It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Justice Department Rolls Out An Early Form Of Capital Controls In America

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
The original name of the article comes from the Wall Street Journal under the name: "Prosecutor: Banks Need to Do More Than File SARs", but you have to be a paid member to read the entire article. Which is why I am linking to "zerohedge.com" which ran the story off the WSJ article, but they gave it the name I put on the subject.

Anyways, the Federal Reserve is now saying that banks need to do more than just file "suspicious activity reports" for anyone who withdrawls large amounts of money from their own bank accounts.

Here is a snippet from the article:




The U.S. Justice Department’s criminal head said banks may need to go beyond filing suspicious activity reports when they encounter a risky customer.


“The vast majority of financial institutions file suspicious activity reports when they suspect that an account is connected to nefarious activity,” said assistant attorney general Leslie Caldwell in a Monday speech, according to prepared remarks. “But, in appropriate cases, we encourage those institutions to consider whether to take more action: specifically, to alert law enforcement authorities about the problem.
...

www.zerohedge.com...

Of course, I know some will say "but it says this only happens to accounts that "are connected to nefarious activity", but in actuality that is not always the case. Banks have to fill out a minimum quota of SARS that they have to submit to the Feds, even when the accounts are not connected to "nefarious activity" and once law enforcement agencies are notified your account can be blocked until the investigation ends, which could take a very long time.

In fact, the abstract from the WSJ states it this way.


By
Rachel Louise Ensign


Wall Street Journal

The Justice Department’s criminal head said banks may need to go beyond filing suspicious activity reports when they encounter a risky customer.
...

blogs.wsj.com...

So, if you are considered a "risky customer" your account may be reported to law enforcement agencies, even if you have no connections to "nefarious activity".


edit on 23-3-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct link.




posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Well poop... Guess we are getting into the home stretch.

*sighs*

Hoped for more time.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
They've been reporting transactions over $500 for a long time.

I'm sure there will soon be a flood of folks in here talking about how they don't use banks, have all their money in a coffee can or under their mattress...or perhaps they have a treasure chest with gold.

The fact is, if you're a criminal and going to be using large sums of money for a crime, you should know better than to use a bank -- or at least figure out a good way of beating the system.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
They've been reporting transactions over $500 for a long time.

I'm sure there will soon be a flood of folks in here talking about how they don't use banks, have all their money in a coffee can or under their mattress...or perhaps they have a treasure chest with gold.

The fact is, if you're a criminal and going to be using large sums of money for a crime, you should know better than to use a bank -- or at least figure out a good way of beating the system.


Exactly, this has nothing to do with criminals.

It is about one button confiscation and extortion, practices already widely used by the IRS among others.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
The fact is, if you're a criminal and going to be using large sums of money for a crime, you should know better than to use a bank -- or at least figure out a good way of beating the system.


Define large sum of money. My bank seems to think anything north of a thousand dollars is a large sum of money.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: SpaDe_

If you read his whole post, he already did define it. See?


They've been reporting transactions over $500 for a long time.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

Saw the signs a few years ago and started pulling out funds a little at a time. I shouldn't have to explain what I am doing with MY money to anyone. Ever!

Got rid of all credit cards and only put enough of my check into the bank to cover my mortgage. Money orders or cash to pay all bills. It's taken awhile and been a hassle to get to this point, but it's worth it.

It's a damn shame we even have to think like this! Honestly, it's quite sad/pathetic.

Merica!



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: SpaDe_

They've been reporting transactions of over $500 for a LONG time. At least 10 years. I had to learn that when I worked for a bank once, even though I never worked *IN* a bank.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

But that's the problem. Not all reports of SARs are linked to "suspicious criminal activity." Banks are required to fill in a minimum quota of SARs. So what happens when not enough reports are linked to suspicious activity? They still need to keep the minimum quota.

What in the world makes you think that "only criminals will be reported" when there is a minimum quota of SARs that banks must fill in?

BTW, the figure is $5,000 not $500.


edit on 23-3-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Something I ask people I meet almost everyday when the topic of finances, banks, credit, debit, savings etc comes up...

