Nosy banks

Everything seems fine on the surface, but the real issue lies in their attitude toward clients—it’s frankly demeaning... they go as far as asking about the number of children you have and your level of education, all while hiding behind anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering laws 🙂 yet they refuse to clarify which questions are mandatory and which are merely optional

Just give them a polite answer to everything and things will settle down. Stop complaining and trying to reinvent the wheel; everything will be just fine.

Alright, look, we really tried to dig up some actual, solid info here—but honestly? It feels kind of childish, you know? Especially when you consider how incredibly serious and transparent every bank is being about all this stuff. 😁 😵

wiredlynx28 said:And then you have the people complaining about being asked if they have kids. Just wait until fingerprint-secured cards become the standard—technology that’s already being rolled out in the modern world where a client physically holds the card against a sensor during a transaction to authorize it. When that happens, they'll be the ones leading the revolution. 🤣

Or maybe they'll just pivot entirely, kind of like how things work over in Canada, where you just tap your card or your phone—I actually use my smartwatch for this all the time now—and there are zero questions, no extra prompts, and definitely no signatures required 😉

I mean, look, this is America, so you aren't even forced to have a bank account if you don't want one, and if you do decide to open one just to handle your paycheck, it's usually free, much like how you can manage everything through your phone or online nowadays...

neondriver5 said:Just give them a polite answer to everything and things will settle down. Stop complaining and trying to reinvent the wheel; everything will be just fine.

Yeah, honestly, even back in the day, people used to say the exact same thing, and then they'd just pivot whenever it suited them because they were just following orders... if you want to exaggerate a little, at least...

But, from what I can gather, the issue isn't really about the bank deciding to close an account or wanting to stop doing business with someone... the real headache is when they refuse to give you YOUR own money back so you can actually go somewhere else to bank.

And again, who's actually going to get worked up about someone opening an account overseas?
Since this was mentioned a few pages back, there's nothing illegal about heading over to Europe, signing up somewhere for a month, opening an account, and then just coming back home...
I mean, since we're part of the EU now, right...😉

The whole thing with Fact that I had to deal with at a Canadian bank was them asking whether I held US citizenship...
No, thanks, that's fine...
I didn't have a school, or a job, or even a local address to provide them with...
But anyway, I walked out with my card right then and there—which is basically San Francisco compared to American banks, though I have no idea why it takes so much longer here to get a simple card...

vividranger8 said:Alright, look, we really tried to dig up some actual, solid info here—but honestly? It feels kind of childish, you know? Especially when you consider how incredibly serious and transparent every bank is being about all this stuff. 😁 😵

Exactly. If a bank demands specific data and threatens to freeze an account if it isn't provided, that's just standard professional business communication...
but when a client asks which pieces of information are actually required by law and which aren't, suddenly it's treated as unprofessional and rude. 🤮

vividranger8 said:Alright, look, we really tried to dig up some actual, solid info here—but honestly? It feels kind of childish, you know? Especially when you consider how incredibly serious and transparent every bank is being about all this stuff. 😁 😵

It is quite telling—when a bank requests data and threatens to freeze an account if those demands aren't met, that is labeled "professional business communication."
Yet, when a client simply asks which specific details they are legally required to provide—and why such inquiries are even being made in the first place—
suddenly, the client is viewed as unprofessional and rude 🙂

Account freezes? Please...
I was posting about this here months ago... maybe even a year or more...
First time the bank called, I gave them a polite brush-off.
The second time they called, I was straight-up rude and vulgar...
Just waiting on that third call so I can really let someone have it...
But that third call never comes... hasn't happened in months...
Don't they actually need that info or what?

Sent from my iPhone 15. using

It’s starting to happen... they've begun freezing people's accounts and just refusing to let them access their own damn money
you'll be next on the list

which is why, if you ask me, it’s better to keep an account outside of the US and just hold onto your cash in actual paper bills

Here is a similar situation from a legal forum where someone had their account frozen...

boldfox15 said:Here is a similar situation from a legal forum where someone had their account frozen...

Look, an American bank legally must have a court order before they can just freeze your account like that.

I have two inquiries:

1. Is there a widespread movement among banks to freeze accounts for clients who decline to complete these surveys—or is this merely a handful of isolated incidents designed to test the waters and see how the public and the media respond?

2. Is this restriction specific to Chicagočka banka, or are other major institutions following suit?

Does it really sting that much just because someone decided they don't want you as a client? 🙏
Look, maybe you overplayed your hand—got a little too cocky—and ended up getting shut down.

A bank legally must follow certain rules, but they also have the right to choose who they do business with. If you aren't okay with that, well, there are plenty of other options out there.
I'm pretty sure that’s basically what they told you, just with more polite phrasing. And then you still had to go through the trouble of filling out that questionnaire 😵 :klap:

James Rogers53 said:Does it really sting that much just because someone decided they don't want you as a client? 🙏
Look, maybe you overplayed your hand—got a little too cocky—and ended up getting shut down.

A bank legally must follow certain rules, but they also have the right to choose who they do business with. If you aren't okay with that, well, there are plenty of other options out there.
I'm pretty sure that’s basically what they told you, just with more polite phrasing. And then you still had to go through the trouble of filling out that questionnaire 😵 :klap:

Fine, if you want to be a spineless follower, that’s your prerogative. But I don't think you have any right to criticize people who refuse to hand over their private lives to total strangers when there is absolutely no necessity for it.

