It’s almost absurd... if a teller at Chase asks you what your typical transactions look like, and you respond by asking why they even need to bother—since they could easily find that info with two clicks of a mouse— suddenly, you're being flagged as a potential terrorist or a money launderer... 🙂
I received a warning on the Washington, D.C. PDF regarding my post—yet there was no mention of political content... is it actually possible to discuss paid activists here in a civilized manner? Otherwise, engaging in any meaningful discussion is becoming quite impossible...
Specifically regarding the Washington, D.C. subforum—where we discuss those activists who seem to show up whenever there is a mess to be made—be it church construction, public fountains, or patio expansions near Times Square... as soon as someone suggests that these activists aren't actually driven by personal conviction, but are instead being bankrolled by political parties to carry out these stunts, every single post gets nuked, and the people making those observations are handed red cards. Why is it impossible to have a civilized discussion about these matters—especially when it follows such a predictable, repetitive pattern?
Nathan Morris3 said:A friend of mine just got another reply from the bank, and yeah, it’s basically more of the same nonsense. This time they’re claiming this specific section of the law:
16. (1)... 10. information regarding the source of funds that are or will be the subject of a transaction or business relationship;
but they’re adding this little bit like "... (are or will be,) or could theoretically be..." to it. So apparently, they feel they have to collect info on every single possible source of income—not just what I actually use, but everything else too—simply because they can't predict the future. It’s like they’re trying to cover their own backs, so even for an account seeing maybe $2,000 a year, they’re demanding all this data just in case some random money lands in there later.
Basically, they’re just twisting the law to grab as much data as possible. I honestly don't know where they'll stop; at this rate, they might try to put a camera in my living room just to make sure I’m "clean" and don't have any theoretical illegal income.
I really can't tell who's crazier here—Zira for interpreting the law in a way that makes zero sense, the Federal Reserve for sitting on their hands, or the customers who just accept this whole mess.
From the very beginning, I was told—quite insistently, I might add—that asking even a single question would lead to trouble, let alone voicing an actual complaint. 🙂 There is simply no coherent explanation to be found, no dialogue, nothing can be resolved over a phone call... they just repeat themselves like parrots, insisting that one must physically visit a branch to fill out some survey and ultimately sign away their rights so the bank can do whatever they please. 🙂 It feels as though I am a convicted felon being forced to show up at the police department to give a statement... whatever inquiry you make, the answer is always "no." If you suggest sending the necessary documentation via email—it’s a "no." If you propose that they pull the required data directly from the IRS or local municipal offices—again, "no." When you ask specifically which pieces of information are missing, they refuse to say; when you offer to have them check what is lacking and then contact you... they go silent. Then, after a certain amount of time passes, they threaten to freeze the account... and yet, somehow, nobody seems to see the issue here... 🙂
Out of pure habit, I was hesitant to switch banks—I've held accounts at JPMorgan Chase for decades now, and there is a certain comfort in knowing exactly where the branches and ATMs are located... but once they started sending those threatening letters about freezing my accounts, the decision became quite simple ☕
The government maintains full visibility into your entire income stream through those Joppd forms... it shouldn't be much of a challenge for them to develop an algorithm capable of flagging suspicious deposits ☕ the real question is this: If a bank suspects—based on certain transactions—that someone is involved in terrorism or money laundering, why don't they just notify the appropriate federal agencies (like the IRS or the FBI) and let them handle the investigation?
Well, if there is reasonable suspicion regarding terrorism or money laundering... are we actually discussing that, or is this about something else entirely? ☕ My information is essentially public record—you could look my name up in a phone book and find half my details, plus a map pinpointing my exact location, not to mention that 90% of what a bank requests hasn't changed since I first opened my account years ago; the only thing that's actually been updated is my ID number.
The IRS has been sending out SSNs for both individuals and corporations... and since banks are required to collect all that extra info under Section 16—things like addresses, places of birth, and ID numbers—it really doesn't matter whether they get those details from the government or directly from me. I should point out, all of this is supposedly being done to comply with the USA PATRIOT Act—or perhaps that's just the bank's convenient excuse—so one would think the federal government, having passed such legislation, might actually step up and take some responsibility for the data collection...
Fair enough, but the law states that banks collect this data without specifying the exact source... if Congress passed the law, then that statute mandates that both local municipalities and the IRS receive those records—it isn't just limited to me. I fail to see why the Bank refuses to transmit that information digitally. Everything is readily available through the government portal in PDF format; it could easily be sent via email, yet the Bank insists it’s simply not possible 🙂
Bradley Perez91 said:First things first, you're confusing the most basic concept here—Banks aren't the Police.
It isn't the Banks monitoring your accounts; it's the IRS (or whatever other federal agency has jurisdiction).
A Bank's primary function is sales. That is its core business. Its main goal is figuring out how to make money off the funds you've handed over to them. Everything else falls outside their scope.
If a Bank happens to monitor your account, they're doing it because a government agency ordered them to based on facts that are completely irrelevant to the Bank itself...
...but to be precise, it's not really the Bank "monitoring" anything. They don't have a handful of tax agents sitting in some office on the Bank's payroll doing the government's dirty work...
The Bank simply provides access to the IRS, the courts, or whoever else comes knocking with a subpoena...
...and under current rules, the IRS can audit your account without even asking the Bank for permission, because they have the software access to jump straight into the Bank's system and see whatever they want.
