years, and it looks like Société Générale is basically trying to absorb them by injecting capital—plus, the leadership is already being taken over by Société Générale folks. Citigroup already snapped up that local branch and will likely rebrand soon, while RBS is pulling out of Eastern markets entirely; they even shut down in places like Canada due to poor performance. It's worth noting that RBS operating in the US isn't the same beast as RBS in Austria. On the flip side, Bank of America passed all its stress tests perfectly. Their capital position is solid enough that even if a crisis hits, business would stay steady, according to the European Commission's findings.

@Nathan Morris3

Take a closer look at which questions actually require an answer and which ones don't. If you feel like certain questions shouldn't be answered for the reasons you're aware of, just email the bank directly. They’ll forward it to their legal department, where actual professionals will get back to you within the timeframe required by law. Besides, you always have the option to file a lawsuit if you believe your rights were violated or if someone is trying to pull a fast one on you.

Well, I've been trying to explain that I've sort of become an expert in this stuff by accident, so I pretty much know what a bank is allowed to ask and what they aren't. I don't really need to "look closer," I guess. We have a specific form that claims they're required to ask these things, but then we have the law saying otherwise. And then there's you, arguing that the bank is allowed to ask them, basically acting like the law is irrelevant. You aren't really making a point, you're just repeating that the bank is right and that I should check my facts. I was hoping for a more constructive conversation here, honestly.

I've gone through every legal channel, from the legal teams to Zaba and even the FTC. Wells Fargo even asked me those exact same things when I was opening my account. The staff were totally rude, too—they just hand you paperwork without knowing anything. When I asked, "Where does it say you have to ask this?" employees at both banks just shrugged and said they're just doing their jobs.
The legal department keeps citing articles 8 and 26, which also only apply to funds involved in banking transactions.

I'm not sure why you're refusing to admit that banks are breaking the law, especially since the arguments are right there.

What kind of dispute are you talking about? For emotional distress? You kidding? 😉

placidmaker6 said:But you don't actually have to answer the question about other income!

The bank is supposed to ask for this:
"7. details regarding the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship, including information about the client's occupation"

So, "information about the client's occupation." I guess that just means "what kind of work do you do," not how many hours you clock every month, what your vacation time looks like, or even your actual salary.
It explicitly states they should only ask for info about the source of funds involved in the business dealings. It doesn't really matter if those are primary or secondary incomes, I suppose.

wiredlynx28 said:The Know Your Customer Questionnaire is mandatory.
I don't see them asking for anything they aren't legally entitled to. If people are complaining about privacy being invaded, they should specify exactly what they mean.
For any non-mandatory fields, there's an option to select "prefer not to say"—for instance, regarding dual citizenship.

Data collection and updates are conducted strictly under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act and its implementing regulations. This is done to facilitate deep client due diligence and meet all regulatory obligations. Furthermore, the Questionnaire details the specific purpose for collecting and processing this Data, including whether it is processed based on legal authority or via the consent provided by you or your representative upon signing this Questionnaire.

You can review your data or update and correct any inaccuracies in the Questionnaire at any time through online banking, in writing, or by visiting a branch in person.

The information in this Questionnaire is essential for the bank, or any third party for whom the bank is collecting data, to fulfill their legal and regulatory duties and to establish a business relationship with you. If you refuse to provide information required by this Questionnaire, or if you provide inaccurate mandatory information, the bank—or the entity for whom the bank is collecting data—may decline to establish a business relationship with you.

... so I looked over the questionnaire, and yeah, there are questions they technically don't even need to ask by law. I just don't get why you're trying to convince us otherwise when we all have the internet and can just look up the law ourselves to see what's actually required. I'm guessing you aren't in banking, but maybe check with a pro to see where in the Law/regulations/international treaties/guidelines/... it says they can ask about someone's total income.

"ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING AND COUNTER-TERRORISM FINANCING ACT"
"GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING AND COUNTER-TERRORISM FINANCING ACT FOR ENTITIES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE U.S. FINANCIAL REGULATORS"
"Agreement between the government of the United States of America and the government of the Republic of America to Improve Microsoft International tax Compliance and to Implement FATCA"

I read everything—nothing changed in the Act, so I'm not sure why you're insisting the Law is wrong, or like there's some higher authority than domestic and international laws???

Just to repeat: per the Law, the bank is only supposed to ask for the "source of funds or assets that are or will be the subject of the business relationship or transaction" (Article 16. Section 10). The question on this form is totally different, and banks are basically trying to grab info on every single bit of income a citizen has, even stuff that has nothing to do with their transactions. There's a huge difference between those two things, I guess.

