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.

 

I Encounter The Patriot Act

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 06:25 AM
link   
All along from the first round I kept wanting/telling myself, it hasn't touched me yet. Now I have encountered changes that were put into place within the past month or so.

First, I work at a property management firm. We manage about 200 properties and a lot of people pay their rent in cash. Many also from time to time give us a check that we need to verify.

Up until a month ago, I could call a bank a check was drawn on verify there were funds available to cover it. Suddenly we can't. I reported this to the bookkeeper after the second event and she checked with our bank and was told it was due to the new version of the Patriot Act. They may now only verify whether or not there is an active account. Okay, this initially seemed perhaps a tightening of privacy for us all, but who are they protecting? They have now made it easier to pass a bad check and I just don't understand this.

Now this past weekend.... Rent is due on the first and there is a hefty late charge if it is received past the 5th. Under the circumstances with the holiday weekend there was Friday and Tuesday to make deposits at our bank (they are not open Saturday). So rents were rushing in and I made a final deposit late Friday and then all the last minute rents Tuesday that came pouring in over two business days instead of five.

On my last deposit for Tuesdays postings I could see there was a problem form the drive through window. The teller who took my deposit got stuck, had a concerned look on her face and had to call the head teller over. She got the same look, and after some discussion returned to the window to inform me I had deposited too much cash in a 24 hour banking period to accept the deposit without my license & SS #. Now bear in mind that this is a business account and they see me two to three times a day at that window. But there was nothing they could do, this is the new protocal and the system simply would not allow the deposit without MY personal information.

I have confirmed that this is not part of the prior rules where anyone who deposits $10,000 at a pop is reported as standard procedure (which has been in affect for years). There is something additional/new now that prompted this to happen.

So what list exactly am I on now?

*Guarding the cash receipt book with my life.*




posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Doesn't anyone have something to say here? Can anyone elaborate on this experience? Anyone have a clue what the possible repercussions of getting flaged this way might be?

Doesn't anyone find it disturbing that a simple employee had to be reported personally for making deposits that are a simple course of doing business in my field?



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 04:39 AM
link   
I find it odd and sad what our banks have done to us. Years ago you could cash a check at any bank now you have to have an account with the bank to cash a check. Its sometimes just as hard to withdraw your own funds out in cash in large amounts. I'v been told it can take up to 48 hours to get my cash out and it really wasnt very large. I think its scary the way banks are becoming.

[edit on 8-9-2006 by Shar]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 04:53 AM
link   
But you have to understand, the banks are not doing this of their own accord, they are being forced to comply with new rules. Even they are not comfortable with this from what I can see.

I wish someone in the banking industry would chime in here.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Most business are not doing things on their own accord.

Libraries have been force to give up information on books you check out.

Credit card companys what you charge.

Phone companies who you call and talk too.

Internet searches being recorded and looked at.

Cameras everywhere.

Its over our freedom is gone. There is so much more. Its just the beginning.

Good Luck in the future with your banking.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 05:30 AM
link   
Although it may be considered an "invasion of privacy", I understand the reasoning behind it.

Its really just a band-aid effect, and will not really prevent anything terrorist related, IMO.

If terrorists need to disperse money to there fellow cronies, they would be careful not to attract any attention now, as opposed to pre-911. They would find other ways to make the transactions, as well as doing it in smaller amounts.

Unfortunately, the every-day people are the ones effected by these preventive measures, and not the ones they are directed at.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 05:36 AM
link   
If you take out cash in a large amount it gets flag-ed. Thanks to the Clinton war on drugs.

Why didn't you use the business name and federal tax ID?

Roper



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roper
Why didn't you use the business name and federal tax ID?

Roper


I questioned that and was told it was irrellavant it was a business account, they needed my personal information too (as they obviously have the Federal ID of the company). This is where I find it crossed a line.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 06:14 AM
link   
he Uk's been like that for years - if you where to ring up a bank over here for info on someone elses account then they would flatly refuse. Comes under Data Protection



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   
I have questions about the way your company conducts business...

Why don't you use a check verifications system such as ChexSystems or Telecheck? Although there is a fee for this type of service it would pay for itself in saved time of not having to make a telephone call for each check you receive.

Why are you making large cash deposits? I am sure you realize how dangerous this is. Why not use an armored courier service for your own safety and to insure and guarantee your cash reaches the bank?

