Nosy banks

My mother, who’s fully retired, has already received two notices to visit the branch—they even called once, and luckily I was the one who picked up.
I told them straight out that my mother isn't exactly being a terrorist, and that they could verify with a few simple clicks that her only income is her Social Security check and she isn't laundering any money... though the representative on the other end wouldn't budge—not that I’m exactly a saint myself when it comes to patience.😈
Then the usual script begins:
-The client needs to come into the branch.
-For what reason?
-She needs to complete a questionnaire.
-Fine, just tell me what you need from her.
-She needs to be here in person. She must bring her driver's license.
-Hold on, let me find it—I can give you the ID number right now so we can resolve this over the phone and save her the trip.
(the woman on the line is clearly losing her cool)
-She simply needs to come in.
-What specifically do you require?
-She needs to come in. Will you please just tell her she needs to come in?
-Go jump in a lake... (I hang up)

Quincy:

A solitary cat—is there anything more peaceful? It’s a quiet sort of companionship, really—just you and a little shadow drifting through the house. kaže: There’s just no legal basis for it—I’ve checked with a few experts on the matter, and honestly, isn't it true that you can't exactly force or badger people into filling out a questionnaire if they simply don't want to? Honestly, I’ve reached my limit—I am just done with their constant harassment, and frankly, I'm over it.

They aren't doing this because they want to pester clients or drive them toward competitors—it’s actually because they’re forced to collect those client questionnaires. By law, they can't technically provide services to anyone who hasn't completed one, which would mean closing accounts for everyone who skipped it—but they don't want to go that route. Instead, they just force some poor teller at a branch to call people at home, only to end up being insulted personally? It’s complete nonsense. First off, the questionnaire itself is useless—a total waste of resources—because someone actually involved in crime or terrorism isn't exactly going to tell the truth. And if they were truly committed to this ridiculous idea, why not make it a federal requirement? If they had integrated it into something like an IRS tax filing app, everyone would probably just fill it out without a second thought.

feraljackal2 said:Quincy:

A solitary cat—is there anything more peaceful? It’s a quiet sort of companionship, really—just you and a little shadow drifting through the house. kaže: There’s just no legal basis for it—I’ve checked with a few experts on the matter, and honestly, isn't it true that you can't exactly force or badger people into filling out a questionnaire if they simply don't want to? Honestly, I’ve reached my limit—I am just done with their constant harassment, and frankly, I'm over it.

They aren't doing this because they want to pester clients or drive them toward competitors—it’s actually because they’re forced to collect those client questionnaires. By law, they can't technically provide services to anyone who hasn't completed one, which would mean closing accounts for everyone who skipped it—but they don't want to go that route. Instead, they just force some poor teller at a branch to call people at home, only to end up being insulted personally? It’s complete nonsense. First off, the questionnaire itself is useless—a total waste of resources—because someone actually involved in crime or terrorism isn't exactly going to tell the truth. And if they were truly committed to this ridiculous idea, why not make it a federal requirement? If they had integrated it into something like an IRS tax filing app, everyone would probably just fill it out without a second thought.

Who exactly are they reporting this data to? Someone mentioned recently that after filling out a survey at Chase, they were hit with the exact same request at Wells Fargo... which suggests that a centralized system—much like the one used for mortgage holders—doesn't exist.

feraljackal2 said:Quincy:

A solitary cat—is there anything more peaceful? It’s a quiet sort of companionship, really—just you and a little shadow drifting through the house. kaže: There’s just no legal basis for it—I’ve checked with a few experts on the matter, and honestly, isn't it true that you can't exactly force or badger people into filling out a questionnaire if they simply don't want to? Honestly, I’ve reached my limit—I am just done with their constant harassment, and frankly, I'm over it.

They aren't doing this because they want to pester clients or drive them toward competitors—it’s actually because they’re forced to collect those client questionnaires. By law, they can't technically provide services to anyone who hasn't completed one, which would mean closing accounts for everyone who skipped it—but they don't want to go that route. Instead, they just force some poor teller at a branch to call people at home, only to end up being insulted personally? It’s complete nonsense. First off, the questionnaire itself is useless—a total waste of resources—because someone actually involved in crime or terrorism isn't exactly going to tell the truth. And if they were truly committed to this ridiculous idea, why not make it a federal requirement? If they had integrated it into something like an IRS tax filing app, everyone would probably just fill it out without a second thought.

Hold on... so if I walk into a branch to check on my savings account and tell them I have no intention of filling out a survey, they’ll just shut down my account?!? 🙂

feraljackal2 said:Quincy:

A solitary cat—is there anything more peaceful? It’s a quiet sort of companionship, really—just you and a little shadow drifting through the house. kaže: There’s just no legal basis for it—I’ve checked with a few experts on the matter, and honestly, isn't it true that you can't exactly force or badger people into filling out a questionnaire if they simply don't want to? Honestly, I’ve reached my limit—I am just done with their constant harassment, and frankly, I'm over it.

