Nosy banks

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.

The inspectors shut down small shops for $0.67 having a little extra cash in the register

but they haven't stepped foot inside Walmart in over 10 years.

Yeah, tough call.

Everything the bank asks for in these surveys is information they could easily pull from government databases: my income details from the IRS, my birthplace, date of birth, and home address from local municipal records—not to mention they already have full visibility into my annual turnover and typical transaction patterns—and even my Social Security records would tell them my educational background...
It seems rather redundant for them to demand this data when the state already holds it all 🤷 and if banks truly want to lean on anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism laws, then their obligation should be to notify the FBI so they can conduct an actual investigation
rather than just making blanket assumptions that anyone holding a bank account is a potential criminal—all without any provocation or a single suspicious transaction to justify it.

No, there's no way a bank can just pull that data from the government—I don't see how that's confusing.

The government (meaning this isn't some local regulation, either) isn't actually asking for your personal info—they’re just forcing banks to know exactly who they’re dealing with. And it doesn't just start and end with a single questionnaire; entire departments are dedicated to this stuff.
Just try sending money or making a payment to Russia and let's see what happens. 😁

The reality is that terrorism financing and money laundering are taken incredibly seriously—no bank wants to be the one getting dragged into a scandal for letting that happen under their watch.

Back when they first rolled out Social Security numbers, the government just handed them over to the banks... I actually found out mine before I even received my official card in the mail ☕
Well, if we are truly talking about preventing terrorism and money laundering—rather than just finding sneaky ways to harvest client data—
then the government should be applying that same logic to all other sensitive information... Terrorism and money laundering are far too serious matters to leave to the discretion of private banks through mere survey questionnaires

So, here is the dilemma:
Who can one actually turn to when facing unauthorized requests for private information—especially when those requests come accompanied by threats to freeze an account?
(Unfortunately, Azop isn't able to step in here; they claim it falls outside their jurisdiction) 👎
One user mentioned being asked about her marital status at a bank—an inquiry that even a potential employer in this country has no right to make anymore...
Yet, banks seem to persist with these questions regardless. Is there a specific federal regulatory agency or inspectorate that ought to be notified regarding this sort of thing?

You should demand a written response from Azop; they’re legally obligated to provide one, even if they're dragging their feet.

Honestly, just close your account and move to a different bank. Who cares about them? At the end of the day, bankers are the ones usually pulling the strings behind global conflicts anyway.

I reached out to Azop—they claimed they don't have jurisdiction over matters like this...
As for my bank (Wells Fargo), I've already switched over and closed my accounts; they’ve been acting quite arrogant for some time now.

Azop is the authority here, isn't it? Who else would it be? They’ve already sent you a written notice stating they don't handle this. Just shoot them an email and ask: exactly which section of the Law gives you the right to claim you aren't responsible?

Switching banks might be your best bet. Or, honestly, just move to a different country; in certain parts of the European Union, you wouldn't even need a bank account to receive your paycheck. It's pretty straightforward logic.

I spent about half an hour talking to a contact over at Azop—he made it pretty clear there’s no point in pushing back, since the bank will just hide behind anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering laws indefinitely, reciting the same tired script over and over...
In short: the bank can essentially do whatever they please because they hold all the cards. There was no sense in me trying to go toe-to-toe with a wall of lawyers and legal jargon I don't even specialize in—I wouldn't have changed a single thing anyway.
It felt much simpler, and frankly easier, to just close my accounts and move my business to another bank.

Laura Chavez93 said:I spent about half an hour talking to a contact over at Azop—he made it pretty clear there’s no point in pushing back, since the bank will just hide behind anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering laws indefinitely, reciting the same tired script over and over...
In short: the bank can essentially do whatever they please because they hold all the cards. There was no sense in me trying to go toe-to-toe with a wall of lawyers and legal jargon I don't even specialize in—I wouldn't have changed a single thing anyway.
It felt much simpler, and frankly easier, to just close my accounts and move my business to another bank.

