Posts by David Garcia21

They’ve rolled out a completely different app. It's basically the "November-December" version.

There was a notification in the old app at one point saying we'd get migration instructions, but that notice vanished without a trace.

urbanhawk28 said:Fingerprinting can go straight to hell.

It’s not enough that I already have to give them my shoe size and my exact hair count; now I have to sign paperwork every single week just to prove I'm not an American taxpayer, as if the laws of the USA somehow don't apply to me instead of local regulations.
The only thing they haven't asked for yet is a DNA sample. Honestly, I'd probably volunteer it if they wanted to get their hands on it—it's standard procedure for bankers, after all... my personal little banker. And if the US government actually demanded that, I wouldn't even doubt they'd take it. It's not out of the question soon, since this state is turning into absolute Texas.

So, let's review the lesson: collecting data for non-business purposes without consent is, if I recall correctly, according to GDPR, TOTALLY ILLEGAL!!!!

What a complete disaster for the entire field, including all the sidelines. 🤦

Here’s the response from Diners Club:

We're letting you know that with the new PayPal option using your Diners Club card, you can make cash transfers fee-free up to $667. Basically, the transfer amount is capped at whatever your Casino limit is, and it eats directly into your monthly cash advance allowance. Keep in mind this isn't a standard transaction; it's treated as a cash advance.

Limits within limits within limits. 👍

I sent an inquiry directly to Diners Club.
But if that's how it works, then I'm switching to a different card on PayPal.

Sent the inquiry, so we'll see what happens.

So does that mean they treat it like a cash advance? And slap you with a fee?
I doubt it.

They finally enabled NFC payments for Maestro cards too, not just Mastercard. 👍

Looks like everyone just landed on the list of potential money launderers. 🙂

Quincy:

Sure, that’s not the only red flag. There are plenty of others— being way too nosy about business policies, transaction monitoring rules, and limitations, opening accounts in cities that make zero sense based on where you actually live, having ties to PEPs, letting other people use your home address if they can't verify theirs, refusing to answer basic questions, and so on.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/business-news-example...thinking-20170317

Nathan Morris3 said: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.

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.

Nathan Morris3 said: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.

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. 👍

Nathan Morris3 said: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.

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. ☕

Nathan Morris3 said: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 😁.

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 👍

Nathan Morris3 said: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.

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

Nathan Morris3 said: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.

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.🍿

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?

Why don't you go dig up the latest legislative amendments yourself?

Nathan Morris3 said: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.

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

It’ll be a riot when he finally comes full circle. 👍

Nathan Morris3 said: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.

Check section B 7.3.1.3.

Snap a photo of the form so we can see how much they actually changed it since last year.

What's the word?

At least with banks, you actually have some options 🙂

Of course it’s not a phone issue. They actually put out a statement saying they're having glitches and are working on a fix.
And as if Bank of America never has technical issues? /facepalm You just got lucky you didn't need to move money right this second.