Nosy banks

So, my first promotional email from JPMorgan Chase finally hit my inbox today.
I mean, I can totally just unsubscribe from the list, but they sure took their sweet time—like, two whole weeks—to actually make it happen...
The thing is, they’ve had my email address forever, and I already opted out of all those "special offers" ages ago (not that I have any actual proof, obviously!), but now suddenly it’s all starting up again. It’s almost like it perfectly coincided with those surveys they were sending out... what a coincidence, right?

The USA, the European Union, and Switzerland just inked a deal to swap data on citizens earning money overseas.
Now you’re legally obligated to track and hand over those details because the US wants its 30% cut, no matter where you make it.

I mean, maybe they should just start looking into their own citizens first—you know, actually checking who they're sending money to for services outside our borders, instead of always turning the tables on us. 🤦

It’s way easier to legally force payers to hand over their data 👍

So, I mean, I honestly think they’re actually aiming for the exact opposite effect, don't you?

If you're pulling money from over there, you're supposed to be paying taxes on it right there... so, I guess, shouldn't they just be demanding data from them? You know, just like how we ask our own banks for info on who's sending what kind of cash.

It doesn't really matter anyway, because if you're shopping online, once you pick the US as your home state, they're just gonna hit you with that sales tax regardless.

This isn't about sales tax; we're talking income tax.

If they can't even manage their own borders or control who's coming and going... well, I guess there's really nobody to blame but themselves at that point.

Tuesday gave US citizens the right to sue if their personal information is misused in the US.
This whole thing, dubbed the Data Protection Umbrella Agreement, basically stipulates that when US and European law enforcement officials swap data, it’s strictly for chasing down criminals or stopping terror attacks.
If some third party manages to grab that info for "incompatible purposes," US citizens can sue in a US court. Honestly, Americans currently have the same legal right anyway.

It’s all just layers of lies and deception. The real question is, who's actually pulling the strings and lying?
Looks like it's already in the rearview mirror, though. People pushed back, and now these guys have passed a regulation meant to protect citizens.
Now, whether that protection actually means anything is a whole different story.

rowdypilot19 said:If they can't even manage their own borders or control who's coming and going... well, I guess there's really nobody to blame but themselves at that point.

It’s not about borders. The USA has a worldwide tax policy for its citizens.
And look—they actually managed to control that. That’s exactly what the EU and everyone else should be focusing on.

Honestly, does every single discussion have to end up blaming Swiss interests? At this rate, we might as well just hand them the keys to the city and build them a monument; it’s no wonder people are starting to develop such a strong aversion toward you all...

As for the banks, there really isn't much of an escape if you're shopping online. You could try using those prepaid vouchers, but then you're just getting hit with massive transaction fees. What's the actual alternative? No matter how you slice it, these predatory types are always looking out for themselves.

silverhawk9 said:Honestly, does every single discussion have to end up blaming Swiss interests? At this rate, we might as well just hand them the keys to the city and build them a monument; it’s no wonder people are starting to develop such a strong aversion toward you all...

As for the banks, there really isn't much of an escape if you're shopping online. You could try using those prepaid vouchers, but then you're just getting hit with massive transaction fees. What's the actual alternative? No matter how you slice it, these predatory types are always looking out for themselves.

🤦 Where did this even come from?

Typical Americans. When it’s time to haggle over a single tax dollar, suddenly everyone wants to negotiate at the level of the European Union—but when it comes to scrapping visa requirements, they’re all about bilateral talks with every individual EU country. Hypocrisy at its finest.

David Garcia21 said:It’s not about borders. The USA has a worldwide tax policy for its citizens.
And look—they actually managed to control that. That’s exactly what the EU and everyone else should be focusing on.

I don't quite get what you mean by there being no ins or outs? I mean, obviously there are—we're talking about money here! How is an American supposed to send cash over to the EU? It has to go through a bank or some other payment method; there isn't really any other way. All of that has been under supervision for a long time now.

If you're receiving a package, it has to pass through one of those delivery services and arrive via a ship or a plane. And... well, I guess that's pretty much all there is to it.