Guys: maybe file a complaint with the FTC, and tell the bank to show you the specific Article and Section of the Law that lets them demand your income details.

wiredlynx28 said:The Know Your Customer Questionnaire is mandatory.
I don't see them asking for anything they aren't legally entitled to. If people are complaining about privacy being invaded, they should specify exactly what they mean.
For any non-mandatory fields, there's an option to select "prefer not to say"—for instance, regarding dual citizenship.

Data collection and updates are conducted strictly under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act and its implementing regulations. This is done to facilitate deep client due diligence and meet all regulatory obligations. Furthermore, the Questionnaire details the specific purpose for collecting and processing this Data, including whether it is processed based on legal authority or via the consent provided by you or your representative upon signing this Questionnaire.

You can review your data or update and correct any inaccuracies in the Questionnaire at any time through online banking, in writing, or by visiting a branch in person.

The information in this Questionnaire is essential for the bank, or any third party for whom the bank is collecting data, to fulfill their legal and regulatory duties and to establish a business relationship with you. If you refuse to provide information required by this Questionnaire, or if you provide inaccurate mandatory information, the bank—or the entity for whom the bank is collecting data—may decline to establish a business relationship with you.

wiredlynx28, you keep repeating the same lines we hear from banks, but I guess you can understand my skepticism since my bank tried to push a Know Your Customer Questionnaire on me a couple of years ago using all those laws, but it turned out they were lying and had no legal basis for some questions. So, I guess I'll just wait and see which questions they actually ask, and hopefully, our friend Erin can manage to upload a slightly larger screenshot 😉.

wiredlynx28 said:In that case, don't bother with a traditional checking account. Just open a virtual one. That way, you skip the trip to the bank and the waiting in line entirely; you handle everything online instead. 👍

Besides, whatever info they are asking for can be submitted via online banking in just a few clicks.

When I was at Chase, I couldn't get it done online because the web portal only works if you provide info that isn't actually required by the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act. If you only want to give them what the law requires, I guess you have to go to a branch and leave certain fields blank. I'm not sure if other banks do things differently, though. Maybe the forms have changed since then. I wonder if someone might finally post the actual questions from the form?😉

Steven Rivera76 said:And do you count yourself among the "educated" ones?

Sent from my iPhone using Reddit

Hey guys, maybe we should just stick to being constructive. It looks like wiredlynx28 might be an insider or something, so she probably has better questions to ask anyway.

wiredlynx28 said:$100k at Bank of America
JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo have about $500k combined.
Goldman Sachs holds $50k, but honestly, it’s not worth the hassle since they're circling the drain.
Keep in mind, Bank of America is basically turning into Chase, while JPMorgan Chase will likely shift over to Société Générale.
The only one staying put is Wells Fargo, which is backed by Intesa Sanpaolo—one of the heavy hitters in the US banking sector with massive capital reserves.

I guess you forgot about Wells Fargo too, with their 300k USD limit.

In my experience, private banking is a little different because those limits aren't set in stone. If a bank smells profit—like if you let them handle asset management where they earn commissions (especially if they push their own funds)—they might lower the bar. But if it's just a standard deposit where they barely make anything, they might give you VIP status, though I doubt they'll rush to your house just because you hit the threshold. So, it's hard to say for sure.

Roker, I guess you should call two or three banks and ask for a real consultation to work out a package. Private banking is pretty complex, so you probably won't learn much on a forum or over a quick phone call. Or are you just wondering which bank treats you like a priority based on your balance? Just remember, if you want deposit insurance, you really need to stay under the limit, since that cap applies per person, per bank. Honestly, I don't know who would keep that much cash in a basic checking account anyway, so most people are probably looking at asset management. A bank might even suggest splitting your deposits across a few different institutions within the same sector.

wiredlynx28, does Citigroup really come running to clients the second they hit 500k USD in a regular CD? Do they send juniors or senior advisors?

rowdypilot19 said:I was just wondering, like, what kind of number are we actually talking about here to qualify for Verizon status?

I guess I'm not sure if there's an actual official status like that. Maybe there are corporate clients who get mobile bankers, and then there's private banking where the bank looks after your assets. I doubt there's some automatic thing in regular retail where a banker just shows up at your house, because I suppose you'd have to be someone making the bank a lot of money. And with interest rates as they are, I'd guess it's probably more about assets and equity than just simple deposits.

feraljackal2 said:Is it really such a huge ordeal to lose a few minutes and just fill out that survey—even with all its silly questions? Is it truly easier to spend hours venting and taking it out on a forum, bragging about how much you can lash out at an innocent customer service rep who isn't even allowed to argue back? Then that employee goes home and vents to her husband—who then takes it out on his subordinate at work—and that colleague eventually snaps at a teller at Chase. We end up with this endless cycle of bitter, frustrated Americans making life in this country feel just a little more unbearable every day.

