Nosy banks

The whole "under the protection of the law" thing? It’s dead. These days, banks can peer into just about everything you do, which honestly makes sense from their perspective—they want to know exactly who they’re handing their capital to. On top of that, the IRS has gone all in on tracking every single dollar moving through the system just to try and squeeze out the shadow economy. Of course, they aren't actually targeting the big players where the real shady business happens; it's always the everyday citizens and small business owners getting squeezed instead.

At this point, your only real move is to stick to cash. That's the only way you can be sure you've still got some privacy.

goldenranger6 said:The whole "under the protection of the law" thing? It’s dead. These days, banks can peer into just about everything you do, which honestly makes sense from their perspective—they want to know exactly who they’re handing their capital to. On top of that, the IRS has gone all in on tracking every single dollar moving through the system just to try and squeeze out the shadow economy. Of course, they aren't actually targeting the big players where the real shady business happens; it's always the everyday citizens and small business owners getting squeezed instead.

At this point, your only real move is to stick to cash. That's the only way you can be sure you've still got some privacy.

They'll go after the small fry while the high rollers are chilling in Monaco, and wouldn't you know it, Janice is the secretary there too! :klap:

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.

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... 🙂

I occasionally get transfers from abroad via Western Union
I usually just pick up the cash at the local post office: I fill out one of those forms sitting on the side, take it along with my ID over to the counter, the lady types my info from my ID into the computer, hands my ID back, and gives me the money

But last time, I made the mistake of heading into a Bank of America branch instead:
They didn't even have the forms available, so I had to wait in line just to grab one—you can't exactly skip ahead
Once I filled it out, I was back in line again, and they only had one teller working (so yeah, waiting in two separate lines for a total of 25 minutes)
When I finally got to the front, the lady started filling out even more paperwork and printing stuff; basically, I had to sign four extra documents on top of the original form
Fo-ur ex-tra pa-pers🙂 and it wasn't even all at once; she’d type something, then write something, then print something else...
By the time we hit the fourth one, I was seriously reaching my breaking point
Then she stands up holding my ID in her hand, and I ask her where on earth she thinks she's going, and she just nonchalantly says she needs to make a photocopy of my ID
And I told her, absolutely not😠
The argument went on for quite a while because I kept insisting that I don't allow copies of my ID; I regularly pick up Western Union transfers at the post office and they never copy my ID, so I'm not letting her do it now, even if she has to void all that paperwork she just did
As soon as I asked to speak to the branch manager, she suddenly changed her tune, saying "fine, since you're insisting," handed over my ID, and gave me the cash

It's unbelievable... what business does she have copying my ID just to pay me out? She literally typed all my details from the ID into the computer herself a few times already???

Sorry, maybe this isn't really the topic here, but it seriously set me off
So, is it just standard practice now that any teller you walk up to gets to photocopy your identification?

Looks like everyone just landed on the list of potential money launderers. 🙂

Quincy:

Sure, that’s not the only red flag. There are plenty of others— being way too nosy about business policies, transaction monitoring rules, and limitations, opening accounts in cities that make zero sense based on where you actually live, having ties to PEPs, letting other people use your home address if they can't verify theirs, refusing to answer basic questions, and so on.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/business-news-example...thinking-20170317

David Garcia21 said:Looks like everyone just landed on the list of potential money launderers. 🙂

Quincy:

Sure, that’s not the only red flag. There are plenty of others— being way too nosy about business policies, transaction monitoring rules, and limitations, opening accounts in cities that make zero sense based on where you actually live, having ties to PEPs, letting other people use your home address if they can't verify theirs, refusing to answer basic questions, and so on.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/business-news-example...thinking-20170317

Haha, we're screwed 😁
I mean, like I said before, PwC actually put the questionnaire together, so I guess it makes sense they'd defend it. It's funny how she claims "the questions make sense," but what she didn't mention—which is more interesting—is that they're all aligned with the law and you basically have to answer them.
The idea that just asking questions makes us look suspicious... well, we already knew that, but someone has to 😁. And honestly, her saying our "excessive curiosity about business policies" is actually an indicator? That seems pretty scandalous to me. The whole notion that questioning the legality of what a bank does implies suspicion... I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I'm not sure where that leads.