A bank needs my full name, my address, my email or phone number, and my Social Security number—that's the extent of it. Sure, they can know I'm not a US citizen and that I couldn't care less about the USA.

Everything else is strictly my own business and none of their concern.

To get ahead of the inevitable "smart" questions: everything I just listed (aside from my citizenship status) is exactly what my bank knows about me. They haven't asked for anything beyond that.

JP Morgan Chase is asking the same thing—take a look at this thread, I posted a screenshot from my own account showing what they're looking for. As for the others, I can't really speak to that since I don't know.
And regarding privacy—it’s honestly ridiculous to bring that up here, especially considering Laura Chavez93 posts on this forum so much you could basically reconstruct her entire life just by reading her comments. Same goes for most of us, I guess.

Which makes it even more baffling to me—given that I provided all the necessary documentation when I first opened my account,
what possible need could they have for additional info when they can just pull it directly from federal databases?
(Assuming, of course, that this is actually about anti-terrorism and money laundering efforts, which is the excuse they keep using...)

bluecyclist64 said:Fine, if you want to be a spineless follower, that’s your prerogative. But I don't think you have any right to criticize people who refuse to hand over their private lives to total strangers when there is absolutely no necessity for it.

A bank needs my full name, my address, my email or phone number, and my Social Security number—that's the extent of it. Sure, they can know I'm not a US citizen and that I couldn't care less about the USA.

Everything else is strictly my own business and none of their concern.

To get ahead of the inevitable "smart" questions: everything I just listed (aside from my citizenship status) is exactly what my bank knows about me. They haven't asked for anything beyond that.

I don't know which bank you're using, but every institution operates under its own terms of service. Just because one isn't mandatory at your bank doesn't mean it isn't required at another. At the end of the day, they set the rules and decide what's necessary, not you as the client.
That said, a client chooses who they do business with, just as a bank chooses when to terminate a relationship (for whatever reason they see fit).

Of course—just your typical corporate non-answer instead of an actual explanation ☕

Laura Chavez93 said:Which makes it even more baffling to me—given that I provided all the necessary documentation when I first opened my account,
what possible need could they have for additional info when they can just pull it directly from federal databases?
(Assuming, of course, that this is actually about anti-terrorism and money laundering efforts, which is the excuse they keep using...)

How exactly do you think they get it from the government? Since when does a bank have the authority to demand or receive any private data from the state beyond what's already public record?

Realistically, banks don't care about terrorism financing or money laundering any more than we do—meaning, we all agree it's bad and should be handled. That's it.
But if you factor in the fact that the government will slap you with massive fines during an audit if you don't have client data that the client was supposed to verify, then yeah, they’ll implement every tool available to stay on the regulator's good side—maybe even go overboard. And for banks, the ultimate penalty for being non-compliant is losing their charter.
So management is left with a choice:
A) Close the accounts of Krkimir and a few dozen or hundred other "rebels" just to prove to the Federal Reserve or the government that they're following every single rule to the letter.
B) Tell Krkimir and people like him, "Eh, you aren't important enough to bother us," only to find out later that Krkimir is laundering money for a cartel, resulting in a revoked license and saying goodbye to $150 million in annual profit.

Tough call, I guess.

James Rogers53 said:JP Morgan Chase is asking the same thing—take a look at this thread, I posted a screenshot from my own account showing what they're looking for. As for the others, I can't really speak to that since I don't know.
And regarding privacy—it’s honestly ridiculous to bring that up here, especially considering Laura Chavez93 posts on this forum so much you could basically reconstruct her entire life just by reading her comments. Same goes for most of us, I guess.

You're mistaken; JPMorgan Chase isn't asking me that, nor will they ever.

Regarding privacy, it feels somewhat absurd to bring up in this context, especially considering how much Krkimir posts on this forum. You could practically reconstruct his entire life story just by reading his history here. Then again, that applies to most of us.

Whatever Krkimir has shared about himself, he did so voluntarily; nobody forced his hand.

James Rogers53 said:How exactly do you think they get it from the government? Since when does a bank have the authority to demand or receive any private data from the state beyond what's already public record?

Realistically, banks don't care about terrorism financing or money laundering any more than we do—meaning, we all agree it's bad and should be handled. That's it.
But if you factor in the fact that the government will slap you with massive fines during an audit if you don't have client data that the client was supposed to verify, then yeah, they’ll implement every tool available to stay on the regulator's good side—maybe even go overboard. And for banks, the ultimate penalty for being non-compliant is losing their charter.
So management is left with a choice:
A) Close the accounts of Krkimir and a few dozen or hundred other "rebels" just to prove to the Federal Reserve or the government that they're following every single rule to the letter.
B) Tell Krkimir and people like him, "Eh, you aren't important enough to bother us," only to find out later that Krkimir is laundering money for a cartel, resulting in a revoked license and saying goodbye to $150 million in annual profit.

Tough call, I guess.

What kind of nonsense is this? Who is the government actually going to fine, and for what? Stop living in a fantasy world.