What do others think about this? Because I'm kinda stuck in the middle about them.
It's not scary until everyone stops accepting cash.
For example, where does your employer setup direct deposit? How do you apply for a mortgage and demonstrate assets?
If society relies on technology then you need it to participate. Yes you can still breathe without access to transportation, but you can’t work in the economy. In 1940 car or bus access was a luxury because normal people got along fine without one. That’s why it’s misleading to say increasing car access is an better standard of living. It’s actually an increase in the cost to participate in life.
So yes banking must be a right. Or alternatively we could strengthen cash rights (reduce technology) with legal protections to qualify for loans, etc. But that won’t happen.
But sars being secret has nothing to do with that.
Being cut from the savings/investment/loan system would certainly suck and be unfair if you did nothing wrong, but much less than losing your basic bank account. That's where you receive/cash your pay, tax refunds, any government benefits, write checks (for things that are still paid that way by default), make transfers, etc.
The list of problematic people is even shared between them by the regulator.
Due to the savings and loan crisis there is no longer a plurality of banking businesses each with their own independent thinking. There are 10 marketing corporations for the same government service. Same with mortgages.
“Banks” don’t really have a point in a cashless society (the government can operate a database just as well), but it seems the government wants to the ability to persecute selected people or populations with plausible deniability. So they use the ability to get banned by big business as a proxy.
If people want to borrow money to pay for something (credit cards and the like), that can be its own thing that the government is not involved in.
And you are correct... I had no rights. They had all the power, and they knew it and acted accordingly.
The OP article makes a reasonable point that administration officials can and do exert pressure on banks to withhold services to certain industries like debt collectors. And there indeed is a slippery slope there, and one that VCs with significant exposure to crypto are motivated to highlight.
But “withholding evidence,” and the SAR secrecy specifically, doesn’t seem to be a mechanism by which that happens. I’m far more concerned with what might cause an individual to lose access to all banks than what might cause them to lose access to one.
How about this:
1. Corporations are highly regulated legal constructs. Being given an extraordinary right (immunity for shareholders) they should be expected to return significant value to society. I propose that value should be “lack of freedom of association” - eg I don’t think corporations should be allowed to stop doing business with, or refuse to do business with, anyone citizen, except after conviction in a court of law for behavior directly related to that business.
2. Government should not be able to use their secret monitoring to prevent anyone from doing anything. No lists, secret orders, etc. If government wants someone debanked, take it to court.
Finally, if corporations can’t debank people, how do they handle unusual cost/risk? With pricing, of course. If porn and crypto transactions pose extraordinary financial risk, then allow pricing based on actual financial risk.
And you're absolutely certain that powerful and vocal crypto people won't claim that this special pricing is discrimination as they're doing now with debunking ?
Most lenders don't discriminate via pricing - they accept or deny individual applications. The market discriminates via pricing, as higher-cost providers are willing to loan to customers who pose more significant credit risks.
Credit card market works very differently - if Visa and Mastercard debank you, then you are effectively excluded from the market.
I would quit contracting on the spot if that became the law.
Some clients deserve to be fired or avoided.
LLCs are extraordinarily flexible from a taxation point of view, but without shareholders or a board of directors and lacking articles of incorporation, they are distinct from corporations.
I guess more important than empirically whether banks tell you, it's that it should be their right to tell you if they want.
The most famous case I know of that stems from a publicly available SAR is former Speaker of the House Denny Hastert (R-Il) after his retirement from the House, when he was a lobbyist. He was being blackmailed by someone for his previous sexual assaults from his days as a high school teacher and wrestling coach three decades earlier, before he went into politics. He went to a bank to withdraw a bunch of cash to pay his blackmailer, and the bank started to fill out the form they do whenever you withdraw over $10,000 in cash (not a SAR, just a regular form). He saw the form being filled out, and decided he didn't want a paper trail with the government showing he was being blackmailed. So instead he stood in line hundreds of times at the bank, withdrawing $5,000 each time. This was why a SAR was filed, because he was clearly doing something called "structuring" which is setting up transactions deliberately to avoid those disclosure rules. After the FBI investigated, they decided that they couldn't get him for child sexual abuse, because it had been so long ago that the statue of limitations had expired. But they could get him for structuring, to which he plead guilty and served 15 months in jail.
Besides the fact that knowing about when they are filed would tip off criminals, there is also the fact that oftentimes they are filed for perfectly innocuous reasons, and are never investigated and don't go anywhere. Not ideal to have publicly available "this guy did something suspicious" flags that have not been investigated further looming over you and haunting the rest of your life. Since SAR's are not shared with other financial institutions, they won't follow you the same way.
Sorry, but no, I can't see why a country would want a law like this.
Honestly, my country had a dictator impose a Constitution that made sure every person had access to banks over 200 years ago (we haven't had a democracy at that point, but nobody even discussed it since, because nobody disagrees). I also can't understand how come the US treats that system so frivolously.
There are enough people in the US that think that the mere existence of drug users is an indictment of society, so any action taken to limit the ability of people who sell drugs is justified. You also see this with asset forfeiture laws.
So the reason these laws exist is the people against drugs, unable to see that the war on drugs has been lost for over 20 years at this point, want to impose more and more draconian restrictions around them which just fuels the power of cartels and criminal gangs selling drugs.
If the war on drugs worked then why can you get them in every high school and prison in the US?
You may have something about limiting international transfers, but forcing people out of the banks is contrary to the goals of a criminal investigation.
Stop with the Al Capone, totally dumb, angle: instead of arresting him for his actual crime, they arrested him because he didn't pay his taxes. Something dumb like that. And everybody applauds as if it was so brilliant. It's not.
What I think is: arrest people for the actual crime they commit... and leave honest people the fuck alone.