"You put ALL your life savings behind 3 feet of concrete and steel and you are the only one without a key? Is that not insanity?"

The answer is almost always the same: "But I have a debit card to access my money"

To which I answer: "Who controls the debit card and can turn it off at any time?"

Usually, a look of confusion follows.

I win.


Jude11



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I'm constantly moving fairly large sums of money in and out of my account on n almost on a daily basis. the first time a bank calls authorities on me will be the last time they have me as a customer.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I'm not sure, but I think credit unions have different reporting rules since they are owned by the members that use them. I know they have their own form of federal insurance (NCUA) that's kind of like the FDIC.

I hear a lot of people are much happier with their credit union than their old bank.

There's a bank with the name of town in N. Dakota in it...they're the worst. I've been a customer, and also had to work with them as a non-customer. Unless you have millions deposited, you're nothing to them. Nothing.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MystikMushroom


Yeah I read the whole post, but I still don't get the criminals using "large" sums of $500, which it is anything but. My question is still what amount over $500 gets any real attention, because there are literally millions of transactions a day being reported at this miniscule level. They are not looking at every $500 transaction on an individual basis I can pretty much guarantee that.
edit on 3/23/2015 by SpaDe_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
BTW, here is another link from Dec, 2013 in which it states the reasons that SARs will be filed.



...
The law requires banks to alert authorities if they suspect a transaction of more than $5,000 involves money laundering or terrorist activity. A suspicious activities report, or SAR, is required if a bank "detect[s] certain known or suspected violations of federal law or suspicious transactions."
...


www.upi.com...



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

As someone who has worked for Bank of America's credit card division and given some education on their fraud standards. I can tell you that it's more than just transferring large sums of money in and out of the bank. There is a measure of consistency, like if you make this transaction on the regular. The transaction is also taken into account (charge vs cash withdrawal). Location of transaction.

Even with all these measures in place, banks have ZERO need to pad their quota with bogus data. I'm not here to defend banks and say that they are always noble in this endeavor (I will be the first to say that I hate banks and they are very untrustworthy, most of it largely due to having worked at BoA); I just don't see the need to tie someone's account up for several months investigating it. What does the bank get out of it? They can fill their SARs quota easily with valid suspicious activity reports, so fake ones will probably be minimized. Even then, I'm sure the Feds also narrow down their suspicious activity reports by removing irrelevant data.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
...
The fact is, if you're a criminal and going to be using large sums of money for a crime, you should know better than to use a bank -- or at least figure out a good way of beating the system.


So, you are claiming that one must be a criminal to see a problem with this?

Is that your argument?



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This is the answer I was looking for. Thank you for the info.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
$5000.
I was wondering how in the world $500 was considered a large amount.

Even $5000 is lower than it should be.
In Canada you need explanations for $10,000 or over, whether depositing or withdrawing.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Well, this is the problem I have. I have made investments in silver through my bank, to buy silver not to buy bonds, and have been subjected to a long list of questions which in my mind is none of the bank's business. I am not a criminal, never have been, and never done any sort of criminal activity, and being subjected to such questioning from a bank is going too far.

There is such a thing as privacy, and it has nothing to do with "possibly being a criminal". I was informed by the banker that by regulation they are required to make those questions. I told him if he wanted to go ahead tell the Feds since I have no connection to any criminal activity but I will not be treated as if i was a "possible criminal".


edit on 23-3-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Actually it is the bank's business. A bank can lose its FDIC for banking with known criminals. A bank's FDIC is like its lifeblood, if it doesn't have that it might as well not be a bank anymore. Getting it revoked is pretty much going to put the bank out of business. So if a customer comes in wanting to do transactions that are known for disguising criminal activity, it behooves the bank to find out what those transactions are for.

After all banking is a business transaction. If the bank is going to be handling your transactions, they have every right to know if those transactions are on the level since the bank WILL be held responsible for enabling those transactions if they turn out to be criminal in nature. This is why banks are so reluctant to bank with marijuana businesses in the states that have legalized it. They are afraid since marijuana is still illegal under federal law that they will be penalized for doing so.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join