They aren't doing this because they want to pester clients or drive them toward competitors—it’s actually because they’re forced to collect those client questionnaires. By law, they can't technically provide services to anyone who hasn't completed one, which would mean closing accounts for everyone who skipped it—but they don't want to go that route. Instead, they just force some poor teller at a branch to call people at home, only to end up being insulted personally? It’s complete nonsense. First off, the questionnaire itself is useless—a total waste of resources—because someone actually involved in crime or terrorism isn't exactly going to tell the truth. And if they were truly committed to this ridiculous idea, why not make it a federal requirement? If they had integrated it into something like an IRS tax filing app, everyone would probably just fill it out without a second thought.

Who is forcing them to do this—is it the branch manager? And what if I simply ask them to tell me what is required so we can settle it over the phone...
shouldn't she be able to explain what they need from me, rather than just repeating "you need to come into the branch" like a parrot? 🤮

feraljackal2 said:Quincy:

A solitary cat—is there anything more peaceful? It’s a quiet sort of companionship, really—just you and a little shadow drifting through the house. kaže: There’s just no legal basis for it—I’ve checked with a few experts on the matter, and honestly, isn't it true that you can't exactly force or badger people into filling out a questionnaire if they simply don't want to? Honestly, I’ve reached my limit—I am just done with their constant harassment, and frankly, I'm over it.

They aren't doing this because they want to pester clients or drive them toward competitors—it’s actually because they’re forced to collect those client questionnaires. By law, they can't technically provide services to anyone who hasn't completed one, which would mean closing accounts for everyone who skipped it—but they don't want to go that route. Instead, they just force some poor teller at a branch to call people at home, only to end up being insulted personally? It’s complete nonsense. First off, the questionnaire itself is useless—a total waste of resources—because someone actually involved in crime or terrorism isn't exactly going to tell the truth. And if they were truly committed to this ridiculous idea, why not make it a federal requirement? If they had integrated it into something like an IRS tax filing app, everyone would probably just fill it out without a second thought.

I think you've got it all wrong.

They do it because they want all that data on customer habits. And, well, they'd love to get it for free. 😁

As for the account, I'd love to hit them with a $125,000 deficit and let them close it themselves. Good luck trying to collect that debt... 🙂

I mean, what kind of normal person is actually going to say, "Yeah, sure, I fund terrorism"? It's just like when you apply for a US visa and they ask—are you being a terrorist? 🤣

Laura Chavez93 said:Who exactly are they reporting this data to? Someone mentioned recently that after filling out a survey at Chase, they were hit with the exact same request at Wells Fargo... which suggests that a centralized system—much like the one used for mortgage holders—doesn't exist.

Hold on... so if I walk into a branch to check on my savings account and tell them I have no intention of filling out a survey, they’ll just shut down my account?!? 🙂

Who is forcing them to do this—is it the branch manager? And what if I simply ask them to tell me what is required so we can settle it over the phone...
shouldn't she be able to explain what they need from me, rather than just repeating "you need to come into the branch" like a parrot? 🤮

The information goes to the IRS, which then passes parts of it along to federal agencies—depending on what you disclosed, like whether you're politically active and such. It likely flows through the FBI and various other departments too.

http://www.irs.gov/compliance/anti-money-laundering-aml

The FATCA questionnaire can be completed during an initial branch visit or simply handled through online banking. There is absolutely no reason to harass customers with phone calls demanding they show up in person. Yet, Chase does exactly that—they just pester people for no reason.
Besides, it seems to me that this specific questionnaire from Chase is more about tracking consumer habits than actually preventing money laundering. If that's the case, there’s no real difference between their calls and those annoying telemarketers trying to sell you a newspaper subscription.

feraljackal2 said:The information goes to the IRS, which then passes parts of it along to federal agencies—depending on what you disclosed, like whether you're politically active and such. It likely flows through the FBI and various other departments too.

http://www.irs.gov/compliance/anti-money-laundering-aml

Interesting enough—but I wonder what the IRS actually gains from this data when they likely already have access to most of it...
And anything they lack can simply be obtained from the police—specifically through their tax ID...
Americans... They simply have no clue... I find myself wondering—who exactly have they been granting citizenship to lately? 🤣
So, there is no official registry for political party members or politically exposed persons? That seems... problematic.
And the most fascinating part—if one can even call it that—is that this entire charade unfolds without any legitimate basis or provocation... people are being branded as money launderers or, heaven forbid, being a terrorist, simply because they hold an account at a bank like Chase. 🙂