But how exactly is it that Americans "don't know" who has been an American citizen anywhere in the world? 🙂
If they really wanted to, they could probably figure out exactly what time I woke up or what I had for breakfast—let alone track down a specific list of people who were granted citizenship...

Our branch manager just finished lecturing us again about how we absolutely have to fill out that questionnaire...

Is she actually the branch manager? 🤦

Krkimire, if things really start heating up, go ahead and quote this—just pull the specific data points required by the law

All of that info is available on the official government website, though it’s a pain because you can't actually print anything from there. I'm pretty sure it's hosted somewhere else online too, maybe.

I am seriously curious to see how people react to this.

Actually, I've got a feeling David Garcia21 might have missed a detail or two—some key source for this whole thing—because those disclosure forms always include questions about "ties to the USA" and whether someone holds a "political or public office," and I didn't see him mention that part at all.

-Joe

Questioning someone who’s basically a walking political target is like an investigation by the FTC. Most of us here have zero skin in this game and shouldn't waste a single second answering them.

And yeah, sure, maybe I missed something. But honestly, who can keep up when they're churning out legislation at this speed? That’s exactly why the bill and the link to the regulatory repository are right there. If you want to play judge without doing the homework, go ahead and start reading 😉. If you find any gaps, drop them here so we all actually learn something.

That’s exactly my point about needing more clarity, because those surveys always throw in a question like "are you part of public administration" right under the main two or three sections. Whether someone holds a public office or not totally matters, and I really think it should matter here too.
And honestly, that specific question isn't even mentioned in that one law everyone keeps bringing up.

It’s a bit frustrating, really—even though we had a branch manager join the discussion on this, we still don't actually know what the legal requirements are or which specific regulations are driving this all. 😁

I personally wouldn't have any issue sharing information at all, provided I could just get confirmation that there's an actual legal basis for requesting it. If that's the case, then we know the law is truly written that way, and we can just take it up with Congress. At that point, the banks themselves are basically stuck and can't do anything about it either.
But until that actually happens and gets proven, it just feels like these banks are asking whatever pops into their heads rather than following what they're legally obligated to do.

-Steve

The FATCA questionnaire has absolutely nothing to do with the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing questionnaire.

Just so we’re all clear once and for all, the FinCEN questionnaire isn't strictly defined by statute—in fact, no specific form is—but rather by the Hub based on guidelines issued by FinCEN.

A few relevant sections from the law:

Customer Due Diligence Measures
Section 8.
(1) Unless otherwise provided by this Act, customer due diligence includes the following measures:
1. identifying the customer and verifying their identity based on documents, data, or information obtained from a reliable, dependable, and independent source,
2. identifying and verifying the identity of the customer's beneficial owner,
3. collecting data regarding the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship or transaction, along with other data required under this Act,,
...

Data Collection
Section 25.
(1) As part of customer due diligence, when establishing a business relationship under Section 9, subsection 1, point 1 of this Act, the obligated entity collects data pursuant to Section 16. subsection 1, points 1, 4, 5, 7. and 8 of this Act.
...

Obtaining Data by Obligated Entities
Section 16.
...
7. data concerning the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship, including information about the customer's business activities;;
...

Section 7.
...
(2) The obligated entity is required to conduct a risk analysis and, using that analysis, determine the risk rating for a specific group or type of customer, business relationship, product, or transaction relative to potential abuses related to money laundering or terrorist financing.

So, look, just basic identifiers (name, address, SSN, place of birth...) aren't nearly enough for due diligence or for categorizing a client into a risk group; you also need additional data regarding the intended purpose and nature of the business relationship.

That is exactly what this Questionnaire is for:
I don't know about other banks, but at Chase, the questionnaire covers exclusively this type of data.

Obviously, you can always refuse to give the bank the information they ask for, but they can refuse to open an account or unilaterally terminate the business relationship with the client (and they probably will).

Refusal of Business Relationships and Transactions
Section 13.
(1) An obligated entity that cannot carry out the measures set forth in Section 8, subsection 1, points 1, 2, and 3 of this Act, shall not establish a business relationship or execute a transaction, specifically...is forced to terminate an existing business relationship.