Posts by Laura Chavez93

My mother received a letter from her bank today, which finally provided me with some official clarity regarding this situation.
Essentially, the bank is collecting data—in this instance, Chase, though it likely applies to all major institutions—under the guise of anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering laws, as well as the federal crackdown on Americans who evade their tax obligations.
The bank is demanding that my mother visit a local branch 🙂 with her driver's license 🙄 to answer a mountain of questions—essentially filling out endless survey forms... 🙂
The core issue remains:
Why is a private bank performing the duties that should fall strictly under the jurisdiction of the police, the IRS, and federal authorities? 🤷

Have they finally stopped with this nonsense?
I am asking specifically about JPMorgan Chase—I need to review some interest rates and royalty agreements, so I’m wondering if I can just get in and out without being harassed by endless surveys.
For the last few months, I’ve been trekking over to Goldman Sachs just to avoid dealing with them... 🙄

Sarah Morris57 said:I finally got it sorted! I needed some kind of official confirmation, so I had to swing by the Bank of America, but honestly—they ended up just asking for my contact info and all that stuff regarding my US citizenship... nothing too crazy!
She was also super insistent about having a phone number on file, but I can't really help her there—we didn't bother getting a landline when we moved, you know? So she was getting all stressed out, practically begging me to just give her any mobile number at all... and then they actually called my cell once they started going through those questionnaires. 😵

The way they handle this is quite frankly absurd... 🙂

Joseph Bailey41 said:Look, I’m just an ordinary regular here, and honestly, I'm just looking to have a good time.
And let's be real, we all know blondes always have the most fun. 😍

Moderation is a whole different ballgame; you practically need a specialized brain for that job. Otherwise, you end up with chaos like what happened in the thread about Nancy Tieley. Dorian explained it perfectly—it's just a pattern that keeps repeating itself. Someone opens a "controversial topic," a bunch of angry, misogynistic trolls show up with their little army of clones, and before you know it, the whole discussion is unrecognizable. Instead of actually thinking about who is posting and why they're doing it, moderators just react by locking or deleting the thread.

The rights of men are a serious matter, and we need to approach that topic with wisdom and civility rather than falling for cheap provocations.

Need some help? Don't know how to handle topics that aren't strictly limited to beer, shaving, or remote controls? Feel free to speak up; I'm sure someone else here will lend a hand. There's no shame in not knowing something—the shame is in being too afraid to ask.

The bolded part is the issue. And so is what Nancy Tieley stated—which, in this specific instance, amounts to nothing less than blatant, primitive sexist hate speech.
One has to wonder where equality, freedom of speech, and all those other principles go when things don't align with what the major human rights activists want to hear...

🤔 Is there a legal professional in this group—perhaps someone who can shed some light on the matter—regarding what actually happens if I simply choose not to complete that survey?

William Bennett53 said:We aren't going to permit any more discussions regarding the political rights of men here in America—it has been proven far too many times that these topics inevitably devolve into nothing but pure misogyny.

In that case, just put a moderator warning in the very first post stating that such comments won't be tolerated, will be deleted, and will result in bans.
This Nansi Tireli isn't some untouchable icon, and outbursts like these deserve nothing but condemnation...

Suppose they hand me a questionnaire and I decide to fill it out using Mamić's signature style...
marital status: why the hell are you asking me this, you lowlife spies?
email: absoluteidiots@gmail.com
am I a terrorist: I'll show you some real terrorism, you bastards...

will they shut down my accounts?

Give them a call and find out exactly what their issue is...

It’s hardly a question—you end up signing just about anything the bank puts in front of you
and then you’re left dealing with the consequences... 😵

Laura Chavez93 said:Moving forward...
edit: I’ve submitted an inquiry to the FEC to see if they actually require me to complete that survey—we shall see how that unfolds...

Well, I finally heard back from the FTC. Their stance is that banks are legally obligated to be transparent about why they are collecting data and under which specific legal framework they operate—not to mention clearly distinguishing between mandatory disclosures and voluntary information.
I am simply dying to go back to the branch next time, only to have them claim all this scrutiny is necessary to prevent terrorism or money laundering... if they have the nerve to imply I’m involved in any of that nonsense, there will be hell to pay. ☕

So that’s the rule, then—transactions up to $100,000, which still leaves me completely stuck ☕
yet apparently I can withdraw a million dollars within a ten-day window 🙂

It’s clearly some kind of massive setup—as soon as the big banks manage to push through a survey like that...

So, you’re citing the specific statute that dictates how the IRS, the financial inspectors, and Deloitte are supposed to handle this entire process—which, let's be honest, is exactly why they receive a paycheck in the first place—yet you still maintain that the responsibility should fall on the banks? 🙄

As I have already stated, this matter falls under the jurisdiction of the police and the IRS—not the bank.

vividranger8 said:I've been lurking in this thread for a bit, and man, I see everyone venting about how banks are just the worst—this one is greedy, that one is shady, blah blah blah—but honestly? The real kicker is that US Congress passed a law that basically forces their hands. Like, they *have* to follow these rules now. I mean, I highly doubt banks actually have any real incentive to go hunting for "terrorists" among their everyday customers. It's just more paperwork for them, I guess.

