Live data from Hacker News

Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

nytimes.com

41–50 of 901 posts

Re: Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

#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 transactions, nor did I deposit any fraudulent checks, no check bounces, no overdrafts, no cash deposits, no wires, not an instance of disrespecting any Chase employee either on phone or in person. Yes, I used Zelle often, I deposited checks often. When people complain about debanking, many folks defend these banks, saying that there are good reasons for these banks to close (some transaction, etc).

Banks are heavily regulated, I understand. Regulators want to see a certain number of SAR and CTR filings based on the size of bank. If a bank has 1M accounts, regulators want to see a certain number of SAR/CTR filings, a certain number of account closures; regulators go hard on financial institutions, if the latter don't follow the industry average (#SARs, #CTRs, #closures). This has created a vicious loop: banks use machine-learning/AI to flag accounts; then, back office employees 95% of the time just close these accounts.

Welcome to the new debanking world. Chase and many others also monitor your political activity, social media, protests, etc. If they don't like you, they can close your account by simply stating that "we have an obligation to know our customers; after careful consideration, we decided to close your account". When banks decide to close your checking accounts, beware that they also close your credit cards (esp Chase is notorious for this).

Re: Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

#42
post #25

You can be barred from flying (is that still true?) and now banking, without trial or evidence. It's already highly anti-democratic, but imagine what an aggressive, oppressive government will do with this power.

Banking is optional; the problem is that many businesses insist on bank cards to transact. It’s important that businesses be compelled to accept cash for all transactions. It’s particularly bad in some cities. Rather than enforcing access to the special hell that is US retail banking, just prohibit businesses from ripping out their existing cash infrastructure. Even with a bank account, your ability to transact is su…

I'm not sure I would agree that banking is optional in today's society.

Canada has laws[1] intended to ensure access to banking, with $10M fines for violations. Not familiar with them myself and wondering how effective they are, and whether anyone has sued and won. It's maybe a bit ironic considering how the government here improperly locked a lot of people out of their funds during the trucker protests (the inquiry found collateral damage where people completely uninvolved were affected).

[1] https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-consumer-agency/services/...

Re: Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

#43

I have a crazy idea that might just work. What if we could create something that has the privacy of cash, is uncensorable like cash but could also be digitally transmitted like electronic payments?

> What if we could create something that has the privacy of cash,

Unless you're implying Monero I don't think so.

> is uncensorable like cash

Uncensorable until you get sanctioned like Tornado Cash? Or this is also about Monero?

> but could also be digitally transmitted like electronic payments?

At the same speed, convenience, security and efficiency level?

Re: Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

#44
post #25

You can be barred from flying (is that still true?) and now banking, without trial or evidence. It's already highly anti-democratic, but imagine what an aggressive, oppressive government will do with this power.

Banking is optional; the problem is that many businesses insist on bank cards to transact. It’s important that businesses be compelled to accept cash for all transactions. It’s particularly bad in some cities. Rather than enforcing access to the special hell that is US retail banking, just prohibit businesses from ripping out their existing cash infrastructure. Even with a bank account, your ability to transact is su…

Banking is not optional in today's advanced societies, and the sooner we recognize that, the sooner we'll have proper regulations mandating a minimum level of banking service, eg. Limited deposits, withdrawals, debit/secured cards.

Re: Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cash is absolutely subject to freezing/seizure. Try carrying $25,000 and letting the police search your vehicle.

> letting the police search your vehicle. Good idea to decline those

Good luck with that. There are multiple reasons cops use to do a search if they want to. Probable cause can range from seeing something sticking out from under your seat, speeding, suspicion of being under influence, or being in proximity of another crime. Pair that with the incentive of civil forfeiture profits and it’s not looking like a good idea to travel with 25k

Re: Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

#46
post #25

You can be barred from flying (is that still true?) and now banking, without trial or evidence. It's already highly anti-democratic, but imagine what an aggressive, oppressive government will do with this power.

Banking is optional; the problem is that many businesses insist on bank cards to transact. It’s important that businesses be compelled to accept cash for all transactions. It’s particularly bad in some cities. Rather than enforcing access to the special hell that is US retail banking, just prohibit businesses from ripping out their existing cash infrastructure. Even with a bank account, your ability to transact is su…

> Banking is optional

I believe it's optional for you, but not for the great majority of people. Lack of access to banking services specifically holds back a lot of people (look up 'unbanked').

Re: Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

#47
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine questio what do you mean? I find them very useful. As in they work. Are you seeing something else?

There is a feud between CloudFlare and the person/people running Archive.is/ph, where they blame each other for X, and people using CloudFlare's DNS gets sent into some redirect loop or something when they try to access the website. - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19828317 "Tell HN: Archive.is inaccessible via Cloudflare DNS (1.1.1.1)"

Thanks

Re: Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

#48
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…

I'm usually a crypto sceptic but your story scares me, because it'll only get worse with time.

Re: Why banks are suddenly closing down customer accounts

#49
The real issue here is a human rights issue.

It is wonderful to hear politicians and the UN speak of our wonderful human rights, but clearly that does not extend to our ability to trade our skills, good and services in a legal manner, in our common currencies.

Now how is that for our much vaunted human rights?

Is anyone going to propose a constitutional amendment that makes banking a human right not subject to the whims and caprices of anonymous secretive unaccountable govt and banking officials?

Of course we could trade in cash, at the risk of having some "law enforcement" officials seizing our cash and asking us to prove we acquired it legally, subject to time wasting and expensive legal process which usually costs more than the amount seized. Habeas corpus doesn't apply to the cash which is why the court cases read State of New York vs $28,777 rather than State of New York vs John Doe.

In the EU some countries have placed limits on the size of payments which can be made in cash.

As for the US one has to wonder why the $10000 deposit notification limit which was made in 1970 has not been adjusted to account for inflation, which according to Google it is about $79,000 in 2023.

Those officials must have been ecstatic at the introduction of computers which makes tracking such transactions so easy.

Anyone to campaign for the adjustment of the $10000 figure to account for inflation? We want to party!!

Think of how it would improve the liquidity of banks. So much money would come flowing in in full knowledge that it wouldn'tbe subject to needless checks from nosy make busy bank and IRS officials.

Post reply on HN