It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Dead Set Shocker. I wish I was posting this in the HOAX forum, but it's true.

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 08:39 AM
a reply to: AlphaHawk

Yeah I get the sarcasm lol, but short of the bank actually going down the pan (usually prevented by a gov bailout using yet more taxed incomes/spending) it should at least still be there!


posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 09:06 AM
I see red when it comes to banks today. The service they give is 5th rate. You queue for ages to get to one of the two cashiers whilst 20 odd people wait and no-one comes out to help the beleaguered duo. With their profits they should keep enough staff on during rush hours.

Now they want us to pay for our bank accounts - yes that's for us giving them our money and them not paying us any interest on it. They have done away with cheques which gave one a little control over things if the purchase did not come or was broken in some way. The service of direct debits opens our bank accounts money to people like the utility groups who see no problem of altering the amlount they take out without immediate notification to the customer. The only people this service helps is the dipping company and less admin for the bank so more profits again. Its not a service customer's can rely on today.

One has to go cap in hand to get any money out of them when one has banked with them for 30 years. There is no customer loyalty and that brings me onto this new scam, which clearly is a scam of grabbing people's cash legally. To take peoploe's money, especially if they have an active ordinary account, so they know the customer is alive and kicking and then decline to give the money straight back is more than lib erty taking.

Has anyone noticed how easily government and law makers slip into gear to create the loop -holes the banks can benefit from, yet the customers, whose money it actually is, can go hang for all they care. The Mum and son's story is despicable, mean and is yet another show of the deviousness of bankers. I feel vedry sorry for both of them and angry it been allowed to happen.

Were we to take our money out and choose to use cash more often they would have to change their attitude. Today keeping all your salary or money in the bank means its vulnerable to snatching and it opens up a means of more people spying on your finances and profiling your lifestyle.

Banks need to change and honour their customers more because their reputations for thieving, which it is, mean they can't be trusted and one gets the idea that government has tried out, with the cooperation of the banks in Greece, some nasty type of model for fleecing the public and they have found it works and helps control people. That's not a healthy step, its utterly destructive. Our banks have a dubious lot controlling them, we have central banks which are a disgrace and again don't do the job they were supposedly created to do, which has allowed the parasites that run them to get their grubby hands on phenomenal profits and taking that layer of parasites away would be a good start - the whole lot needs more than regulating they need complete restructuring and new mission statements.,

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 09:39 AM

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: murlock

Yup, best leave it untouched in the capable hands of a bank instead.


I don't disagree that leaving money in a bank account is a gamble, but that's what people chose to do. If they are paying the fees to keep the money in the account there should be no problems, and the money shouldn't be touched. This is clearly a con that was set up to bilk money out of a statistical few.

So do you think that it is ok for the government to take the money just because it's "easy" to get it back?

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 09:43 AM

originally posted by: TheSpanishArcher
a reply to: myselfaswell

Sorry, but I LOL'ed at this. Only 360 million? Heck, we here in the great ole U.S. of A. gave trillions to bankers. At least they told us before they screwed us(no kiss, though). AFAIK, they have also stolen the social security(that was a while ago and I don't think they just "put it back").

To go into "dormant" accounts and steal the money, though, that's pretty damned nasty. Doesn't get much lower than that.

Cue Pink Floyd Another Brick In The Wall. Someday, that wall is a gonna break. Badly.

Yes but you didn't see your bank balance disappear ... thats tax payers money wasted ...
When they take what you use for your survival .. it's a game changer ..

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 09:49 AM
It seems if the bank is adding interest/deducting fees, using it for investments, then technically that would be an active account, not dormant. MAYBE, just maybe I could understand if the account holder didn't access the account for 50 years, but really that money should always be there. The banks are already profiting from using it for investments, that's the whole reason they pay interest. But no matter how much of a profit they make, it doesn't seem to ever be enough. Which brings us the question, At what point WILL they be happy? When will enough be enough?

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 10:45 AM

originally posted by: 727Sky

We have stated in the past that FinCen, FATCA and FBAR are all intermingled to essentially put in capital controls on the US populace and, as well, steal most of the money from those with funds abroad. In the past many said that we were being too alarmist and surely the US government would not do something like this.

Well, think again, it just happened. And it was even worse than we thought

Carl Zwerner, an 87-year old Florida man, must pay the US government a 150% penalty on the value of his Swiss bank account, amounting to the biggest penalty by percentage on record, according to his lawyer. Carl Zwerner will pay more than $2 million "for willfully failing to file a US Treasury form called a Report on Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, or FBAR. Prosecutors and the Internal Revenue Service use FBAR penalties, which sometimes are worse than criminal fines, in order stamp out "offshore tax evasion.

Zwerner's Swiss account at ABN Amro Group NV, the Netherlands’ third-biggest bank, was valued at $1.48 million in 2004, when his FBAR penalty was $723,762; the value in 2005 was $1.49 million, when the penalty was $745,209; and the value in 2006 was $1.55 million, and a $772,838 penalty. The total penalties were $2.24 million.

