wiredlynx28 said:This is standard procedure. They’ll shut it down because you aren't meeting the basic terms of service.
Read more carefully—I was asking if anyone else has had their account closed after refusing to complete a survey ☕ specifically regarding JPMorgan Chase
It’s happening again 🙂 First, yesterday my personal banker—who I never actually requested nor even particularly need 🙄—calls me up to insist I come in and sign some questionnaire... I told her straight out that I was just there back in December and provided everything they needed, and since nothing has changed, there’s really no reason for me to trek down there just to sign more papers... Then today, they call regarding the business account, threatening to shut it down entirely unless I show up to fill out more forms and jump through their hoops... Has anyone actually had an account closed just for refusing to comply with this nonsense? 🤷 If not, let me know, so I can be certain about sending them straight to hell next time
steelwalker26 said:What exactly is Pilate's motivation here—why go this far? It seems to have drifted far beyond merely defending Bloomberg & his associates... it’s reached a point where one might suspect this was written by someone actually hoping to sink Bloomberg by making his defense look utterly foolish.
That is quite likely, though he did overstep the mark 👎 ...
It seems lately there's been a trend of deleting discussions involving Pontius Pilate rather than actually banning him—how lovely... :klap: @moderators: here is a textbook example of a Pilatean post regarding why that indoor pool in the Holy Land wasn't open when scheduled, our very own Pilate responds this way and then proceeds to elaborate
Nathan Moore6 said:Just to be clear—I started this thread because trying to link every single instance of Pilatus's months-long trolling over on Reddit would be an impossible task...
As for Pilatus—he is either some Bloomberg-esque PR operative on a payroll, or simply a dedicated troll who goes out of his way to disrupt every discussion regarding Washington, D.C.—so, please, do whatever you see fit to ensure such behavior ceases...
Nathan Moore6 said:Lately, it seems like trolling and outright insults have become the standard on Reddit—from users behaving in a Pilatus-esque manner by ruining every single thread, to individuals who simply resort to blunt, vulgar abuse within specific discussions...
I would ask that the administrators take action against this behavior—perhaps by reviewing recent threads and posts—to see that most regular contributors are actually pushing back against this Pilatus-esque trolling. If I recall correctly, he was hit with a three-day ban recently because of it, yet the behavior hasn't ceased since...
None of these links are working. 🤷 Instead of being banned for trolling, his posts are just being deleted?
It would be far more efficient to simply launch a dedicated thread—complete with clearly defined community guidelines and specific penalties for those who refuse to follow them—rather than letting this debate bleed across ten different discussions 🤷. This way, at least everything remains centralized in one single location ...
I was attempting to read the first part of this thread, but I find myself unable to do so. The discussion has reached 10,000 posts—a rather significant milestone—so a second part has been opened. Is there any way for me to access the original thread?
I have been reviewing the last ten pages over on Google cache—it was quite a heated exchange 🍿 I believe I have finally deduced why the thread was shut down... it follows the exact same pattern we see over at Microsoft, except here, someone who clearly knows how to navigate the discourse at Microsoft lost their cool 😉... regardless, let’s just move this discussion to a different PDF where we aren't already known by reputation; let me know once that happens 👋
Oh, sure, I’m clearly the suspicious one here 🙂—as if being at a different JPMorgan Chase branch to activate a new card, check my balance, and move some funds would actually trigger an investigation... nobody even blinked. Honestly, I think I’ll just stick to that location from now on, rather than dealing with my usual branch where my personal banker—and her manager—constantly hover over me with all these unnecessary questions ☕
The banks have already gathered the data—since I actually submitted the documentation explicitly stating those details myself—not to mention they’ve had access to all of it from the start... it’s simply a matter of my authorization allowing the bank to utilize that information for one very specific purpose.
Thomas Fowler84 said:Krkimir, could you summarize exactly which pieces of information they requested from you? You’re referring to Chase, right? This is the form from Chase:
The official documentation regarding the Anti-Money Laundering Act can be found here. It serves as a vital framework for our financial security.
If you ask me, this questionnaire is an absolute crime. Behind that harmless introduction lies:
Personal data within this Questionnaire is collected pursuant to the Anti-Money Laundering Act and its associated regulations. The governing regulations. The bank will utilize all collected data to conduct thorough due diligence and fulfill its legal obligations under the Anti-Money Laundering Act.
Once they have gathered information that falls outside their legal obligations, they write it all in lowercase like this:
By signing this Questionnaire, I authorize JPMorgan Chase & Co. to process my personal data...
