Nosy banks

Laura Chavez93 said:What is there even left to say after this? 😵
They’re demanding we hand over data to a government that—let’s be honest—already possesses every single scrap of information from the FBI, the Census Bureau, and the IRS... anyway, my branch manager called me to "clarify" a few things,
she told me I need to come in and sign off, but when I told her I wasn't comfortable letting them use my private info, she started pulling the whole anti-terrorism and money laundering card—absolute nonsense,
so I pointed out that they should just use the records they already have since nothing has changed, but she insisted that isn't an option.
I suggested they just set my file aside and stick to the existing data, and she claimed even that was impossible.
Then, she gave me this overly sweet plea to drop by before the New Year to sign the paperwork... though I have a feeling I won't be making it in time. ☕

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.

Exactly. But if those terms aren't met, banks will simply shut things down—which isn't some rare occurrence, far from it.
So, once that happens, the blame will fall right back on the bank.

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?

wiredlynx28 said:Exactly. But if those terms aren't met, banks will simply shut things down—which isn't some rare occurrence, far from it.
So, once that happens, the blame will fall right back on the bank.

Hey, let's not try to play word games here by using "similar" terms just to muddy the waters. 😁

I guess there's a huge difference between breaking actual banking rules and just failing to fill out some survey where they ask stuff they shouldn't even be asking in the first place. It's two totally different things!

And honestly, which questions are actually okay to ask and which ones aren't? Well, maybe we'll finally get some clarity on that topic right now. You were asked the exact same thing earlier—to list them—but you didn't really give an answer.

So, seriously, how many people have had their accounts closed just because their bank wouldn't stop prying into who they live with?

-briskjackal5

Laura Chavez93 said: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?

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?

briskjackal5 said:Hey, let's not try to play word games here by using "similar" terms just to muddy the waters. 😁

I guess there's a huge difference between breaking actual banking rules and just failing to fill out some survey where they ask stuff they shouldn't even be asking in the first place. It's two totally different things!

And honestly, which questions are actually okay to ask and which ones aren't? Well, maybe we'll finally get some clarity on that topic right now. You were asked the exact same thing earlier—to list them—but you didn't really give an answer.

So, seriously, how many people have had their accounts closed just because their bank wouldn't stop prying into who they live with?

-briskjackal5

My experience at Goldman Sachs was positive; they seemed to ask fewer questions than required. My time with the NBA was neutral, as they avoided unnecessary inquiries. However, my dealings with JPMorgan Chase were poor, and my experience with Apple was catastrophic. Regarding residency details, no one asked me about my housemates; perhaps different client profiles trigger different levels of scrutiny.

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: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?

Actually, I'd argue that banks should be the ones worrying about reporting people to the authorities when they start asking questions that fall outside of what the law requires.

It’s not that I think they're making some huge, scary threat, but I honestly feel like the way you put it in your post is kind of backwards.

I'd honestly find it way more interesting to see what they actually do with someone who already has a mortgage through them but suddenly refuses to hand over certain data. Would they try to call in the loan early or something? (Which would obviously hurt them too!)

Oh, totally. 😁

-Steve

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?

They'll just hike up his interest rate. 😁

Laura Chavez93 said: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?

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.

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?

But then what? Am I supposed to just hand over a brand new ID that was issued a few months ago? It's basically the exact same thing as the old one... 😁 It’s the same stuff I’ll be handing over in about 3 or 4 weeks when I switch banks.

I mean, I'm actually curious to see what they'll even ask me.

Quincy:

I believe banks have the discretionary right to terminate a business relationship, you know, without any specific reason (as long as it isn't based on sexual orientation, religion... discrimination or whatever). The bank might tell you they're going to report you to the federal regulators, but if it's truly about questions that aren't mandated by Law, then I don't think you have much to worry about. Personally, I'd be more interested to see what they do with someone who has a mortgage with them but refuses to provide updated data—would they try to call the loan (to their own detriment)?

But that's exactly what we're all talking about here.

On the other hand, I haven't heard from anyone yet who's actually had their account shut down out of nowhere. 🍿

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

Laura Chavez93 said: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

What do you mean it "won't work"? Your plan is even less likely to succeed. The law stipulates that banks determine their own data collection methods through internal policies. Your suggestion goes directly against that provision.

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.

And why on earth aren't we billing them for all this wasted time?
In any real bank—I'm talking about places like Chase—they won't even give you the time of day without charging a service fee, yet they have the audacity to expect everyone else to work for free. It’s frankly insulting.

If one more market research firm calls my cell pretending to represent some banking institution, I swear I'm filing a harassment complaint...

So, I was at Chase the other day, and they hit me with a whole list of questions—asking if I have any bank accounts over in the States, if I’m holding dual citizenship, and even if I'm currently unemployed.
That's pretty much the whole interrogation. 🥱

Did they ask you to sign anything?

Laura Chavez93 said: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.

It isn't quite that straightforward.
I don't want to spend my time double-checking everything, but a few recent questionnaires state that the client is obligated to report any change of address. As I recall, that wasn't a requirement before. A bank has a duty to ensure their records are accurate. Therefore, regardless of whether your ID is valid for another ten years or not, the bank has the right to update your profile, which means they can ask for your current address. To prevent the bank from having to hunt you down for an updated address every three months, they shift the responsibility onto you via the questionnaire. This method is logical and efficient; you update once, then simply notify them of any changes.

The fact that the "bank" might have already possessed those same pieces of data is irrelevant, because you weren't previously required to report a move, and the bank has no way of knowing if your current information is still valid.

Laura Chavez93 said:Did they ask you to sign anything?

Nope.

What is there left to say about this—some people are being asked to sign on the dotted line while others get a free pass 🙂