Laura Chavez93 said:Interesting enough—but I wonder what the IRS actually gains from this data when they likely already have access to most of it...
And anything they lack can simply be obtained from the police—specifically through their tax ID...
Americans... They simply have no clue... I find myself wondering—who exactly have they been granting citizenship to lately? 🤣
So, there is no official registry for political party members or politically exposed persons? That seems... problematic.
And the most fascinating part—if one can even call it that—is that this entire charade unfolds without any legitimate basis or provocation... people are being branded as money launderers or, heaven forbid, being a terrorist, simply because they hold an account at a bank like Chase. 🙂

And let's be real, everyone knows terrorists use credit cards. 😁

Read this and try not to laugh at the sheer absurdity: apparently, if I fill out this survey, I’m officially cleared of all suspicion 😂
- Are you being a terrorist?
- Of course not.
- Thanks, we never doubted you. 🤣
And as if I’d actually be laundering money through a bank—if I were truly such a mastermind, everything would be handled in cash to avoid the paper trail entirely... ☕

I mean, if you're laundering cash through a major bank, you'd probably need some serious inside connection to make sure nobody bothers you, especially since everything at the top seems to be pre-arranged anyway.

Trying to wash money through a bank like that without any help? It just seems so... I don't know, reckless. 😵

I work at a small local bank. When I first started, I was told we have to complete these forms to satisfy the Federal Reserve. Apparently, when they show up for an audit, they randomly select certain clients to review their questionnaires, so we’re required to have everything on file.

Basically, we fill them out whenever a new client opens an account or sets up a savings plan. We never call anyone at home or send out any official letters. We also have to do this for our long-time clients if they drop off a large amount of cash. Though, as someone else pointed out, they can claim whatever they want and there is simply no way for us to verify it.

rowdypilot19 said:I mean, if you're laundering cash through a major bank, you'd probably need some serious inside connection to make sure nobody bothers you, especially since everything at the top seems to be pre-arranged anyway.

Trying to wash money through a bank like that without any help? It just seems so... I don't know, reckless. 😵

Sure, because I'm clearly just some amateur idiot who decided to wash millions all on my own,
and I'm doing it in such a way that the SEC, the IRS, and the Treasury (along with hundreds of specialists whose entire career is built on sniffing this out) don't suspect a single thing...
then suddenly, JP Morgan Chase swoops in like some sort of superhero, asking for my cell number, my office extension, and whether I'm married or how many kids I have,
and somehow, that's how they crack a massive tax evasion scheme! 🙏 🙏 🙏

Laura Chavez93 said:Interesting enough—but I wonder what the IRS actually gains from this data when they likely already have access to most of it...
And anything they lack can simply be obtained from the police—specifically through their tax ID...
Americans... They simply have no clue... I find myself wondering—who exactly have they been granting citizenship to lately? 🤣
So, there is no official registry for political party members or politically exposed persons? That seems... problematic.
And the most fascinating part—if one can even call it that—is that this entire charade unfolds without any legitimate basis or provocation... people are being branded as money launderers or, heaven forbid, being a terrorist, simply because they hold an account at a bank like Chase. 🙂

You can be a taxpayer even without holding US citizenship—after all, an American citizen might earn income outside the States, and the laws apply to everyone equally. But even setting that aside, some of the questions in these forms feel completely nonsensical (most of them are, honestly). At the end of the day, when you arrive in the US and an official asks you who packed your suitcase, you don't tell them to mind their own business—you just comply to avoid making things difficult. The way this was set up feels totally backwards; if they were committed to using this questionnaire, they should have organized the data collection differently. As it stands, they're just inconveniencing both citizens and banks without actually getting the information they need.

feraljackal2 said:You can be a taxpayer even without holding US citizenship—after all, an American citizen might earn income outside the States, and the laws apply to everyone equally. But even setting that aside, some of the questions in these forms feel completely nonsensical (most of them are, honestly). At the end of the day, when you arrive in the US and an official asks you who packed your suitcase, you don't tell them to mind their own business—you just comply to avoid making things difficult. The way this was set up feels totally backwards; if they were committed to using this questionnaire, they should have organized the data collection differently. As it stands, they're just inconveniencing both citizens and banks without actually getting the information they need.

I fail to see why this would even concern the bank, or what they actually intend to do with such data?
edit: It seems JP Morgan Chase has taken a fundamentally flawed approach here—specifically, they demand this information (regardless of the actual reasoning) while acting as though I’m some suspicious terrorist or money launderer who needs to show up in person... 🙂
They send out letters demanding an in-person visit, followed by phone calls 🙄; it's quite aggressive. They refuse to discuss matters over the phone or offer any resolution remotely—they won't even specify exactly what they need 🙂
I have no idea who is handling their PR, but one can only hope they lose their jobs because of this mess ☕

At the end of the day, the bank is really just a middleman—nothing more, nothing less.