Did they even ask you anything at all? And yeah, I totally agree—Wells Fargo has become a complete joke.

I’m running into the same headache as everyone else in this thread. Here's the deal: Vanguard (not JPMorgan Chase—I left them three months ago) is demanding I fill out a deep-dive due diligence form and a PEP questionnaire. Honestly? It feels like just another excuse for the firm to vacuum up my private data under the guise of FATCA compliance.

The exact wording they sent is:

In accordance with the updated Anti-Money Laundering (AML) laws, which took
effect on January 1st, 2018, we are required to collect the information listed in these questionnaires for all our
clients within Vanguard funds. We kindly request that you submit the completed forms along with a copy of your state ID
to Vanguard via whichever method is most convenient for you:

Now, my gut says to just ignore this entirely, but I want to know: has anyone else dealt with this nonsense from Vanguard or other US investment firms? And more importantly, what actually happens if you just blow off a request like this?

If you’re planning on just brushing this off, why even bother asking if anyone else went through it?

ruggedfox28 said:If you’re planning on just brushing this off, why even bother asking if anyone else went through it?

I saw a thread on another board where banks actually froze people's checking accounts just to force them to sign these exact same documents.
I need to be certain my "ignoring it" strategy doesn't end up being a total clusterfuck. 😁

They aren't going to stop you from using your own cash, obviously... it's yours. But you're gonna find it pretty hard to actually do anything with it (besides just withdrawing it) if you don't hand over those details they're asking for 😬

It’s being dragged out until May 25th—right when the Privacy Act finally takes effect... if they keep threatening to pull cash out of the bank only to deposit it back on the 26th

🤣 Talk about acrobatics. Even a circus performer would be embarrassed by this performance.

And where exactly are they supposed to keep them? In a sock drawer?

It’s all such noise. A handful of self-proclaimed experts have decided they're suddenly vital because of a few bucks, and now they think they can lecture the big banks on how things work.
If it were up to me, I’d send account closure notices to people like this immediately. Just go play lawyer inside your own four walls.

Back in post 1281, Mystical laid it out perfectly regarding how banks handle client data collection. These institutions would love nothing more than to be based in a tax haven, but laws exist—mostly imposed from abroad (take that ridiculous situation where certain countries accepted terms one-sidedly; we have to investigate for the USA, but they don't return the favor). The government adopted these rules, and the penalties are what they are. If you want to play cowboy, do it in your own little shop.

But no, the conspiracy theorists are convinced the banks have formed a secret alliance against them. They’re obsessed with whether the theorist is single or married—I’m betting on single, personally—and what their degree is in.

neondriver5 said:🤣 Talk about acrobatics. Even a circus performer would be embarrassed by this performance.

And where exactly are they supposed to keep them? In a sock drawer?

It’s all such noise. A handful of self-proclaimed experts have decided they're suddenly vital because of a few bucks, and now they think they can lecture the big banks on how things work.
If it were up to me, I’d send account closure notices to people like this immediately. Just go play lawyer inside your own four walls.

Back in post 1281, Mystical laid it out perfectly regarding how banks handle client data collection. These institutions would love nothing more than to be based in a tax haven, but laws exist—mostly imposed from abroad (take that ridiculous situation where certain countries accepted terms one-sidedly; we have to investigate for the USA, but they don't return the favor). The government adopted these rules, and the penalties are what they are. If you want to play cowboy, do it in your own little shop.

But no, the conspiracy theorists are convinced the banks have formed a secret alliance against them. They’re obsessed with whether the theorist is single or married—I’m betting on single, personally—and what their degree is in.

Heh, then why do you think we even have data privacy laws on the books?...

So, what’s actually changing with this new data privacy law compared to the one we’ve been stuck with...

We shall see after May 25th...

Look, I can tell you one thing... it's nothing crazy 😬

The biggest shift is that data processors are now going to have to actually put in writing why they're asking for certain info. They won't just be grabbing personal data because someone checked a consent box anymore; everything has to be backed up by actual legal grounds...

Anyway, nothing special 😬