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

originally posted by: Gryphon66
What's the free-market answer?

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

Unless they legislate it into law. Then you'll be putting your money under your mattress. After that, when you get pulled over for speeding with a large sum of cash, they take your money. You will get with the program or starve.

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA

originally posted by: Gryphon66
What's the free-market answer?

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

Unless they legislate it into law. Then you'll be putting your money under your mattress. After that, when you get pulled over for speeding with a large sum of cash, they take your money. You will get with the program or starve.

Evidence? When has any law in America ever required anyone to put their money in a bank? What pending laws that do that are in process? Who has ever recommended that such a policy be adopted?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA

originally posted by: Gryphon66
What's the free-market answer?

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

Unless they legislate it into law. Then you'll be putting your money under your mattress. After that, when you get pulled over for speeding with a large sum of cash, they take your money. You will get with the program or starve.

Evidence? When has any law in America ever required anyone to put their money in a bank? What pending laws that do that are in process? Who has ever recommended that such a policy be adopted?

www.cnn.com...

www.freep.com... /

Nah, they don't steal your money. You were wrong for not having a bank account.

SHTF

a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

Fascinating. Thanks for your links.

Does either example provide evidence of any law in American that requires anyone to put their money in a bank?

Does either example provide evidence of any pending law that do such a thing that are in process?

Does either example show someone recommending that such a policy (legally-mandated banking) be adopted?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

Fascinating. Thanks for your links.

Does either example provide evidence of any law in American that requires anyone to put their money in a bank?

Does either example provide evidence of any pending law that do such a thing that are in process?

Does either example show someone recommending that such a policy (legally-mandated banking) be adopted?

Laws don't mean # if they are broken at will.

a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

So, no evidence for any laws requiring Americans to put their money in banks then?

Thanks for your answer!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
What's the free-market answer?

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

Actually - yes. Check out credit unions and local development banks. Encourage public banking that acts as a public utility not a profit sink.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

* - There is no quota for SAR's.
* - Currently the minimum on SAR's is $5,000 or more and only if the bank thinks criminal activity is occurring.

Office of the Comptroller

Title 12: Banks and Banking PART 21—MINIMUM SECURITY DEVICES AND PROCEDURES, REPORTS OF SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES, AND BANK SECRECY ACT COMPLIANCE PROGRAM

Feel free to forward this info to zerohedge who apparently has not bothered to do any research. That would also include learning what Capital control is and how it works since the actions mentioned in the article come no where near capital control.

Zerohedge has a bad habit of releasing false / misleading information and anything it posts should be taken with a grain of salt and actually verified before repeating the lie.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Evidence? When has any law in America ever required anyone to put their money in a bank? What pending laws that do that are in process? Who has ever recommended that such a policy be adopted?

There are no laws requiring you to put your money in a bank. But, there doesn't have to be. There are businesses not accepting cash. Some businesses don't accept any denomination of cash higher than $20 U.S. dollar bills, etc.

Also, unless you are only going to make small purchases, you will need to have a bank account, for example to buy a house for the down payment. Unless you plan on paying the whole price of the house with cash, which I am not even sure it's possible these days. Most real state agencies require you to have a current bank account, and proof that you have the funds to pay for the property.

Must-Haves for Your REO Purchase Agreement

So, sooner or later you will need a bank account. Now, what has happened is some banks have put a limit on cash withdrawals, which are policies being implemented by banks.

Some banks require "proof" of what you will use for any large amounts of cash you plan on taking from their bank...

HSBC Bank limits large cash withdrawals without proof of intent: report

The same is happening in other countries, such as the UK.

'What are you doing with YOUR money?' Furious customers hit back at high street banks forcing strict checks on getting out large sums of cash

Then there is this article from PBS which was run on January 2014.

Is your money safe at the bank? An economist says ‘no’ and withdraws his

So, meanwhile there are no laws requiring you to put your money in your bank, there are a lot of policies being implemented by businesses, banks and states/nations which do require you to have a bank account.

a reply to: greencmp

Agreed. Criminals don't use banks. Well, except on Wall St.....

originally posted by: Xcathdra

* - There is no quota for SAR's.

Any actual proof of that?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
* - Currently the minimum on SAR's is $5,000 or more and only if the bank thinks criminal activity is occurring.

First of all, bankers will not file SAR's in front of a customer, they will ask you questions and after you are gone they may file them.

Second of all, it doesn't even have to be $5,000 dollars. Like i said, I wasn't even withdrawing any money, but was buying some silver through the bank with a known silver coin business. Third of all, there doesn't "have to be criminal activity"... I have never been a criminal of any kind. Never even been arrested, and in 20 years only had one small car accident in which another car which was speeding broke the side mirror in my car's driver seat. Not to mention that the amount I was using was not even close to $5,000 U.S.D., and I don't buy silver regularly.

