Nosy banks

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.

David Garcia21 said:Besides, if you actually know how to read, you'll find that specific law, section, and subsection and realize that 😵

We're talking about America here, so maybe just read the law.

https://www.congress.gov/search

I think I posted the link to the FTC a few pages back.

Why don't you go dig up the latest legislative amendments yourself?

David Garcia21 said:Why don't you go dig up the latest legislative amendments yourself?

Why the mystery? I mean, weren't those last changes just some minor stuff back in 2012?
Maybe you could mention what specifically you're thinking of.

Mysterious? Please. Article 16, Section 1, Clause 10 is right there in the statute. How are they citing a section that doesn't even exist?

David Garcia21 said:Mysterious? Please. Article 16, Section 1, Clause 10 is right there in the statute. How are they citing a section that doesn't even exist?

I guess you might have missed what the actual question to the bank was. The point was, "on what grounds does a bank have to investigate sources of funds that AREN'T, and will never be, part of their business?" The bank keeps pointing to Section 16(1)10, claiming it says they have to check funds that aren't part of their transactions. But... that section just isn't there. They're basically citing a non-existent part of the law. Maybe they're just playing dumb or maybe they haven't actually read it—I honestly don't know—but it definitely doesn't say what they claim it says. And I'm not sure which amendments you're thinking of, because that specific section hasn't changed at all.

I have accounts at more than nine different financial institutions (banks and brokers) across three different states. Maybe it's just me, but the Democratic Party and Chase were the only ones acting all high and mighty, acting like they knew the law better than everyone else.

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:I guess you might have missed what the actual question to the bank was. The point was, "on what grounds does a bank have to investigate sources of funds that AREN'T, and will never be, part of their business?" The bank keeps pointing to Section 16(1)10, claiming it says they have to check funds that aren't part of their transactions. But... that section just isn't there. They're basically citing a non-existent part of the law. Maybe they're just playing dumb or maybe they haven't actually read it—I honestly don't know—but it definitely doesn't say what they claim it says. And I'm not sure which amendments you're thinking of, because that specific section hasn't changed at all.

I have accounts at more than nine different financial institutions (banks and brokers) across three different states. Maybe it's just me, but the Democratic Party and Chase were the only ones acting all high and mighty, acting like they knew the law better than everyone else.

I followed it—and the level of sophistication in those questions is actually decent. 🤦

Nathan Morris3 said:I guess you might have missed what the actual question to the bank was. The point was, "on what grounds does a bank have to investigate sources of funds that AREN'T, and will never be, part of their business?" The bank keeps pointing to Section 16(1)10, claiming it says they have to check funds that aren't part of their transactions. But... that section just isn't there. They're basically citing a non-existent part of the law. Maybe they're just playing dumb or maybe they haven't actually read it—I honestly don't know—but it definitely doesn't say what they claim it says. And I'm not sure which amendments you're thinking of, because that specific section hasn't changed at all.

I have accounts at more than nine different financial institutions (banks and brokers) across three different states. Maybe it's just me, but the Democratic Party and Chase were the only ones acting all high and mighty, acting like they knew the law better than everyone else.

They’re citing a real statute. Period. You found it yourself.
The response is likely just because they can't believe how ridiculous the question is. 🙄 If you look at that questionnaire, there are pages specifically asking for sources of funds that aren't related to the bank's business—and yes, you're required to answer. Maybe I missed that bit...

Anyway, keep fighting the good fight.🍿

David Garcia21 said:I followed it—and the level of sophistication in those questions is actually decent. 🤦

They’re citing a real statute. Period. You found it yourself.
The response is likely just because they can't believe how ridiculous the question is. 🙄 If you look at that questionnaire, there are pages specifically asking for sources of funds that aren't related to the bank's business—and yes, you're required to answer. Maybe I missed that bit...

Anyway, keep fighting the good fight.🍿

Haha, don't worry, it didn't get totally vulgar 😁.
Though, I guess when you ask them the same thing three times and they just give you some random answer that has nothing to do with what you asked...

Quentin:

They're citing an article that actually exists. Right? You can find it yourself.

Bank of America claims there’s a specific section in the law defining this obligation, but that section just isn't there. They cited (I guess randomly?) some other part that talks about something else entirely, something that doesn't even relate to the request. But what they claim is written... it just isn't.

Quentin:

The response is like that because they probably can't believe how silly the question is 🙄 On those forms, a few pages back, aren't they asking for sources that aren't related to business with the bank—and saying the answer is mandatory? Maybe I missed that...