It is OK for governments to steal someone's life savings because they have a law 'they have written' that says they can.

If the government did this to me, there would be blood..

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 02:07 PM
a reply to: AlphaHawk

A savings account is different than a checking account or a bank loan on your mortgage.

That article is talking about fees associated with a checking account, where you have ATM withdrawal fees, checking monthly fees, various convenience fees and often overdraft fees, as well as fees incurred for bank loans for your mortgage as well as your car etc.

A savings account does not have all those fees associated with it. Here in the united states at my bank a savings account only has fees associated with it if you have a balance in the account lower than 500.00, and then it is only 3.00 per month.

It also pays interest, so the interest usually balances those fees out.

Your article said only one sentence concerning savings and that is here:

banks are quick to pass on interest-rate increases on loans but not on savings.

This may very well be true, they pay a consistent amount and don't usually give very many interest rate increases to you, even when they possibly could.

But that doesn't mean they are not paying you your 2% rate, that just means even if they make more on your money, they aren't going to up your interest accrual to 3%.

Here is UMB basic savings account:

Basic Savings Account

A UMB savings account allows you to not only save your money, but also earn interest on those funds. Save a little money, take a little money, make a little money with a UMB savings account.

Benefits$100 minimum opening deposit
Interest bearing
Three withdrawals per month at no charge
Up to three more withdrawals for $3 each
Nominal service charge if minimum balance is not maintained
24-hour access to account information through your computer or telephone
Access available with Ultra ATM card

- See more at:

If you don't maintain a minimal balance here then you will have service charges. As I stated before those are 3.00 per month.

You are able to walk into any UMB location and withdraw money 3 times every month without any charges whatsoever... but savings accounts are not meant for withdrawals like checking accounts are, they are meant for adding to and leaving alone..

granted if you try and treat your savings as a checking, you will have more fees, but most people don't save money to utilize it like they would their personal checking account.

You are getting confused when that article told you about banking fees, they were not talking about you having to pay 50 dollars a month for a savings account... savings accounts pay you...

At the bank of Sidney they have some pretty good rates I noticed. And as I stated before, they pay you to leave your money in their bank, so that they can utilize that money and provide business loans and mortgages with it... that is HOW they can pay you.... they make your money work for you.

But if you have laws that state you open one of these accounts and leave your 200,000 dollars in there for more than three years they can steal it from you... well hell... that makes burying it in the backyard a much better deal!

edit on 10-6-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 02:07 PM

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: smurfy

The banks aren't turning a blind eye to it, they're lobbying the government to make it 5 years, not 3.

Now why would they do that?

Well they have a vested 'interest' too. Since bank charges for just about everything became the big thing, they like to cream off some of the spoils first.
Thing is, banks know their customers, goverments should know the account holders, they should know who is living or dead, that's what the registrars are for.
This is a scam, supposedly 'to cover shortfalls in the budgets', I even heard the laughable figure of £109m mentioned. I dare say many accounts are not just cash either, they could be a portfolio of investment bonds, or property bonds, whatever.
edit on 10-6-2014 by smurfy because: Text.

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 05:50 PM
To respond to the question about banks and why they want this legislation changed to 5 year dormancy as opposed to 3 years.

The following from the linked article;

So what's going on? If the economy is weakening and banks are highly exposed to the country's ups and downs, how do earnings keep growing so strongly?
Greens MP Adam Bandt summed up the suspicions many of us have that we are being gouged.
''It is no wonder so many Australians see the big four as vampires,'' he said after ANZ's $6.5 billion full-year profit.

Read this article from late 2013

It is a dog act, or maybe it's a bird act.

The Government - Marabou Stork (Commonly known as the Undertaker Bird)
The Banks - Vultures (That's a given)

Kind Regards

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 06:12 PM
We share your anger here in Canada, you bet they will take what they want and ignore the rest....:-) See my sig below.

This thread should be the final wake up call for all peoples in the world, It actually started with Greece and then just spiraled out of control to where we are now.

All bankers and all government regulations should be flushed right down the drain not tomorrow!


Not to derail or sidetrack your thread but here is one I authored quite some time ago and I believe it should explain my pissed off attitude.

I really enjoyed reading through this thread and I will most definitely stay tuned for more posts.

Regards, Iwinder

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 06:38 PM
a reply to: myselfaswell
From your article you posted above,

So the shift to more cautious behaviour by businesses can explain much of the recent profit growth by banks because it has led to unusually low default rates. Read more:

What I get from that quote is the regular people should most certainly be more cautious in their dealings with the bastard banks anywhere in the world.
Keep in mind the EU banks just instigated negative Interest for money in their banks, long story short people are now paying to keep money in a bank.
Regards, Iwinder

Link below, yep all is wonderful in money land:-)

edit on 10-6-2014 by Iwinder because: To add a link

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 07:31 PM
a reply to: myselfaswell
Hail to the land of Vegamite sandwiches....what the hell? Thats just nutz. Can anything be done about reclaiming the funds????