Sorry this does not answer your question but maybe it will make your job easier to have ways around these alleged government restrictions.

Personally I am glad that no one can just call a bank pretending to be verifying a check and be able to get an idea of how much money I have in the bank.

[edit on 8-9-2006 by craig732]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
Why are you making large cash deposits? I am sure you realize how dangerous this is. Why not use an armored courier service for your own safety and to insure and guarantee your cash reaches the bank?


I AM THE ARMORED CAR SERVICE!

Let me explain. I did not make one drop of a large amount of money. Between 3PM Friday and 3PM Tuesday (it was labor day weekend) I made probably 8 deposits and the total cash for the 24 hour bank day went beyond $10,000. That's what triggerred it. We don't need an armored car service - I'm from NY.
and this is Florida.

I think what you don't get is that a benign occurrance brought on soley by a holiday weekend made us hit this "threshold" where I had to fork over a personal Drivers License and Social Security Number for a business account.

UGH! I have been up since 2AM and I'm going to bed, but I will explain more in the morning as my boss called the bank today in protest over this and to get an explanation.

But we aren't big enough to warrant a check verification service either, this isn't big business, it's an independant RE Florida rental property management company. Basically a small business. Nevermind - my brain is fried, I will elaborate on this in the AM.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   
I have been a business owner for many years. The $10,000.00 rule has been around since the mid 80's I think. It's intent was to stop money laundering through businesses by drug dealers. The bank has the option to do this on as little as $3,000.00 but it is required at ten. What is odd is that they would do this to an account for a Corporation. Maybe your "Boss" is having you deposit to his personal account and is a "Sole Proprietor"? If thats the case he is not very bright and you should have him do the deposits. Another aspect of this is if you make a ten thousand dollar purchase you will immediately be reported to the IRS and they can report you for a three thousand dollar purchase if they chose. Most car lot's report at three to cover their own butt's. If you buy a three thousand dollar money order or cashiers check you are reported as well. I hear they also report you for a Direct pay or money wire, paid for with cash, at about eight or nine hundred. A lot of drug dealers have been caught this way.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I have been a business owner for many years. The $10,000.00 rule has been around since the mid 80's I think. It's intent was to stop money laundering through businesses by drug dealers.


This is apparently something different from what has been around since the 80's. In the past the transaction was reported but no personal information of the person at the drive up window was taken, certainly not on a business account. The account/transaction itself was just reported.


The bank has the option to do this on as little as $3,000.00 but it is required at ten. What is odd is that they would do this to an account for a Corporation.


Exactly. It's also out of line, but apparently it's the new rules.


Maybe your "Boss" is having you deposit to his personal account and is a "Sole Proprietor"? If thats the case he is not very bright and you should have him do the deposits.


Absolutely not. It's a Corporation and I write the deposits, they are going where they belong and each deposit references what amount of money came in for what property. I've been an accountant for 25 years prior to taking on this position and I don't work for people who play with the rules. Rental accounts have strict guidelines especially for escrow monies.

Anyway, when we actually had a chance to breath yesterday it came up in discussion and my boss said maybe we just have to stop taking cash. I objected to making it more difficult for people to show up with their rent if they have to make another stop along the way to get a Money Order (which I thought may be included in counting towards cash anyway and I think you just confirmed that) but also because THIS IS RIDICULOUS. Cash is legal tender, are we so far gone we need to not accept it?

She decided to call the bank to understand what happened and log an objection to the fact that I had to cough up my personal license & SS # over this. I heard her say at one point "I don't think someone doing that would be so stupid". Bear in mind, this is a small business and small bank that they have done business with for years. They know us all by name. Yes, they had to take my personal information and it is reported. However they did say that a business such as ours where it would be expected to have this amount of cash deposits would not raise a red flag after hitting "the list", but they had to take my personal information anyway. This is what is different.

I actually have no problem being the one that lands in this situation for the business sake, but I do feel it's very wrong that things are this bad that now the individual at the drive-thru window has to give it up when it's a Corporate account.

I think I will start instructing the girls to put additional information on the cash receipts they write though even though they basically know everyone, and probably switch them to a 3 part book and have them get the person to sign the receipt too. But you see, the receipt book used to be for the benefit of the person giving the money to have a record of it for their sake. Now it has turned into a record to protect us too? Used to be you needed a drivers license to cash a check. Do I need to have the girls copying drivers licenses to accept cash? Ridiculous! Again, it's just wrong.

