Nosy banks

@ briskjackal5

I’ll say this: personally, I find fingerprinting to be a much more intimate and private matter than asking about children. But if you see it differently, hey, everyone has their own preferences.👍

wiredlynx28 said:@ briskjackal5

It’s absolutely comparable.
To me, a fingerprint is an intensely private matter; I wouldn't just hand that over without a second thought.
If your analogy leads you to believe this is pointless, then clearly a fingerprint isn't as vital to you as knowing whether someone has children or not.
That’s some serious nonsense, honestly. 🙂

I don't see why it's so hard to grasp that a bank operates under its own internal policies in addition to federal regulations.
If you aren't comfortable sharing that data, then don't share it and just move on.

Well, nobody was actually disputing that. Not at all!

It’s just that there’s this one practical question hanging in the air. I mean, maybe you could just tell us which ones are those "internal but mandatory" rules—like, say, at your bank? That way, clients who want to just "move on" can figure out which banks to avoid, saving everyone a whole lot of time... 😁

And then you kind of play this naive role through the whole thread, trying really hard to bring up "closing accounts" out of nowhere during a conversation where it doesn't even really fit.
Especially in moments when people are literally asking *where* and *what* these questions are that might lead to an account being closed, so maybe the staff shouldn't even bother opening them if they aren't willing to comply. 😁

wiredlynx28 said:@ briskjackal5

I’ll say this: personally, I find fingerprinting to be a much more intimate and private matter than asking about children. But if you see it differently, hey, everyone has their own preferences.👍

As for me, I guess I just don't like feeling like I'm being played or misled.

-Stipe

Look, providing info about children is strictly optional, so there's no requirement there.
Everything should be completely transparent at any major US bank—you can find all the data, disclaimers, and general terms of service right online.
And regarding the cancellation policy, I didn't just pull that out of thin air; it's clearly listed in the bank's online database.

wiredlynx28 said:Look, providing info about children is strictly optional, so there's no requirement there.
Everything should be completely transparent at any major US bank—you can find all the data, disclaimers, and general terms of service right online.
And regarding the cancellation policy, I didn't just pull that out of thin air; it's clearly listed in the bank's online database.

Oh, would you look at that! 😁

So, which ones are actually "mandatory" then?

Everything is super transparent, I really believe that—with all the banks out there. It’s all available online, too, including the data, the disclaimers, and the general terms and conditions.

Yeah, sure, everything is just *so* transparent.
That’s exactly why they try to sneak stuff in under the guise of FATCA here and there, and that's also why you haven't even touched on my questions about which internal requirements actually exist and where they're listed... 😁

-Stipe

wiredlynx28 said:Look, providing info about children is strictly optional, so there's no requirement there.
Everything should be completely transparent at any major US bank—you can find all the data, disclaimers, and general terms of service right online.
And regarding the cancellation policy, I didn't just pull that out of thin air; it's clearly listed in the bank's online database.

Well, let's just wait and see, shall we? Because honestly, where on any actual bank's website does it clearly state something like:

1. these are mandatory details required because the federal government is forcing our hand
2. these are mandatory details just because we decided we want them
3. these are optional details we're asking for because we're curious about you, but feel free to skip them if you don't feel like sharing

Where is that actually written? Not for a single bank out there, for that matter—so, yeah, "transparent." It's a rhetorical question, really, since we already know the answer.

JPMorgan Chase has the right to reject any business relationship, transaction, or request without ever having to explain why. They don't owe anyone an explanation—certainly not a public one—for deciding they don't want to work with someone.
Once they actually decide to move forward with a client, though, they’re pretty much forced to disclose most of the details because of what federal regulators require.
If you really look at it, banking operations are probably more transparent than almost any other industry out there.

How exactly is that more transparent? Take big carriers like AT&T, for example. Their terms of service clearly state the specific reasons they might turn down a business partnership...

I guess my hunch is they need a paper trail—since everyone here basically treats high-speed internet and phone service as a basic right, they probably need some formal excuse for why they aren't meeting those standards.