..just like how a federal agency can freeze any account at a Bank without even consulting the institution where the individual's account is actually held.
By the mere act of opening an account, you've already given the Bank permission to handle all your data—your transactions, your spending patterns, targeting you with products based on your preferences, your creditworthiness... When exactly did you think you signed away those rights? When you signed the standard Account Agreement or whatever other product contract you thought you were just signing?
I don't have a proposal. This reality doesn't affect my life one bit.
I'm just commenting on your comments regarding this topic. 😁
Writing this as if it were my own thought... essentially, if banks already possess every scrap of data they need, if the IRS can unilaterally investigate every single transaction, and if the Police Department can obtain a warrant based on suspected criminal activity... Why does a place like Chase demand that clients physically visit a branch to fill out questionnaires or answer endless questions? If you don't comply, they send out circular letters threatening to freeze your funds... why go through all that theater if it's completely unnecessary?
Under the law, banks collect the data found on your ID—that isn't the issue... it’s really about basic etiquette and maintaining a sense of mutual respect, rather than having someone treat me like a criminal undergoing a police interrogation ☕
Bradley Perez91 said:Where exactly in the law does it say a teller has the right to take and photocopy my ID?
..so....the issue is they ask for your income details (they already know them, but they need your official confirmation/signature), but when it comes to your driver's license, the clerk can basically do whatever they want as long as you ask nicely.🤣 🤣
It is absolutely an issue; they ask for information they could find in two clicks of a mouse... yet when you question why they bother asking for things they already know, or what they actually intend to do with that data, they just go silent 🙂 To me, this leaves a dozen question marks hanging over my head, while for the employees at JPMorgan Chase, it seems perfectly standard... perhaps I am truly paranoid, or perhaps the fault lies entirely with me 😵
This isn't about being paranoid—it’s simply about maintaining a decent, civilized standard of conduct... if you need to photocopy an ID, then just ask; don't just grab it without permission, especially when it’s for your own convenience, stop threatening and blackmailing bank clients—don't go labeling people as terrorists or money launderers without a shred of actual evidence when a client asks a question, provide a direct answer instead of reciting mindless nonsense and stop lying—don't hide behind some legal statute unless you actually know what the law says. 🙂
Kimberly Roberts3 said:Can a bank just photocopy my ID without even asking me first?
I was at the Chase branch where I’ve had an account for about 20 years—so I'm definitely not some random new customer, they probably know more about me than I actually know about myself...😉 I was just there to handle a small transaction, and this woman kept walking back and forth to the copier/printer, and then it finally clicked that she had copied my ID during one of those trips.
Now I'm just left with this super uneasy feeling... like, what does she even need a copy of my ID for? And shouldn't I have to give explicit permission before anyone makes a copy of my personal identification?
The last time I was at JPMorgan Chase—just withdrawing most of my funds— the teller tells me, "We need to update your information now," and I tell her we can do it next time. She takes my ID and disappears behind a door; she’s gone for maybe five minutes... 😕 then she just comes back out without saying a word—no apology for leaving, no explanation of what she was doing with my documents... 🙄 Honestly, how much incompetence does it take before someone gets sent straight to hell... 😠
nimblelynx63 said:Look, every cent you have was already part of some transaction if it ever reached your hands, and it’ll be part of a business relationship once it hits your account. It doesn't mean those funds are specifically tied to doing business with Tom at Bank of America. The way this is written is just plain stupid.
Of course they are, but if we're talking about the source of funds, that refers to the depositor rather than me as the recipient... shady banks scoring self-inflicted goals again... ☕
According to Article 16, Section 10, Bank of America collects what I’ll quote here: "information regarding the source of funds that are, or will become, the subject of a transaction or business relationship." The issue, however—and this is where things get messy—is how they interpret that law. They aren't just looking at suspicious activity anymore; they are vacuuming up every single scrap of data under the guise of fighting money laundering and terrorism. It's absurd... they're targeting people like a college student receiving a few thousand dollars from their parents every month. 🙄 It isn't the bank's job, nor is it the police's job, to hunt down terrorists—nor is it the IRS's job to chase down tax evaders.
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.
🙂 Section 16 of that specific law outlines exactly what data banks are permitted to collect; nowhere does it demand a cell number, a work extension, family details, an email address, hobbies, or any other trivialities that have absolutely nothing to do with the client-bank relationship. Furthermore, banks collect data... if Congress passes a law, then that law applies to state institutions just as much as it applies to me—a bank can pull those same details from a local municipality or the IRS (just as the government provided them with SSNs for all individuals and corporations), and they can just as easily gather information via phone or email. And there isn't a single word in the law stating that a client is obligated to show up at a branch, answer every intrusive question posed to them, and subsequently sign away their rights so the bank can do whatever it pleases.
It doesn't surprise me one bit—the endless chanting about how you "must visit a local branch" or "need to complete this specific questionnaire"... yet the moment you actually ask them to clarify what Article 16 of the law they keep citing actually entails, they suddenly fall silent 🙂
On a separate note, I’ve been wondering how the moderators would handle it if some random interloper crashed this thread about Swiss Franc loans—someone who doesn't even carry any debt themselves ...and proceeded to lash out at everyone who actually took out a loan, claiming they were all fools for signing those papers and essentially deserved their current predicament ☕