Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 901 posts

Re: Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

#231

Post by TheHiddenSun »

redox99 wrote: post #206
kylehotchkiss wrote: post #78

Protip to anybody who wants to spend an extended amount of time overseas - you’re looking at a strong opportunity to join the list of people who have their accounts closed. Red flags include quantity of overseas debit card transactions, setting a PO Box (this one apparently is a very big red flag to banks) or a PMB as your bank address, lots of wire transfers. Open multiple bank accounts at different banks, use servi…

> Glad we have so much energy focusing on legit bankers instead of the crypto that is actually funding multiple US adversaries at this very moment Funny you criticize crypto, when it actually solves all the bullshit you're mentioning. It's so nice knowing for a fact that when I send or receive crypto, it will 100% arrive within moments, unlike the absolute shitfest that is international transfers (like SWIFT).

100% agree.

Crypto today is the only way how you can take control of your own funds.

What use is the money in your Bank account if the ruling political party can label you an ultra-right extremist and retroactively lock all your money down, just because of a single 1$ donation you did to a cause you believed to be right, like Canada did?

Re: Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

#232

Post by onionisafruit »

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #226
advael wrote: post #162

I'm somewhat surprised no one here views this as an automated decisionmaking problem It's increasingly clear that automating important decisions like this is causing a lot of harm while removing most forms of recourse available to those affected. Coupled with the way automated decisions are used to perform and then launder fraud on a massive scale, maybe we should target laws at the automation itself: Require decisio…

Every app should have a signature that includes the devs that worked on it, the business manager that requested it, and the IT leadership that oversaw its use. This is already done for financial statements. If you put out software that is actively causing harm, you should know your fingerprints are on it Employees like devs would be protected by professional insurance. That would cause bad management to shape up, or…

I don’t think these decisions are happening in apps.

Re: Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

#233

Post by WalterBright »

yterdy wrote: post #190
advael wrote: post #162

I'm somewhat surprised no one here views this as an automated decisionmaking problem It's increasingly clear that automating important decisions like this is causing a lot of harm while removing most forms of recourse available to those affected. Coupled with the way automated decisions are used to perform and then launder fraud on a massive scale, maybe we should target laws at the automation itself: Require decisio…

Cory Doctorow has talked about how "they" test these kinds of things on captive "audiences" - mainly children and prisoners - before expanding to the rest of us. I tend to add marginalized groups to that list. Even when a person can nominally be held accountable, it doesn't matter if you can't reach them, protected by an administrative or institutional barrier of some kind. Standardized testing and remote learning mo…

[flagged]

Re: Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

#234

Post by abracadaniel »

programmertote wrote: post #73
raincom wrote: post #41

Banks hide behind Bank Secrecy Act and other regulations in order to debank people. Chase closed my account, and the reason Chase gave: "Financial institutions have an obligation to know our customers and monitor transactions that flow through our customers' accounts. After careful consideration, we decided to close your account because of unexpected activity on these or another Chase account." I didn't dispute any t…

Sorry to hear your story/experience. This worries me because my mother, who currently resides in a SE Asian nation, is transferring some of her money to me (in the hope that she can use it when she migrates to the US). Did Chase let you withdraw the outstanding balance in full when they closed your account? The last thing I want is to see my money being trapped in limbo state...

You get a check for the balance of your account, but they take their sweet time getting it to you.

Re: Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

#236

Post by svnt »

raincom wrote: post #85
programmertote wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to hear your story/experience. This worries me because my mother, who currently resides in a SE Asian nation, is transferring some of her money to me (in the hope that she can use it when she migrates to the US). Did Chase let you withdraw the outstanding balance in full when they closed your account? The last thing I want is to see my money being trapped in limbo state...