By "transparent," I meant more along the lines of dealing with a big bank like Chase—knowing exactly what kind of margin they’re squeezing out of you. Under the new rules, they should be forced to hand over a breakdown of their fees and interest rates compared to competitors like Bank of America or Wells Fargo.

vividranger8 said:Well, let's just wait and see, shall we? Because honestly, where on any actual bank's website does it clearly state something like:

1. these are mandatory details required because the federal government is forcing our hand
2. these are mandatory details just because we decided we want them
3. these are optional details we're asking for because we're curious about you, but feel free to skip them if you don't feel like sharing

Where is that actually written? Not for a single bank out there, for that matter—so, yeah, "transparent." It's a rhetorical question, really, since we already know the answer.

When you walk into a bank, just ask for their client questionnaire. You'll see clearly marked what's mandatory and what's elective, along with specific citations stating why certain info is required under statute 👍
.
Then there are those people who get all worked up and attack the bank, only to have their checking account closed immediately.
A quick copy-paste from the General Terms and Conditions:
The Bank reserves the discretionary right to refuse a Client's request to establish any business relationship with the Bank without explanation.

It works the same way when they terminate a relationship without explanation. Then clients jump to their own conclusions—thinking it was because of an "optional" question that was actually mandatory, etc.—all without actually looking up the facts. They can sever a business relationship for various reasons, most commonly because
- the Client provided false or inaccurate personal data, or other information necessary for the proper and lawful provision of services when signing the checking account contract or a specific additional service contract;
- the Client's account activity damages the Bank's reputation;
- the Bank is unable to perform due diligence measures in accordance with the provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act;
- the Client acts contrary to the mandatory regulations of the United States and societal morals.
Upon termination of the checking account contract, the Client and any authorized representatives are required to return all cards and other instruments or documents received from the Bank related to the checking account. Furthermore, the Client is obligated to settle all outstanding obligations regarding the checking account, including interest and fees.

And for those claiming they were wronged by questions regarding children and such—did you even file a formal grievance?
Another copy-paste from the bank's terms:
If a Client believes their rights in a business relationship with the Bank have been violated or that their Account has been unfairly charged, they are authorized and obligated to submit a written grievance to the Bank without delay via mail to the business address, fax, or email, or by delivering it to a bank branch, clearly marking it as a grievance. Bank employees will forward the grievance to the competent department for dispute resolution. The grievance must include a detailed description of the event/situation as well as evidence demonstrating the grounds for the Client's claim. If the description or evidence is incomplete, the Bank may request that the Client supplement the grievance. The bodies conducting the grievance resolution process and their authorities are governed by Bank policies.

wiredlynx28 said:When you walk into a bank, just ask for their client questionnaire. You'll see clearly marked what's mandatory and what's elective, along with specific citations stating why certain info is required under statute 👍
.
Then there are those people who get all worked up and attack the bank, only to have their checking account closed immediately.
A quick copy-paste from the General Terms and Conditions:
The Bank reserves the discretionary right to refuse a Client's request to establish any business relationship with the Bank without explanation.

It works the same way when they terminate a relationship without explanation. Then clients jump to their own conclusions—thinking it was because of an "optional" question that was actually mandatory, etc.—all without actually looking up the facts. They can sever a business relationship for various reasons, most commonly because
- the Client provided false or inaccurate personal data, or other information necessary for the proper and lawful provision of services when signing the checking account contract or a specific additional service contract;
- the Client's account activity damages the Bank's reputation;
- the Bank is unable to perform due diligence measures in accordance with the provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act;
- the Client acts contrary to the mandatory regulations of the United States and societal morals.
Upon termination of the checking account contract, the Client and any authorized representatives are required to return all cards and other instruments or documents received from the Bank related to the checking account. Furthermore, the Client is obligated to settle all outstanding obligations regarding the checking account, including interest and fees.

And for those claiming they were wronged by questions regarding children and such—did you even file a formal grievance?
Another copy-paste from the bank's terms:
If a Client believes their rights in a business relationship with the Bank have been violated or that their Account has been unfairly charged, they are authorized and obligated to submit a written grievance to the Bank without delay via mail to the business address, fax, or email, or by delivering it to a bank branch, clearly marking it as a grievance. Bank employees will forward the grievance to the competent department for dispute resolution. The grievance must include a detailed description of the event/situation as well as evidence demonstrating the grounds for the Client's claim. If the description or evidence is incomplete, the Bank may request that the Client supplement the grievance. The bodies conducting the grievance resolution process and their authorities are governed by Bank policies.

This is just one of those little shady tricks they try to pull all the time.