We ARE being forced towards a cashless society and our privacy is a joke.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 07:19 AM
link   
After some morning reading from what I can tell the provisions are now so strict against financial institutions that they need to cover their butts to such an extent that I fell into a better safe than sorry (on their part) procedure, well, actually, in this case it was mandatory.

Here's the joke of it, I also found that institutions are prohibited from disclosing that reports are filed, however, in my situation it is obvious to me that one was, only an idiot couldn't figure this out (if they are inquisitive like myself and just do a little surfing) without being told, by the simple fact that they took my drivers license and SS#. The required form makes it a dead give away. They DO have to collect the personal information of the person who actually made the transaction as it is required on the form on top of the entity's information which they obviously would already have.

Here's the form:

www.fincen.gov...

Of course, due to the fact that they aren't allowed to disclose the reports to you, I suspect that now that they have my information on file I will not be clued in if it occurs again.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 06:50 AM
link   
It's the banks...It's always been the banks. You may find something even more scary about banks right here and here.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
A lot of drug dealers have been caught this way.


I'm curious as to how many criminals have been caught through these methods... my first instinct, upon hearing the story, is "wow, how dumb would a criminal have to be to get caught that way?"

Then again, I've seen those shows like COPS and Caught on Tape. Folks can be mighty stupid.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 05:43 AM
link   
The very existence of the Patriot Act (& the followup Victory Act) are completely Unconstitutional; Not only did Bush push it through Congress as if he has legislative powers (which he doesn't), not even Congress has the Constitutional authority to disregard any Citizens' Rights.

BTW, in the USA at least, only a Federal Organization can require your SSN...Any private organization, such as hotels or other businesses, have no right to demand your SSN! Your SSN is only between the Government & you.

The tricky one here is banks; Since it's a privately-owned bank (the Federal Reserve, which is completely Unconstitutional in its very existance) that happens to be insured through the Government (with the FDIC), I can't be sure that they could actually require your SSN to accept your business. I would appreciate if someone could actually find out for sure, because my research skills (& resources) are not up to that particular task.


[edit on 11-9-2006 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
The tricky one here is banks; Since it's a privately-owned bank (the Federal Reserve, which is completely Unconstitutional in its very existance) that happens to be insured through the Government (with the FDIC), I can't be sure that they could actually require your SSN to accept your business. I would appreciate if someone could actually find out for sure, because my research skills (& resources) are not up to that particular task.

[edit on 11-9-2006 by MidnightDStroyer]


I would think the vary fact that bank accounts can involve the generation of income they have the same right/need as your employer does.

As for the rest of them, from your insurance company down to your phone bill, it's a little too late, they all have it. In fact since the credit agencies use it (how did that happen anyway?) and banks can refuse to give you a checking account now based on your credit report........

It's so convoluted you can't get out of it. The worst part is it's (your SS #) so "out there" I think this has contributed A LOT to identity theft. Too many people have access to this key piece of information at this point.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   
A friend of mine shipped a prototype electric bicycle to a Washington DC bike shop. It was in a special hard case and the overnight fees came to nearly $500, but it was for an investor meeting. In a separate box, he shipped the prototype NiMH battery pack. Between the prototype, batteries and shipping, it took all of the cash the company had, but the investor meeting was crucial.

FedEx delivered the bike, but couldn't answer questions about the battery. The meeting took place without the crucial demo. The checks that were desperately needed weren't written.

Two weeks later, FedEx delivered the battery box to the bike shop. The prototype battery back had been ripped apart -- seemingly by wild animals. The box had an "opened by DHS" sticker on it.

No refund on shipping; no claim allowed on contents. No liability for DHS.

And, needless to say, no apology.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 04:15 AM
link   


Omgosh! That is soooooo bad.


No liability whatsoever even for a mistake? That's pretty bad.
I can see why the object might have been flagged for opening, but the way they did it and the circumstances of your friend had serious repercussions. I am stunned.

Anyone else have stories related to the Patriot Act? How much is really going on? How far widespread are the incidents? This is a board full of conspiracies and speculations about our infringements from the Patriot Act.

Where are the stories?

[edit on 9/13/2006 by Relentless]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join