(That is likely what you meant.) In essence, they are asking for permission to use that data however they see fit. You are right to view this as a deceptive tactic. However, you must realize that the entity bound by the Anti-Money Laundering Act isn't you—it's the bank. The bank requires your consent simply to ensure they remain compliant and avoid legal pursuit later. What is truly unacceptable is the fine print. It fails to specify that the information will be used solely to satisfy legal requirements, instead granting the bank broad discretion to use that data for anything within their corporate group. Under the Privacy Act, such an arrangement should be strictly prohibited.
Quincy:
If the information I provided is accurate... The same as before.What exactly am I being asked to sign now?
Article 26, Section 2, Subsection 4 mandates that banks must "update" their data. Since there is no legal requirement for a client to proactively report changes, this effectively creates both an obligation and a right for the bank to request a signed confirmation of existing information.
Quincy:
The ultimate question: Is this questionnaire from JPMorgan Chase & Co. actually tied to any legal requirement? Specifically, is there a rule stating, "you must complete and sign this, or we will close your account"?
I attempted to challenge Zabin’s Questionnaire through several different channels, but unfortunately, I have met zero resistance. Both The Government and the FTC, along with the Federal Reserve, remain entirely passive. My advice would be similar to how one handles those criminal questionnaires used by PBS auditors. Take a pen and cross out any disputed sentences—such as the sections regarding consent—as well as any fields you believe are not legally required, just to ensure no one can add information later. Finally, you can handwrite a note at the bottom stating that you grant the bank permission to use the collected data strictly for purposes mandated by the Anti-Money Laundering Act.
This probably won't fly, but I have an idea—what if I simply write out all the data requested in Article 16 on my own sheet of paper and then add a note underneath, stating that by my signature, I confirm the accuracy of the provided information and stipulate that it may only be used to fulfill obligations pursuant to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act and cannot be used for any other purpose 🧐 I have to head back to the bank tomorrow anyway, so I might as well ask
Thomas Fowler84 said:That is exactly why you have to distinguish between what they are permitted to do and what they are strictly forbidden from doing. It is their legal obligation to update their records. You aren't making a valid point by telling them they already possess your address or phone number; they have a mandate to verify that information. As long as they are refreshing data that hasn't been touched in years, there is nothing controversial about the process. It is questionable to demand information that isn't strictly necessary. It is much like asking for a driver's license when one only needs to buy a newspaper.
What is the standard protocol if I choose to decline answering questions that fall outside my obligations?
I believe a bank holds the discretionary right to terminate a business relationship without providing specific justification, provided they aren't engaging in discrimination based on religion or sexual orientation. They might threaten to report you to federal regulators, but if the issue falls outside of legal mandates, there shouldn't be much to fear. I am more curious about their protocol for someone holding a mortgage who refuses to provide documentation—would they actually move to foreclose just to protect their own interests?
If I’ve already handed over documents containing every single piece of requested info, why on earth am I being asked to sign anything else? Furthermore, if federal law mandates that banks must report certain data to the government starting January 1st, why is the bank even bothering to ask for my consent? They have to hand it over regardless... And if the data I provided is exactly the same as before, what is the purpose of this additional paperwork? The ultimate question remains: Is this questionnaire from JPMorgan Chase actually tied to any specific regulation—as in, "fill this out and sign it, or we freeze your account"—or is it just unnecessary busywork?
Thomas Fowler84 said:Krkimir, the law is what it is (unfortunately). However, you are grouping everything together. There are actions a bank takes that are mandated by law, and others that are not. For example, I was at JPMorgan Chase recently. The situation was somewhat unique, but when opening the account, they didn't ask me a SINGLE relevant question (perhaps I am an exception, I don't know). They performed a broad risk assessment; they didn't ask about my citizenship, my US residency, my income, or my living situation... NOTHING! They determined through our conversation that the purpose of the account was clear and that I posed no risk regarding money laundering, terrorism financing, or tax evasion in the US. But the law mandates that data be updated, and there are certain questions they are legally obligated to ask. Under the law, banks are the responsible parties; they do not have access to Department of Homeland Security data. Read those few sections of the law, from Article 8 through Article 26; skip the irrelevant parts and you will understand what they can and cannot ask within five minutes. It is pointless to be angry with the bank over matters required by the law.
Article 16 states the following: full name, residence, date of birth, place of birth, social security number, and the name, number, and issuing authority of an identification document yet someone over at JPMorgan Chase seems to have overstepped—acting as if they have a right to inquire about my number of children, my level of education, or even my work phone number... what is the actual procedure if I choose to decline answering questions that I am under no obligation to address?