I don't personally believe the bank is going to close a client's account (though, let's face it, anything is possible), but there is a very real chance they'll just label us as idiots. Most idiots in this country won't even care—since they aren't planning on ever using major US banks or doing business with them anyway—because, for them, the real thrill is just being able to trash a service worker.

Man, it’s not even about filling out a survey. It’s about breaking the law. Maybe you don't care, but there are plenty of us who really do. I guess... why does it bother you that it bothers us? 😉

Yeah, I suppose there's no point in taking it out on a bank teller (who even did that?). You should probably just file a formal complaint in writing.

wiredlynx28 said:What does Chase have to do with this? 🤣

Explain to me how, why, and based on what specific reasoning my previous point is incorrect. Argue your position. I know exactly where my facts are coming from, so I'm genuinely curious about the basis for your claim that I'm wrong.👍

I guess that's the thing. Saying "if banks lie or manipulate you, just switch to a different one" basically sounds like telling people not to complain or demand that laws actually be followed. And, well, I think a lot of folks are just totally fed up with banks acting this way and lying to their customers.

It might be fine with you if banks in the US act the way they do, but please let us—those of us who don't have as much wiggle room—try to do something about it.

driftingmoose57 said:Look, there are plenty of answers to what you're asking right here. It's all in that old thread someone posted on this forum ages ago.

But that's just that old 2015 questionnaire... I was wondering what the new version looks like now, maybe after they got called out.
And I'm also curious if they still ask for total income, or just the part being used for the bank business.

driftingmoose57 said:Just sitting here waiting for them to write back and tell me I can't touch my own hundred bucks because I won't fill out some random form that has nothing to do with me. They already have all my info. As for the IRS stuff, honestly, who cares? I'm sitting way under that $50k threshold anyway.😁.

Could you maybe list exactly which questions are on that form? It's pretty important.

nimblelynx63 said:Even the "famous" Reuters hasn't been signed by every single country on the planet.
And besides, this whole thing only matters to what Americans care about.
Did anyone actually bother to ask us if we want our government signing off on this?

Personally, I couldn't care less about them. If they're so obsessed, they should just hire more people for their intelligence agencies instead of having banks force data down our throats.

The US did adopt FATCA (Type 1), which is an international agreement that basically overrides "local" laws. I guess nobody really asked us, just like they didn't ask about NATO or sending weapons to the Middle East. We aren't exactly a fully sovereign nation, but maybe that's not even the point here.
The real issue is that banks act like they haven't even read the laws they're citing.

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-ce...-3-20-2015.pdf

Accounts not Required to be Reviewed, Identified, or Reported
+ A Depository Account with a balance of $50,000 or less.

So, accounts under $50,000 aren't even subject to FATCA oversight. If you have less than $50k and they bring up FATCA—they're lying, I guess.

electriccanyon2 said:This👍
People around here generally have this habit where they complain a ton but rarely actually do anything about it. I got hit with a massive questionnaire and basically "threats" when I went to Citigroup to update my ID info. So, I just shut my account down right there on the spot and switched to Violet. And wouldn't you know it? No interrogation, no threats about freezing my money, nothing when I opened the new account...

Running away isn't really "taking action." Real action is chasing down your legal rights and making sure others follow the rules too, instead of them just making stuff up as they go.
JP Morgan Chase asked me questions that they legally didn't even have to ask, I think. Maybe they don't anymore, though.

Alexander Thompson said:Honestly, I don't really get the point of this thread...

JPMorgan Chase gave me grief—like, serious hassle—about fifteen years ago, so I just pulled a decent chunk of cash out of all my accounts and shut them down... It was as simple as that...

I moved over to Bank of America, hauled my cash there, and then a few years back, I just answered some questions from the CIA regarding my ties to the United States and—voila—all good...

So, a couple days ago, I decide it's time to close my accounts at New York City (or whatever the name is...) and I emailed my contact at Bank of America asking her to prep the paperwork to move my Deloitte account over to them. The lady got everything ready, I signed off, and she actually offered to just mail the official docs to whoever needed them... The whole thing took maybe five minutes... Once that first Deloitte deposit hits Bank of America, I'm closing those New York City accounts for good...

Just close your accounts, head to a bank that actually treats you right, and you're done...

No, seriously, I don't see what the big deal is when it comes to just walking away from a bank you aren't happy with...

Of course it isn't a huge deal, but I feel like this is about something bigger. JPMorgan Chase isn't just some tiny neighborhood branch; they're big enough to set the standard for everyone else. So, I guess it’s pretty important that people speak up and demand their rights and for laws to be followed, rather than letting bad behavior just become the "new normal" that everyone else uses as an excuse.
Besides, this whole forum is meant for sharing experiences, so it seems totally fair and logical for people here to vent and look for info, I suppose.

unspecified

wiredlynx28 said:If they freeze your account, you lose all access to those funds while the block is active. Once they finally close everything out, they'll notify you about the next steps.
Keep in mind that closing an account means severing ties with the entire bank—not just the one account, but every single product you have with them. And like I mentioned before, if there are any outstanding debts, the bank will demand immediate full payment.