If a bank suspects I might be a terrorist, then by all means, they should contact the police;
it isn't the bank's job to conduct those investigations...
And if I actually am a terrorist and somehow felt the need to find out, who knows? Perhaps I am... though I certainly wouldn't be aware of it myself 🙂

Jerry Williams53 said:Yeah, just give the cash back. Easy.
As for data, they can go talk to the relevant federal agencies or the IRS... whatever. They already have all that stuff on file...
I'm sure as hell not giving them anything...

I actually said something similar to my wife recently—she had this way of being incredibly polite while basically telling me she didn't care 😂: "For personal information, try calling the local municipality or the police; for anything financial, contact the IRS... do whatever you want, I'm really not your resource."

bluecyclist64 said:You want a mature answer?

Every time someone tries that with me, I tell them exactly where they can shove it.

Is that "mature" enough for you?

Because frankly, after dealing with these vultures for years, I’m a hair's breadth away from losing my mind...

I am certainly not being paid to act as an unpaid intelligence officer for predatory lenders.

I suspect that might be the only language they actually understand... if they call again, I'll handle them the way Mamić would, and hopefully, they'll finally take the hint.

Raymond Rivera6 said:I'm not sure how to put this delicately, but I think you're exaggerating. Chase does have KYC questionnaires, but there isn't a single word in there about who you live with or anything regarding children. They might ask about your income, where you work, or the amount of a specific transaction, etc. They could have been updating your basic info, but even then, they don't ask about a spouse or kids—just the standard stuff like address, SSN, etc. Nothing deeply personal. At most, they might ask the reason for closing the account.
It feels like someone is just venting here and maybe embellishing the story to make it sound more dramatic.
Given how much work they have and how much they want to wrap things up smoothly with customers, I highly doubt anyone behind that counter actually cares whether you have kids, if they're in school, or what you had for lunch today. They don't have nothing better to do.

And clearly, they don't—Chase called me on a day when the branch was closed... 🙄I took a quick look at their survey questions: they want my cell number, my office line, my email, my marital status, even which state I pay taxes in...
Good grief, I'm not even applying for a loan, let alone intending to, and after being a customer for 20 years, they suddenly decide to demand this nonsense?!?
edit: @Eric Newman4, it isn't about trying to hide anything—it's just plain harassment, I think...
Who on earth gives them the right to call me and insist that I suddenly need to satisfy all these requirements? Not to mention the old-school tactic where every time I step into a branch, they try to push loans, CDs, online banking, or service packages on me... 🙂 I mean, I just want to check my balance to see if a bill was paid, but instead, I get hit with a barrage of offers—of course, none of it is free, or even included in the fees I already pay just for having accounts there...

Moving forward...
edit: I’ve submitted an inquiry to the FEC to see if they actually require me to complete that survey—we shall see how that unfolds...

It’s obvious the Americans are calling the shots here—likely just another way to push their debts onto the rest of the world. If this directive had originated from the Citigroup headquarters, the questions would be being asked in Italian instead... though I've provided the English translation right below so any American who doesn't speak the local language can follow along without issue.
What strikes me as truly incredible, however, is how much leverage the U.S. maintains—possessing enough influence to force such a survey through both a foreign bank and a sovereign state without anyone raising a single objection. 🙄
edit: here is another article 🤦

Here is the explanation provided:

Personal data in this Questionnaire is collected and processed based on your consent—and so that JPMorgan Chase (the Bank) can fulfill its
obligations to the relevant authorities... as well as to protect the Bank's legitimate interests regarding compliance with those authorities' requirements. This includes, but is not
limited to, determining whether you are a tax resident of the United States of America (USA), which would necessitate monitoring your
accounts held at the Bank and notifying the appropriate agencies to ensure compliance with US tax regulations—as well as, if you are an American citizen,
determining if you qualify as a politically exposed person under this Questionnaire, and whether there is an increased risk that you might use your business
relationship with the Bank as a bank used for money laundering and terrorism financing.

A few questions:
1. Which specific authorities require this information, and why can't these agencies simply complete the forms themselves, given they already possess all the data?
2. If the US government determines someone is a US tax resident, why doesn't the US Embassy just provide that data directly to banks (or the IRS) to clarify who is and isn't a taxpayer?
3. Are politically active individuals being discriminated against compared to those who are not?
4. On what basis does the bank assume I am using my relationship with the bank as a bank used for money laundering and terrorism financing—requiring me to fill out this survey just to prove I am not?
edit:

Since personal data in this questionnaire is collected and processed based on my consent, if I choose not to consent to the collection of this data at all (let alone its processing—not that it should be processed in the first place, or for what purpose),
why is the bank insisting that I complete this, and furthermore, sign it?