Yes, they sent me a cashier check for a small balance (around $1000) I left, as Chase gave me 45 days heads up for closure. However, for some people, Chase dragged out until after CFPB complaints are filed. The case one should worry about these banks is this: you deposit a $500K check, or you got a wire for $500K; check was cleared on the sender's side. Now Chase/Big Bank holds your funds, saying that this check is f…

If you are moving this much money regularly using these means you will be using a private bank which is a completely different experience. Maybe some people get caught in the transition to wealth before private banking but having moved significant amounts of money a few times, the banks generally do not want to hang onto it against your will.

Re: Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

#237

Post by unethical_ban »

jimbob45 wrote: post #217
XorNot wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a very obvious utility in the US which should be able to prevent this: The US Postal Service. It's federally required to exist, and services all Americans already. Basic banking services should be one of the things it is expanded to provide in a minimal, safe fashion (i.e. no loans or lending, but guaranteed electronic banking and funds transfer services).

I don’t see the connection between the Postal Service and banking. Is it just it was historically there? If that’s the case, you could attach it to any department.

History not withstanding The reason people talk about the post office is a bank is because it has physical branches in just about every community in the country. More so than any other federal organization, and it is designed to serve all citizens on a frequent basis versus other federal organizations that might deal with citizens on a much less frequent basis.

Re: Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

#238

Post by jfengel »

raincom wrote: post #154
panarky wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that someone with a political opinion had their account closed is not evidence that Chase is monitoring all their customers' political activity and systematically closing accounts for political activity Chase doesn't like. The same way that Chase closing a restaurant's account is not evidence that Chase is tasting the food in every restaurant and systematically closing accounts for restaurants that cook food…

Good that you trust Chase and other banks with the lame 'evidence' that they provide such as: "Financial institutions have an obligation to know our customers and monitor transactions that flow through our customers' accounts. After careful consideration, we decided to close your account because of unexpected activity on these or another Chase account." Based on that standard template, I won't trust big banks, becaus…

I don't trust Chase as far as I can throw them. But I still trust them more than Nigel Farage.

Re: Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

#239

Post by x-complexity »

jimbob45 wrote: post #217
XorNot wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a very obvious utility in the US which should be able to prevent this: The US Postal Service. It's federally required to exist, and services all Americans already. Basic banking services should be one of the things it is expanded to provide in a minimal, safe fashion (i.e. no loans or lending, but guaranteed electronic banking and funds transfer services).

I don’t see the connection between the Postal Service and banking. Is it just it was historically there? If that’s the case, you could attach it to any department.

> I don’t see the connection between the Postal Service and banking. Is it just it was historically there? If that’s the case, you could attach it to any department.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Savings_S...

Before the FDIC was created to cover bank runs & closures, the USPS was proposed to expand into being a postal savings system, a system that was already done by the UK beforehand & had proven to work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_savings_system

Re: Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

#240

Post by acdha »

krupan wrote: post #143
acdha wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also transitive: if I get bitcoin from you and two weeks from now the cops show up at my door asking to know why I had a funds related to some crime, I have to convince them that I had no knowledge of the transaction a couple of steps back and even if I do I might find that vendors stop accepting anything in that chain or start buying insurance to protect them. That’s going to sour people on the experience re…

It isn't hard to accept money on an address that is known to be associated with you and then transfer it to an address that is not known (cannot be proven) to be associated with you. An extreme form of this is called coin mixing or coin joining, but for most of us, I would think, that level of address obfuscation will not ever be necessary. Or if it is then you can imagine it will be automated.

Think about what that means: people are expected to maintain multiple accounts, pay people to launder money between accounts, and never make a mistake, or fail to predict what financial activity today will become a problem later (did you donate to Planned Parenthood when Roe was the law of the land? Better figure out how to remove that from the blockchain before your employer transfers your job out of a free state. Oh, wait, it’s not possible - better just hope nobody ever thinks to look!).

Major criminals get caught making mistakes on that kind of thing, there’s no way normal people aren’t going to make mistakes – and that’s before you think about what using a mixer actually means: lighting a neon sign saying “something about this transaction is dodgy, examine it!”

Post reply on HN