Office of the Comptroller

Title 12: Banks and Banking PART 21—MINIMUM SECURITY DEVICES AND PROCEDURES, REPORTS OF SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES, AND BANK SECRECY ACT COMPLIANCE PROGRAM

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Zerohedge has a bad habit of releasing false / misleading information and anything it posts should be taken with a grain of salt and actually verified before repeating the lie.

You are free to point where in those links it says that there are no such quotas.

In case you didn't know, the government and banks have policies that are not disclosed to the public aka non-public information.

For example, banks, and bankers cannot tell you if they filed a SAR's report on you. Even when there is no real evidence WHATSOEVER of ever there being a criminal activity a SAR's report can be filed on you.

Suspicious Activity Reports: Terrorism and you
By Laura Bruce • Bankrate.com

It's called the Suspicious Activity Report, or SAR, and critics say it victimizes honest citizens who are conducting legitimate financial activities through legitimate banking channels, while generating a flood of useless paperwork and burdening financial institutions with billions of dollars in costs.
...
You cannot find out if one has been filed on you; anyone revealing that information is breaking the law.

What can trigger a SAR? Almost anything out of the ordinary that rouses the suspicion of the personnel where the transaction took place. According to their rules, any group of transactions totaling $5,000 or more that "is not the sort in which the particular customer would normally be expected to engage" can cause enough suspicion to create a SAR. The reports are filed with The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN, a division of the Department of the Treasury, and shared with law enforcement.

To be sure, the reports have led to criminal investigations and prosecutions. But it also has mushroomed into a paper-generating monster that threatens to create Suspicious Activities Reports in government files on an increasing number of ordinary citizens.
...

www.bankrate.com...

So again...there doesn't have to be ANY proof of any sort of "criminal activity"... Just making a payment "that is out of the norm for that person" can raise suspicions and SAR's can be filed...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Uhmmm yeah... Maybe read my post and the links to the entities in question and their regulations.

There is no quota and unless I missed it you never included any sources to support that claim. You cannot have a quote established for an X factor.

Criminal action is not the sole requirement. Suspicious activity is another reason that you just ignored for some reason to focus on criminal activity.

Currently the mount is $5k and they are looking at a $10k level.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I read your post, and i read the links. There is no mention whatsoever that there is no quota, again, you need to know that the information given to the public is not the same as the information that banks and the Feds have. They do have policies, regulations and quotas that are not available for the public to see.

As for there not being evidence of mandatory quotas.

July 18, 2014, 2:32 PM ET

Number of U.S. Suspicious Activity Reports on the Rise


By
Rachel Louise Ensign
CONNECT

Wall Street Journal

The number of suspicious activity reports filed with the U.S. government continued to go up in 2013, but the number filed by banks and similar institutions held steady despite the regulatory pressure to bolster controls.

More than 1.6 million suspicious activity reports were filed in 2013, an increase of about 3% from the year prior, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network said. The number of SARs filed has steadily grown since 2010.

Banks and other so-called depository institutions tended to file about 70,000 of these reports each month from April 2013, when a new online reporting form became mandatory, through December 2013.
...

blogs.wsj.com...

It's from a blog from the WSJ. Not even sure I can post that, but there it is.

Over 1.6 million SARs reports were filed, and only 180,000 were viewed. Banks were reporting more than the number of reports that are/were being reviewed. What prompted the increase in reports when the majority of reports are being made of people who simply "make payments, or withdraw cash which is out of the norm for them"?... What was prompting bankers to report so many when they has no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing?

Now banks are once again reporting less. There must have been a requirement from the Feds, or the IRS for banks to meet a quota and file so many through the end of 2013. Whatever quota requirement was made of banks seems to be now a lower number, whatever that number may be. But that increase in the numbers of reports happened at the same time that the online reporting requirement through the end of 2013 was made. There must have been a quota, which was changed after Dec 2013, which prompted the increase in the reports.

You think bankers will simply make so many reports without any good reason, simply out of a whim?

a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

Thanks for those links. i normally don't listen to CNN because of bias. But at least they do report some things which are worth reporting.

What happened to that lady was simply wrong.

BTW, notice how what happened to her, and that other man was in 2013, after the new "mandatory" online requirement which must have included a mandatory quota to increase so many SARs from bankers in 2013. We know that bankers can't even tell customers that SARs have been filed on them. Any banker or other bank personnel who tells a customer a SARs report was filed on them will face prison. Obviously this is done because the Feds know that not all bankers are bad people and they knew at least some could even tell customers what was happening, so they made it a law that it is illegal to tell customers SARs was filed on them. This in turn was done so that those people who have had SARs made on them could not try sue the IRS/Feds. Because with 1.6 million SARs reports made in 2013, a class action lawsuit could have been done against the IRS and the Feds.