You mentioned that all this info is available online, though.

But now, regarding that question... I mean, someone would actually have to go somewhere in person to check that... 😁

-briskjackal5

Do some digging online first. If you’re still feeling lost, just hit up your bank via email—they'll give you the most reliable answer. 👍

wiredlynx28 said:Do some digging online first. If you’re still feeling lost, just hit up your bank via email—they'll give you the most reliable answer. 👍

... Because, I guess, a branch manager isn't really considered part of the main bank headquarters and might not be fully in the loop... 😁

-Steve

I mean, I’m just sitting here wondering... how does that even work? Like, how is it suddenly legal for a bank to just turn everyone away when they're trying to deal with a CHECKING ACCOUNT—and I am being very intentional about emphasizing that, by the way—just because they decided to pull some random rule out of thin air? It feels weird, I guess. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it seems like such a strange thing to happen all of a sudden.

I mean, I guess it’s fine if they handle things that way for savings accounts or whatever, but applying that to checking accounts? Man, I don't know. Like, look, checking accounts are... they're essential. They're a necessity. If you want to actually get paid—like, receive your actual paycheck from work—there really ought to be some kind of national consensus or maybe even federal legislation involved. There should be these set rules that everyone just follows, you know? Just so regular Americans can have access to basic checking accounts under totally normal, standard conditions. It just feels like it should be more settled than this.

So, look, it’s all well and good that everyone should have the freedom to pick whatever bank they want—really, it is—but I can't help but wonder... what if things go a step further? Like, what if everyone just collectively agrees that you need to provide your blood type just to open an account? It sounds crazy, I know, maybe I'm overthinking this, but would that just become the new normal? Just another thing on the list of requirements? I guess it's possible.

I don't know, I just feel like we’re swinging from one extreme to the other here. Like, sure, you have to follow the legal requirements and all that, obviously, but then there's also these internal bank policies for stuff that is... well, it's a basic necessity for any employee, right? I mean, if they don't follow those rules, people can't even get their paychecks, which is wild. It just doesn't seem to make much sense to me, I guess. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it feels pretty illogical.

rowdypilot19 said:I mean, I’m just sitting here wondering... how does that even work? Like, how is it suddenly legal for a bank to just turn everyone away when they're trying to deal with a CHECKING ACCOUNT—and I am being very intentional about emphasizing that, by the way—just because they decided to pull some random rule out of thin air? It feels weird, I guess. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it seems like such a strange thing to happen all of a sudden.

I mean, I guess it’s fine if they handle things that way for savings accounts or whatever, but applying that to checking accounts? Man, I don't know. Like, look, checking accounts are... they're essential. They're a necessity. If you want to actually get paid—like, receive your actual paycheck from work—there really ought to be some kind of national consensus or maybe even federal legislation involved. There should be these set rules that everyone just follows, you know? Just so regular Americans can have access to basic checking accounts under totally normal, standard conditions. It just feels like it should be more settled than this.

So, look, it’s all well and good that everyone should have the freedom to pick whatever bank they want—really, it is—but I can't help but wonder... what if things go a step further? Like, what if everyone just collectively agrees that you need to provide your blood type just to open an account? It sounds crazy, I know, maybe I'm overthinking this, but would that just become the new normal? Just another thing on the list of requirements? I guess it's possible.

I don't know, I just feel like we’re swinging from one extreme to the other here. Like, sure, you have to follow the legal requirements and all that, obviously, but then there's also these internal bank policies for stuff that is... well, it's a basic necessity for any employee, right? I mean, if they don't follow those rules, people can't even get their paychecks, which is wild. It just doesn't seem to make much sense to me, I guess. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it feels pretty illogical.

Exactly. Sure, we can switch banks if we aren't happy. But since using a bank is basically a legal necessity and we pay for the service, there should be some level of equality in the relationship. A bank shouldn't be allowed to implement internal rules that screw us over or bypass the law—like this whole nonsense regarding data collection in Zabiti.

Joe, for wiredlynx28, "proof" just means "because she said so and she knows best." We haven't seen anything more substantial than that on this thread. :/

briskjackal5 said:... Because, I guess, a branch manager isn't really considered part of the main bank headquarters and might not be fully in the loop... 😁

-Steve

I already told you: here in the States, certain follow-up questions aren't mandatory right now.
It’s simple logic. Just like I could search Google for general terms and conditions and copy them, you can easily look up the questionnaires, regulations, and standard operating procedures for whatever bank you're looking at.

