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: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: SpaDe_

Like I said in my follow up post, there are many different metrics that are looked at to determine if a transaction is suspicious or not. For instance, someone making the same transaction every month around the same time of month won't be labeled as suspicious since it is a common occurrence (likely paying a bill). However, a transaction of quite a few hundred dollars more than you usually spend all at once is going to raise a few eyebrows. They probably also look at the location of the transaction. If the transaction is made in a seedy neighborhood versus a rich one, it may cause elevated status. The article in the OP misrepresents how these reports are made, it isn't as simple as JUST a transaction over $500 gets a SARs.




posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Shame they weren't so suspicious of 'criminal activity' when larger than average and 'suspicious' deposits are made...but then Multi-Billions in filthy drugs money deposited surely couldn't be linked to anything criminal or dodgy, oh no.

Take all the very large deposits you care to hand over the counter without so much as a blink and always with a smile...but people want to withdraw a few grand and suddenly they're on the phone to homeland security!

Bloody hypocrites.

edit on 23-3-2015 by MysterX because: typo



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Quota ... the real bad word.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.
This is a crock of BS. Did any banks lose their status because of laundering money for the cartels? In theory you're right. In practice? Not so much and especially where some small time crook would be concerned.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Don't banks already do criminal checks on customers when opening an account and depositing money? Doesn't the Feds give banks lists of "known criminals"?

If the bank has the right to ask personal questions then I have the right to know everything about the banker, the bank itself and it's administration that is asking those questions. But that doesn't happen does it?...


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



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

BTW, I wasn't "buying silver every month", nor that frequently. I can also tell you that they will ask you those questions even if the amount is less than $5,000.

Also, because i can see some will even think, "so he is buying less than $5k on purpose"... No, when I see a deal and if my wallet can take it I make investments in silver. As for how much, and how often and why?... Refer back to what I said to the banker.
edit on 23-3-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Don't banks already do criminal checks on customers when opening an account and depositing money? Doesn't the Feds give banks lists of "known criminals"?


Well yes, but just because you weren't a criminal before doesn't mean you won't aspire to be one later.


If the bank has the right to ask personal questions then I have the right to know everything about the banker, the bank itself and it's administration that is asking those questions. But that doesn't happen does it?...



Not the same thing at all. The bank is asking these questions so it can be assured that you aren't doing anything illegal with the transactions since it could have its future as a business jeopardized if it doesn't. You are under no threat of repercussion from the government for banking with a bank with a corrupt administration.

Just an fyi, the reason banks are forced to do this is to protect YOU the customer from banking with a corrupt bank.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

It's $500, not $5000, and regularity PREVENTS them from asking the questions. It's when you are irregular with the transactions that it raises questions. In any case, if it offends you so much to answer the questions then go bank with another bank that doesn't ask those questions. Though I wouldn't recommend it, since if they are willing to slide on such things, the bank is also likely to slide on other regulations it needs to abide by.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
...
Not the same thing at all. The bank is asking these questions so it can be assured that you aren't doing anything illegal with the transactions since it could have its future as a business jeopardized if it doesn't. You are under no threat of repercussion from the government for banking with a bank with a corrupt administration.

Just an fyi, the reason banks are forced to do this is to protect YOU the customer from banking with a corrupt bank.


it is EXACTLY the same thing... Are you claiming that bankers and bank institutions can't become criminals?...

How do I know if the banker, or the banking institution isn't investing in things I don't want my money invested in, or things that are criminal? How do I know the banker is not thinking in the future of becoming a criminal?


edit on 23-3-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.
This is a crock of BS. Did any banks lose their status because of laundering money for the cartels? In theory you're right. In practice? Not so much and especially where some small time crook would be concerned.


Well it's not a "crock of bs" then. It is just not followed to the letter. I agree and am very disillusioned with the banking system after getting first hand experience seeing how it works (nothing is more depressing then having to explain to someone drowning in debt and days away from living on the street that we can't reduce their 20% interest rate because they are too risky). I already said in this thread that I'm not here to defend the banks. I'm just trying to explain the process here since there appears to be a few misconceptions on how it works.
edit on 23-3-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
...
Not the same thing at all. The bank is asking these questions so it can be assured that you aren't doing anything illegal with the transactions since it could have its future as a business jeopardized if it doesn't. You are under no threat of repercussion from the government for banking with a bank with a corrupt administration.

Just an fyi, the reason banks are forced to do this is to protect YOU the customer from banking with a corrupt bank.


it is EXACTLY the same thing... Are you claiming that bankers and bank institutions can't become criminals?...


No, I'm saying that YOU aren't held liable when they do become criminals. Banks ARE held liable for banking with criminals.


How do I know if the banker, or the banking institution isn't investing in things I don't want my money invested in, or things that are criminal. How do I know the banker is not thinking in the future of becoming a criminal?


Irrelevant, you will not see any federal backlash for banking with a criminal.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
...
Irrelevant, you will not see any federal backlash for banking with a criminal.


How isn't it "relevant"? If the bank has the need to make personal questions to me, then I have the same need. It should be a reciprocal process, and not one of "we know what's best for you and that's it. It's none of your business our (bankers)information meanwhile we need to know yours."

edit on 23-3-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

What part of the bank can be held federally liable for banking with criminals while you aren't held federally responsible for banking with criminals do you not understand?



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

BTW, it has nothing to do with not being liable if the bank has done criminal activities. it has to do with knowing who I am dealing with and what they are doing if they need to know private questions about me.

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



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Well ok then. The bank has to ask the questions by law. You on the other hand are more than welcome to ask similar questions about bank employees, but the bank doesn't have any requirement either internally or through the government to answer those questions. You are more than welcome to take your business elsewhere because of this, but I doubt you will find any willing to provide that information because it is irrelevant to the business transaction you are trying to make. Again the questions they ask you ARE relevant because the bank doesn't want to get in trouble for banking with a criminal. The fact that you make light of this distinction astounds me. Do you get offended at pawn shops that ask if the merchandise they are buying is stolen too?

You can consider this an invasion of your privacy all you want, but at the end of the day it is done to protect the consumer. You can also look at it as overbearing government intrusion into the banking sector, but I don't know about you, if there is one industry that NEEDS government regulation it is the banking industry. If you get rid of regulations like above, be prepared to strip further regulations that prevent banks from doing all sorts of nefarious things to its customers.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

First of all you are presenting us with third hand information. The news article refered to by zerohedge is still a secondary source and ZH was sure to put their own spin on it, as would the newspaper.

They seem to be talking about a judice offical talking about a possibity. Why post and speculate about something that either hasn't happened or you have no real factual source for. Where this an actual 'directive' from the department of justice there would be a paper trail.

jeeeez


edit on 23-3-2015 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-3-2015 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=19153315]Krazysh0t

The bank has to ask the questions by law. You on the other hand are more than welcome to ask similar questions about bank employees, but the bank doesn't have any requirement either internally or through the government to answer those questions.


Just out of idle curiosity.

The bank is required to ask the questions, is the customer required to answer? Is the customer legally required to answer truthfully? Would "None of your business" be considered a truthful answer?



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: SpaDe_

suspicious transactions can also include regular transactions of less than $5,000 if they are made on a regular basis and the bank suspects that you may be trying to evade the threshold.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Money was always a form of control. They have perfected it to an art-form now.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   
What's the free-market answer?

Don't keep your money in a bank that has policies you don't agree with.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join