As a result, it's easy to get in, but you may later become a victim of limited resources for proper fraud handling and manual checks
Maybe that was still the case in 2015. In 2025, a traditional bank will ask for a ton of documentation, run it through the same (probably outsourced) automated fraud prevention system and tell you that unfortunately an account cannot be opened for you. At least that is a common situation for businesses that are too small to be important to the bank, but carry some compliance risk (international consulting, app developers, digital services, etc.). And then you are back to neo-banks...
This has been a trend everywhere, recently, but the severity of the situation differs country by country, so YMMV.
However, this doesn't change the fact that mostly neo-banks exploit regulatory gaps for growth, which ultimately leads to issues like the one described above.
However, I'm not aware of large banks using such online fraud prevention services. For example, in France, there's one major vendor that powers most of the banks. If we look at their client area, there's no indication of fingerprinting.
Since device fingerprinting is included in most online fraud prevention systems, I can assume that traditional banks in France are not using these kinds of tools to screen accounts. But perhaps you have another source of information.
"Computer says no". They'll give you the exact same runaround.
Do people feel that complying with the law is unreasonable, or do they feel like banks do other shady stuff in the name of compliance?
While it may be illegal to close an account without providing proof, it seems possible to soft-block or suspend an account for 'security reasons' without disclosing whether it's related to fraud prevention or other issues.
First, having access to banking and payment services are necessary is many places so much it should be considered a basic (human) right on itself.
Freezing someone's money or access to banking services could cause much more issues or more harm to some individual than some of the criminal charges yet it is done automatically without any proof, reason, any way to appeal, by the sole discretion of one of the stakeholder (without any independent third party). Which in spirit is going against the innocent until proven guilty (and probably even the right of fair trial and right to property human rights).
From people's perspective banks have more power and can easier "take" (freeze for months/years) your money than courts and have way less responsibility or oversight doing it.
Second, banking services is one of few which is nearly entirely depends on trust. If a bank (from my perspective) "can not" (not allowed) to account for every penny and every transaction then my trust in that bank (or even in the whole banking industry) is lost.
That is bad for the bank (they will loose customers), bad for me (because I must use more cash), bad for the society (because more cash would increase tax evasion and black markets, and because it lowers the trust in public institutions), just because some stupid algorithm thought that paying half the dinner to a friend would significantly help the finances of a terrorist group.