Steven Rivera76 said:Exactly. Sure, we can switch banks if we aren't happy. But since using a bank is basically a legal necessity and we pay for the service, there should be some level of equality in the relationship. A bank shouldn't be allowed to implement internal rules that screw us over or bypass the law—like this whole nonsense regarding data collection in Zabiti.

Joe, for wiredlynx28, "proof" just means "because she said so and she knows best." We haven't seen anything more substantial than that on this thread. :/

So, you actually sat down, read the bank's Terms and Conditions, filled out the Chase client data questionnaire, and went through the invoice disclosure? Impressive.
If things still don't make sense after all that legwork, feel free to hit up the bank's customer service line or their support email. I'm sure their polite representatives will clear up any confusion for you. Once you finally grasp what's mandatory and why, come back here—I’d love to hear your take once you actually understand the legal basis for everything. 🙂
In case you missed it, I posted the Chase Terms and Conditions a few posts ago. 👍

This host is a textbook example of a low-level bureaucrat with absolutely nothing going on behind those eyes.
The whole thing was supposedly meant to show kids the potential downsides of different career paths. 😁

Joseph Watson3 said:This host is a textbook example of a low-level bureaucrat with absolutely nothing going on behind those eyes.
The whole thing was supposedly meant to show kids the potential downsides of different career paths. 😁

Gather all the frustrated users here, hit them with some extra questions, and let's start a movement together.🍿

wiredlynx28 said:When you walk into a bank, just ask for their client questionnaire. You'll see clearly marked what's mandatory and what's elective, along with specific citations stating why certain info is required under statute 👍
.
Then there are those people who get all worked up and attack the bank, only to have their checking account closed immediately.
A quick copy-paste from the General Terms and Conditions:
The Bank reserves the discretionary right to refuse a Client's request to establish any business relationship with the Bank without explanation.

It works the same way when they terminate a relationship without explanation. Then clients jump to their own conclusions—thinking it was because of an "optional" question that was actually mandatory, etc.—all without actually looking up the facts. They can sever a business relationship for various reasons, most commonly because
- the Client provided false or inaccurate personal data, or other information necessary for the proper and lawful provision of services when signing the checking account contract or a specific additional service contract;
- the Client's account activity damages the Bank's reputation;
- the Bank is unable to perform due diligence measures in accordance with the provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act;
- the Client acts contrary to the mandatory regulations of the United States and societal morals.
Upon termination of the checking account contract, the Client and any authorized representatives are required to return all cards and other instruments or documents received from the Bank related to the checking account. Furthermore, the Client is obligated to settle all outstanding obligations regarding the checking account, including interest and fees.

And for those claiming they were wronged by questions regarding children and such—did you even file a formal grievance?
Another copy-paste from the bank's terms:
If a Client believes their rights in a business relationship with the Bank have been violated or that their Account has been unfairly charged, they are authorized and obligated to submit a written grievance to the Bank without delay via mail to the business address, fax, or email, or by delivering it to a bank branch, clearly marking it as a grievance. Bank employees will forward the grievance to the competent department for dispute resolution. The grievance must include a detailed description of the event/situation as well as evidence demonstrating the grounds for the Client's claim. If the description or evidence is incomplete, the Bank may request that the Client supplement the grievance. The bodies conducting the grievance resolution process and their authorities are governed by Bank policies.

I mean, this is kind of like when a doctor prescribes you antibiotics, right? You ask them why you need them, and they just basically tell you to "go Google it." Like, seriously? Who’s actually supposed to be the expert here—me or you? If we’re being professional about it, for a place like ABC, it should look something like this:

* Required info includes:...
* Optional info includes:...

So, based on what you’re saying, since this isn't exactly top-secret stuff, I guess you're free to post it.

Thanks in advance!

Maybe I won't do it on purpose, because honestly, it’s just childish to expect everything to be handed to you on a silver platter. I simply stated my position and called for total transparency regarding the information.
If I was able to track down the data for Chase or Wells Fargo, then anyone else should have no problem digging up the same details for any other bank they choose. 👍
Every single bank maintains its own specific terms and conditions.