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 08:00 PM
a reply to: mysterioustranger

Yes the funds can be reclaimed, I don't know how difficult.

The point being that the process should not be necessary as they should never have been taken in the first place.

Kind Regards

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 08:24 PM
a reply to: OpinionatedB

You can't use an American bank to make your point, you also can't cherry pick a high interest rate account that is set up to be untouched over a long period of time.

If there was good money to be made on interest from bank accounts, everyone would do it, fact is, they aren't.

I think you need to learn more about the Australian banking system more before you tell me I don't understand it. We don't have checking accounts, our savings accounts are our checking accounts and savings accounts.

The majority have our wages paid into a savings account, we then use that account to pay for food, bills etc.

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 08:35 PM
a reply to: smurfy

Well the information is readily available to find out.

ASIC is responsible for handling all unclaimed moneys from:
authorised deposit taking institutions, under s69 of the Banking Act 1959 (Banking Act)
life insurance companies & benefit fund friendly societies, only for annual returns made under s216 of the Life Insurance Act 1995 (Life Insurance Act)
institutions providing first home saver accounts, under s51A of the First Home Saver Accounts Act 2008 (First Home Saver Accounts Act)
companies with unclaimed money/property, under sections 668A, 668B, 1343, 1343A 1017E, 601AD(2), 601AD(1A), 601NG, 544 and 414 of the Corporations Act 2001(Corporations Act).

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 08:43 PM
a reply to: mysterioustranger

Can anything be done?

Sure it can, you'd think the writers of the SMH article would have at least linked their readers to the website, where you can check if you have any unclaimed monies and get it back.

You can also check for unclaimed superannuation accounts. I did this about 6 months ago and had 5 separate super accounts, each charging fees etc.
I was able to roll them all into one fund, online for free.

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 08:45 PM

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
Can anything be done about reclaiming the funds????

Yes, if you followed the thread you would have seen all you have to do is ask your bank, and shortly all the funds will be back in your account....

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 08:56 PM
a reply to: myselfaswell

It is a dog act

Such a dog act that the stolen money will earn interest!

The dogs!

Face it, you and all the others here are blinded by mindless hate for the government, you don't know what you're talking about, just gobbling up and parroting MSM hyperbole.

Like I just said, if the SMH was so concerned about their readers, why didn't they tell them how to get their stolen money back??

And why now is it an issue? This has been happening since 1959, back then it was 7 years before the money was reclaimed, 4 more years of fees being taken away by the banks, but no, let's not worry about that, let's worry, instead, about the big scary numbers quoted in the article!

Seriously, just try and look at it with a clear mind.

Before 2013: forgotten money sat for 7 years accruing CPI interest, but also having fees and charges deducted for that 7 years. Government would take money until it was reclaimed, no interest earned, no fees were charged.

After 2013: forgotten money sat for 3 years accruing CPI interest, but also having fees and charges deducted for that 3 years. Government would take that money until it was reclaimed, CPI interest earned, no fees were charged.

This is what you lot are up in arms about.

Get a grip!

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 12:13 AM
a reply to: AlphaHawk

That's all well and good from the perspective of one who still has their marbles and can remember their own name.

As the OP states this law has hit pensioners hard. This is a group within our society who have done their time in the workforce and, no doubt for many, done their bit for the country. They also happen to be, IMO, one of the most vulnerable groups in our society.

Additionally from the source article;

Australian Bankers' Association chief executive Steven Munchenberg said the legislation was a "rushed" budget-boosting exercise

I'm glad you brought up and linked the point about superannuation. This completely undermines your point, why? because there was an extensive advertising campaign across all media types, including e-mail relating to the recovery of lost superannuation. I recall no such campaign relating to inactive bank accounts. And that's my point.

The lack of any heads up about this indicates clearly an underhanded cash grab that has hit pensioners the worst. That is a simple fact.

The rest of us are up in arms about it because we see a government prepared to do this to a very vulnerable section of our community. We are asking ourselves, if they're prepared to do that to them, where in gods name does that leave me.

Kind Regards

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 12:30 AM
a reply to: myselfaswell

You're right, there should be more advertising about it, although I've seen in mentioned several times on different shows, the latest being The Checkout, from which I got that video. So the question still begging for me is why didn't the SMH tell us how to get it back? They wrote an article about it, made it sound like the end of the world, and made it sound as if it was hard, if not impossible to get back...what a joke! They could have gotten the message across so much better if it was a factual and helpful article, not the fear and hate inducing one it was.

And I think you're underselling our aged citizens, my nana is in her late 80's and is sharp as a whip, aged people, or anyone who is disabled or whatever, if they are unable to manage things like bank accounts, it becomes the responsibility of their carer.

edit on 11-6-2014 by AlphaHawk because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in