Nathan Morris3 said:Haha, we're screwed 😁
I mean, like I said before, PwC actually put the questionnaire together, so I guess it makes sense they'd defend it. It's funny how she claims "the questions make sense," but what she didn't mention—which is more interesting—is that they're all aligned with the law and you basically have to answer them.
The idea that just asking questions makes us look suspicious... well, we already knew that, but someone has to 😁. And honestly, her saying our "excessive curiosity about business policies" is actually an indicator? That seems pretty scandalous to me. The whole notion that questioning the legality of what a bank does implies suspicion... I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I'm not sure where that leads.

She's playing with fire!🙂

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... 🙂

Laura Chavez93 said: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... 🙂

The "two clicks of a mouse" thing is a bit much.

The point isn't that someone else should figure it out for you, no matter how easy the data is to access..

..the point is that you verify it yourself. Then, someone else uses those "two clicks" to see if what you actually did matches what you just told them or signed off on.

🤔 Is this more or less how it goes:

Banker: So, what’s 2+2?
Laura Chavez93: Why ask when you already know the answer?...
Banker: You insolent little radical—answer the question or I’m freezing your account!

Is anyone else actually buying this story about having to go down to the bank branch just to fill out surveys?
And that the consequences for saying no are supposedly brutal?

Sent from my iPhone 15 using Reddit

If you’re asking for my specific take, I dragged my feet on this one until they started threatening to freeze my accounts... anything prior to that was negotiable, but once an institution—one that should be grateful I haven't moved my capital to Chase or Wells Fargo—starts acting that way,
I simply couldn't stomach it. You just can't behave like that... It makes me wonder how those same bank officers would react if I walked into a branch and demanded to see their strategic roadmap, their balance sheets, or a full breakdown of their high-risk investments
because, as a client, I have every right to know whether the bank is actually solvent ☕

It looks like everyone is rushing to close their accounts lately—which is actually a bit of an off-topic tangent for me, since I’ve been considering closing mine at Chase. Since this has been my primary account for so long, I’ve had everything funneled through it—tax refunds, paychecks, various reimbursements—and I use it for all my bills too. I just want to make sure I don't miss anything; after all, wouldn't it be a headache if I couldn't access my statements later or if a tax refund got stuck in some sort of limbo? Even though I know the IRS keeps track of all the account details, isn't it better to be safe than sorry?

The bank blocked me again, and honestly, I just don't have the patience left to deal with their nonsense.

Getting your tax refund shouldn't be an issue—it’s all automated now. They've implemented an algorithm that identifies any amount owed back to you
and automatically transfers it directly into your bank account... just make sure you have one primary account active and close out the one that keeps giving you trouble

I just happened to glance back at my Schwab account—totally by accident, really—and realized they still have my old Chase account listed for dividend payouts. I closed that one ages ago, though. I assume they’ll just shoot me an email to update my details once they realize the current info is dead in the water, right?

On the payroll portal, you can actually update your direct deposit info yourself—I handled mine that way last month... the only thing you really need to nail down is which specific department code applies to you.

Apparently, banks are handing over all this data to the Federal Trade Commission via their "Central Registry," which you can actually find right here:

https://www.sec.gov/

😵

Laura Chavez93 said:Getting your tax refund shouldn't be an issue—it’s all automated now. They've implemented an algorithm that identifies any amount owed back to you
and automatically transfers it directly into your bank account... just make sure you have one primary account active and close out the one that keeps giving you trouble

last year, my refund was deposited directly into my checking account without any fuss at all...

JPMorgan Chase, Customer Service Center


The first line from the automated system:
If you are calling regarding the letter containing "legally binding" information...

It’s pretty clear people have finally had enough of JPMorgan Chase and this corrupt government combined.👍