Comment by bradley13
1 year ago
If there is evidence against you, you surely have the right to know of it and to contest it! That's pretty fundamental to any reasonable justice system.
1 year ago
If there is evidence against you, you surely have the right to know of it and to contest it! That's pretty fundamental to any reasonable justice system.
But the SAR itself, from how it sounds in the OP, is not the trigger that makes a person/business unbankable across the entire banking system - only at that single bank.
The OP article makes a reasonable point that administration officials can and do exert pressure on banks to withhold services to certain industries like debt collectors. And there indeed is a slippery slope there, and one that VCs with significant exposure to crypto are motivated to highlight.
But “withholding evidence,” and the SAR secrecy specifically, doesn’t seem to be a mechanism by which that happens. I’m far more concerned with what might cause an individual to lose access to all banks than what might cause them to lose access to one.
We are headed towards very few monolithic banks in the near future. I imagine that if one debanks a client, they will all do so for the same reasons.
You have no right to a banking relationship, so there is no justice involved.
It's not scary until everyone stops accepting cash.
Maybe that was a true when a bank was a private business and you could reasonably live without it. Today they are effectively a branch of the government and your life would be seriously impaired.
For example, where does your employer setup direct deposit? How do you apply for a mortgage and demonstrate assets?
If society relies on technology then you need it to participate. Yes you can still breathe without access to transportation, but you can’t work in the economy. In 1940 car or bus access was a luxury because normal people got along fine without one. That’s why it’s misleading to say increasing car access is an better standard of living. It’s actually an increase in the cost to participate in life.
So yes banking must be a right. Or alternatively we could strengthen cash rights (reduce technology) with legal protections to qualify for loans, etc. But that won’t happen.
In the EU, there is a right for a bank account. But this right does not cover anti-money laundering excuses to debank a person.
12 replies →
Not just seriously impaired, but outright impossible sometimes. For example, It is illegal to pay in cash above a certain amount, where I'm from. That means having a bank account is not an option, it is practically a requirement. If you don't have a bank account you simply can't buy a house, or a car.
There are thousands of banks hungry for your business. Just because one doesn't want to do business with you doesn't mean another one won't.
1 reply →
It can be incredibly stressful even right now. I had my bank freeze my accounts because they believe I deposited a fraudulent check (I hadn't). They were incredibly unhelpful during the entire process necessitating hours on hold, going to the branch multiple times and eventually they threatened to close all my accounts. Took about a week to get sorted while I had no access to my funds, including direct withdrawal bills like my mortgage payment.
And you are correct... I had no rights. They had all the power, and they knew it and acted accordingly.
It is already scary, many governments mandate that large purchases are only made through the banking system. Not to mention the private-sector pressure (how do you get paid for work?).
But then we have to pay taxes on any amount of cash money above ~650 EUR in the Netherlands. They WANT to steer us towards cash-less, and MANY shops in the Netherlands have already stopped accepting cash. It's where we're going - ultimate control. No right on banking, but also it's a necessicity soon. So.... Too bad?
I leave my cards at home and only carry cash.
Countries in EU have a hard limit on cash transactions. Buying a car for over a few grand and it has go through bank. Renting a flat, even if you pay monthly, the tax man considers the whole duration as one big business deal, so the rent has to go through a bank
Which is the root problem, and the solution is a constitutional amendment guaranteeing an inalienable right to an electronic money account one can send and receive money from.
“Banks” don’t really have a point in a cashless society (the government can operate a database just as well), but it seems the government wants to the ability to persecute selected people or populations with plausible deniability. So they use the ability to get banned by big business as a proxy.
Who would provide credit and do maturity transformation? Maybe you end up with duration matched funds everywhere but I think that's unlikely for regional banks.
1 reply →
But debanking is not a criminal charge. The US has thousands of banks, surely one of them would take your business.