I guess if they freeze your account without any legal reason, you might have grounds to sue for damages.
Could someone finally snap a photo of the questions? Mostly I'm wondering if they still ask for a list of every single bit of income you have, or if it's just the stuff required by law (you know, just what's actually relevant to your business with the Bank of America?).
unspecified

wiredlynx28 said:If they freeze your account, you lose all access to those funds while the block is active. Once they finally close everything out, they'll notify you about the next steps.
Keep in mind that closing an account means severing ties with the entire bank—not just the one account, but every single product you have with them. And like I mentioned before, if there are any outstanding debts, the bank will demand immediate full payment.

I guess if they freeze your account without any legal reason, you might have grounds to sue for damages.
Could someone finally snap a photo of the questions? Mostly I'm wondering if they still ask for a list of every single bit of income you have, or if it's just the stuff required by law (you know, just what's actually relevant to your business with the Bank of America?).

P.S. Maybe you could always print out the questionnaire and fill it out by hand, giving them only the info that's legally required. That might be better, since the bank shouldn't be able to claim you didn't provide everything mandated by law. You could even cross things out or add little notes on the form if you wanted.

neondriver5 said:How much of this nonsense have you actually swallowed? It’s honestly hard to believe, and I’ll be blunt:

The Federal Reserve pulls all that data directly from the banks. Trust me, Peter Peric over at Citigroup couldn't care less about whether you're married or if your monthly income is $5,000 or $15,000—don't flatter yourselves. They have the same assets as any other major player, including Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase. They aren't suddenly sweating because they think Peter Peric might move his $10,000 to a competitor.

Citigroup isn't acting in a vacuum here, nor did they just wake up one day and decide to start checking. Every bank is required to do this by order of the Federal Reserve Bank.
Between tax IDs and payment records, the Federal Reserve and the banks have it all. And let’s be real: they’d much rather cut you off entirely than risk being in violation of federal regulations.

I guess that old questionnaire definitely wasn't following what the Federal Reserve "finds" (or the laws). Probably not.
Banks are legally required to update data, but only the specific stuff defined by law. That’s why the FEC ruled the way it did, forcing them to change the questionnaire. I think AT&T had a pretty solid questionnaire from the start. At Chase, for instance, they were asking for total income amounts—no joke, I saw it myself. They even tried to grill clients who weren't even part of that $50k FATCA group with questions they didn't even have to answer under the law (basically ignoring Article 16). It was a mess.

Maybe someone could list the questions from this new version so we can see?

I actually had a bit of a headache with JPMorgan Chase once. I called them up to ask why they were citing laws to demand data they aren't even legally allowed to ask for—the law is pretty clear on what they can and can't request. Their response was just a canned script, really. It wasn't an actual answer; they just kept looping back to some vague "requirement to update information." So, I filed a complaint with the FTC, and they basically confirmed that I don't have to provide info that isn't legally required (big surprise, right?). Unfortunately, it seems like neither the Federal Reserve nor the FTC has a real way—or maybe they just don't want to—to stop this kind of overreach. Honestly, I doubt this kind of thing would fly in another European Union country. In the end, I just refused to give them the data and moved my money to a different bank.

Anyway, I’d suggest reaching out to the FTC and being a bit more firm with them, though I worry you might just get caught in a jurisdictional game of ping-pong between the Federal Reserve and the FTC. I think the FTC took a stance on this before, if I remember correctly, but the catch is that the FTC doesn't actually oversee banks—that's the Federal Reserve's territory.

Regardless, maybe it's not a coincidence that Citigroup had to write off over $11 billion. Maybe their retail side is struggling and they're looking to scale back, though I don't see much point in doing it this way. Or maybe it's all just a coincidence, I guess.

Maybe some people might find this German alternative interesting:

https://n26.com/eu/pricing/

Carol Newman2 said:Who would have guessed you'd find this much communist strength in Austin?

The Communist Party in the United States just pulled in 20% today. 🤣

They actually hit those same numbers back in 2003 and 2012 too. I guess they run a pretty successful populist game without all the constant hate speech, which might actually be a blueprint for all of Europe (for people who feel they absolutely have to vote for populist parties).

I mean, calling them communists is a bit much, just like calling "populists" popular or "libertarians" free... labels don't really mean much anymore. They probably just go by that name because of history, since most of their stuff is just focusing on affordable housing for people in need.