Well, here it is: "average monthly income, regular: ". Income isn't really part of the business relationship with the bank, but they still insist on an answer. When asked why, they say maybe it's required by law. If you ask where that's in the law, they won't answer (or they give an answer to a question you didn't even ask). And so on, X times.

Quentin:

Anyway, keep fighting the good fight.

We'll keep at it, thanks 😉
But I guess it's not really much of a fight; our colleague seems more entertained watching banks trip over their own feet, I suppose. And maybe he enjoys seeing them change their forms after his complaints 😁.

Laura Chavez93 said: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.

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.

Nathan Morris3 said:Haha, don't worry, it didn't get totally vulgar 😁.
Though, I guess when you ask them the same thing three times and they just give you some random answer that has nothing to do with what you asked...

Quentin:

They're citing an article that actually exists. Right? You can find it yourself.

Bank of America claims there’s a specific section in the law defining this obligation, but that section just isn't there. They cited (I guess randomly?) some other part that talks about something else entirely, something that doesn't even relate to the request. But what they claim is written... it just isn't.

Quentin:

The response is like that because they probably can't believe how silly the question is 🙄 On those forms, a few pages back, aren't they asking for sources that aren't related to business with the bank—and saying the answer is mandatory? Maybe I missed that...

Well, here it is: "average monthly income, regular: ". Income isn't really part of the business relationship with the bank, but they still insist on an answer. When asked why, they say maybe it's required by law. If you ask where that's in the law, they won't answer (or they give an answer to a question you didn't even ask). And so on, X times.

Quentin:

Anyway, keep fighting the good fight.

We'll keep at it, thanks 😉
But I guess it's not really much of a fight; our colleague seems more entertained watching banks trip over their own feet, I suppose. And maybe he enjoys seeing them change their forms after his complaints 😁.

Just tell them what your average monthly income is that actually flows through that specific bank. That is strictly part of your business with them. If it's $0.00, put $0.00. If it's $33, put that amount. Everyone lives happily ever after at 👍

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?

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... ☕

Here’s yet another example of people just talking nonsense without any basis in reality (I really don't have the energy to dissect rame3's posts—he actually found the very articles JPMorgan Chase is citing, yet he still clearly doesn't get it). Do you honestly think other banks aren't going to demand updated information from you too?

In my opinion, it would probably be best if you all avoided dealing with any financial institutions altogether. Like I’ve said before, they're all basically run by Masons, the CIA, or some shady deep-state cabal. The paranoia is unreal.

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. 🙂

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.🤣 🤣

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 😵

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.🤣 🤣

Article 26. (1) 4. mentions "monitoring and updating collected documents and customer data..."

So, I guess it looks okay on paper. But like Laura Chavez93 said, they really should handle this more politely and maybe give the client some actual info. I don't know, though—you probably can't legally go after them for it.

neondriver5 said:Here’s yet another example of people just talking nonsense without any basis in reality (I really don't have the energy to dissect rame3's posts—he actually found the very articles JPMorgan Chase is citing, yet he still clearly doesn't get it). Do you honestly think other banks aren't going to demand updated information from you too?

In my opinion, it would probably be best if you all avoided dealing with any financial institutions altogether. Like I’ve said before, they're all basically run by Masons, the CIA, or some shady deep-state cabal. The paranoia is unreal.

I guess I don't get why the tone is so negative. If you actually understand why the Bank is citing a part of the law that isn't even there—like claiming they have to investigate sources of funds that aren't even part of their business with them—then maybe you could explain what the actual issue is? You've got links to the law a few posts up, so maybe give it a shot. I haven't found it, the Bank hasn't either, and neither has the Federal Reserve... who knows, maybe Machete is just smarter than all of us.

David Garcia21 said:Just tell them what your average monthly income is that actually flows through that specific bank. That is strictly part of your business with them. If it's $0.00, put $0.00. If it's $33, put that amount. Everyone lives happily ever after at 👍

So you're saying there's a legitimate reason to suspect the Bank isn't following the law, like they're pulling client info they shouldn't even have access to. And your fix is to just tolerate it by giving them wrong info? Is that just how things work in America, where we just ignore bad behavior? How is my lying supposed to actually help anyone in the US?

Anyway, when I dealt with that form, it was a required field, not an "$0.00" category. And the Bank insisted I had to enter income that didn't even have anything to do with them.