> At many institutions, one SAR is a non-event. Two, for a retail client, means one gets a letter saying the bank wishes you the best in your future endeavors and will not bank you anymore. That letter will often mention that this is a commercial decision of the bank and will not be reversed. Some clients receiving that letter will, on attempting to open account at a different bank, get refused because the first bank entered them into Chexsytems as “account closed at bank’s discretion” and the second bank, on reviewing that entry, said “yep, we are not touching this hot potato.”
> Frustratingly, regulators will say “Well, that is the bank’s decision. We didn’t direct them to do that.”, even though the purpose and effect of AML regulations is causing a lot of behavior not specifically asked for. Banks will, meanwhile, say “Our hands are tied. Look at these enforcement actions. Clearly, this is an unacceptable level of risk.” And meanwhile, there is an actual person who has done nothing wrong and now finds themselves somewhere between greatly inconvenienced and frozen out of the financial system entirely.
Why is there so much opposition to "you can't have a bank account anymore because when you had one, one of your checks would bounce almost every week", but so little opposition to "you can't have a bank account anymore for something that doesn't constitute proof of wrongdoing"?
The latter isn't a stated policy, but the result of many interacting policies, incentives, and institutions.
Hence it is hard to fix, hard to recognize as existing, and hard to prove to others as being a problem.
In other words, you can't get people to care, and even if you could, they would have no idea what to demand.
Whilst the former problem is (according to other comments) largely affecting African Americans. There is huge momentum behind preventing institutions from consistently disadvantaging African Americans.
(Note I have no clue whether African Americans more commonly bounce checks and get debanked for it)
The former affects blacks, which are a recognized political constituency. The latter allows you to debank your political opponents (cf Operation Chokehold), which is useful.
I'm also debanked, but sporadically, and weirdly at only some investment institutions. Fidelity outright banned me and demanded I call in to withdraw my money between absurd hours. I sent them an intent to file a lawsuit and I got my money wired within 48 hours. Vanguard and TD Ameritrade have no problem taking my money.
I'm also banned at Zelle, but Venmo and CashApp and Paypal are all fine.
What a weird world.
Of course none of them will tell me why I'm banned. I have my suspicions.
> Frustratingly, regulators will say “Well, that is the bank’s decision. We didn’t direct them to do that.”, even though the purpose and effect of AML regulations is causing a lot of behavior not specifically asked for. Banks will, meanwhile, say “Our hands are tied. Look at these enforcement actions. Clearly, this is an unacceptable level of risk.” And meanwhile, there is an actual person who has done nothing wrong and now finds themselves somewhere between greatly inconvenienced and frozen out of the financial system entirely.
Why is there so much opposition to "you can't have a bank account anymore because when you had one, one of your checks would bounce almost every week", but so little opposition to "you can't have a bank account anymore for something that doesn't constitute proof of wrongdoing"?