suds Posted January 22, 2023 Report Share Posted January 22, 2023 If there are no solid legal grounds for law enforcement to charge someone they can always get business to cooperate and force that someone into self-censorship. It gets around those pesky charter rights. Government and law enforcement are allowed to use coercion to enforce the law. Laws that are usually well known and that the majority of us agree with. But if the target is not breaking any laws doesn't the use of (indirect) coercion by government and law enforcement (even with the help of businesses) become illegal? We don't have all the facts for this individual case, but plainly it is happening in the US. In the US not only are they imprisoning and de-platforming people for their political views but people are also losing their jobs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted January 25, 2023 Report Share Posted January 25, 2023 On 1/21/2023 at 8:48 PM, Army Guy said: I have not even heard of this guy until today, have not listened to his podcast, and really don't care what his opinions are....In my opinion the bank is wrong in this case Excuse my rudeness, but your opinion on this is worth little. You don't actually know anything about this case or the reasoning behind it, nor what the rules are, so once again this is a strong opinion you've formed on a topic for which you know little to nothing. There are a few factors to consider: 1) AML and ant-terrorist financing laws are strict, with huge fines and reputational risk for non-compliance. The Banks live in constant terror of these. 2) The Banks can close a client's account for any number of reasons. The threshold for it isn't high. This is a business, not a public service. As a Canadian you have a right to have a bank account, but not to deal with any specific bank, or use it however you please. 3) The overwhelming majority of clients don't add anything to a bank's bottom line. They're going to spend zero effort to clear up suspicious activity for low-value clients who do most of their business elsewhere (or who are deadbeats in general). I worked for a bank for a number of years and as a branch manager. I've a very low opinion of the industry and its practices in general, but then I also know what the rules are and how much time is wasted on angry and delinquent losers. This guy can try to sue, but he'll be laughed out of Court. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted January 25, 2023 Report Share Posted January 25, 2023 On 1/22/2023 at 12:44 PM, suds said: What we don't know is if the government played any active role in this de-banking, or what was in the letter the bank's head office was supposed to send him. While I can understand the bank's position I feel at the very least they owe him an explanation. That makes sense, but what purpose does it actually serve the Bank? Once you get into specifics, you're providing ammunition to the former client to argue it back to you, or go online with their own narrative. The Banks don't (generally) do this willy-nilly, and the overwhelming majority of people will go their entire lives never having this happen to them. For the folks it does happen to, they almost always do know why, even if they pretend not to. Lately one of the main driving forces for this sort of thing has been crypto activity, which by normal definition is nearly all suspicious. Regulators are starting to crack down on it. Regardless, for this sort of case, the important thing isn't so much the reasoning behind why the Bank closed the account, but rather that the Bank wasn't interested in continuing their relationship. As I said earlier, this is a business, not a public service, and the Bank isn't obligated to continue unprofitable business they deem risky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeBeard Posted January 25, 2023 Report Share Posted January 25, 2023 On 1/22/2023 at 1:01 PM, suds said: If there are no solid legal grounds for law enforcement to charge someone they can always get business to cooperate and force that someone into self-censorship. It gets around those pesky charter rights. Do you have an example of where law enforcement got a business to self censor someone? This seems a bit convoluted. On 1/22/2023 at 1:01 PM, suds said: Government and law enforcement are allowed to use coercion to enforce the law. Yes, they can issue a speeding ticket to coerce you to follow the law. Is this the type of coercion you’re referring to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.