I’m honestly ready to lose my cool with Laura Chavez93, the broker, and whoever—wherever they are—actually came up with this whole mess...

Morgan Walker2 said:Yeah, looks like Citigroup is the only one being this aggressive with the questionnaire—calling people's homes, texting them, sending those letters, calling them to come in... it's constant.
They are seriously relentless.🙄 From what I’ve gathered from some folks who actually know the rules, there isn't even a legal basis for them to badger people into filling this out if they don't want to. Everything necessary was handled when the account was first opened... none of this applies to them. If they actually suspect someone of money laundering or terrorism, they should just call the FBI and be done with it.

Honestly, I think I'm gonna start looking for a new bank. I’ve been meaning to do it anyway, but these guys are driving me up the wall. I just want some peace and quiet. I'm a totally low-maintenance client: no debt, no overdrafts, no loans—I just want to grab my paycheck from the ATM and not have to deal with them.

Even a few years ago, whenever I had to visit a branch (nowadays I just stick to the ATM), I'd constantly get stuck at the teller window. Usually after waiting forever in line when I was already in a rush, too! And then comes the nagging: "Could you please fill out this form? Could you please take this survey?" They’d practically shove the papers in your face, and if you said you were in a hurry, the staff would give you this huge attitude. I know other banks don't push it this hard or act this rude, but Citigroup is hands down the most annoying about it. Most of the time, I'd just cave and do it because I knew they'd just bother me again next time.

Well, I'm done with the harassment. I've had it up to here with them.

I don't even have an account with JPMorgan Chase, yet I still got one of those letters.😕

I haven't been a customer there in ages—honestly, if you count the two years I had a Mastercard linked to my dad's account back in the late nineties.

Are they actually for real?

Susan James said:I don't even have an account with JPMorgan Chase, yet I still got one of those letters.😕

I haven't been a customer there in ages—honestly, if you count the two years I had a Mastercard linked to my dad's account back in the late nineties.

Are they actually for real?

They keep saying "We have to," or "It's because of the law"... 😁

-Steve

I haven't read the entire anti-money laundering statute, but does the law actually provide a basis for these specific questions:
- Average monthly income, regular:
- Other sources of income ($):

It is a tragedy when a bank feels compelled to ask me these things, even though they possess more data than I do:
- Monthly volume of cash transactions ($):
- Average annual account turnover ($):
- Country where most business is conducted:
- Do you engage in international transactions?:

I am referring to an account that sees perhaps $0.67 deposits and withdrawals annually, mostly just for gas and groceries. There is no overdraft. Despite all their software, hardware, and data sets... they remain incapable of distinguishing which users need scrutiny and which do not. It is mere intimidation and evasion of logic.

In my experience, other countries in the USA don't flag every single client as a suspect; instead, they target only those who meet specific criteria.

Thomas Fowler84 said:I haven't read the entire anti-money laundering statute, but does the law actually provide a basis for these specific questions:
- Average monthly income, regular:
- Other sources of income ($):

It is a tragedy when a bank feels compelled to ask me these things, even though they possess more data than I do:
- Monthly volume of cash transactions ($):
- Average annual account turnover ($):
- Country where most business is conducted:
- Do you engage in international transactions?:

I am referring to an account that sees perhaps $0.67 deposits and withdrawals annually, mostly just for gas and groceries. There is no overdraft. Despite all their software, hardware, and data sets... they remain incapable of distinguishing which users need scrutiny and which do not. It is mere intimidation and evasion of logic.

In my experience, other countries in the USA don't flag every single client as a suspect; instead, they target only those who meet specific criteria.

It makes me wonder who is truly losing their mind here 😵whether it is the architect of this policy, the branch managers pushing it, or the tellers who call my house demanding I visit in person just to answer these absurdities—refusing to handle it over the phone, and being too vague to even explain why I need to show up at all
when they could find everything they need with two simple clicks of a mouse 🙂

Thomas Fowler84 said:I haven't read the entire anti-money laundering statute, but does the law actually provide a basis for these specific questions:
- Average monthly income, regular:
- Other sources of income ($):

It is a tragedy when a bank feels compelled to ask me these things, even though they possess more data than I do:
- Monthly volume of cash transactions ($):
- Average annual account turnover ($):
- Country where most business is conducted:
- Do you engage in international transactions?:

I am referring to an account that sees perhaps $0.67 deposits and withdrawals annually, mostly just for gas and groceries. There is no overdraft. Despite all their software, hardware, and data sets... they remain incapable of distinguishing which users need scrutiny and which do not. It is mere intimidation and evasion of logic.

In my experience, other countries in the USA don't flag every single client as a suspect; instead, they target only those who meet specific criteria.

There is something else on my mind... is it standard practice for JPMorgan Chase to push service packages, CDs, mutual funds, and online banking tools
without me ever having requested them or expressed any interest whatsoever?