Banks escalate punishment on conservative organizations

American Thinker ^ | 22 Oct, 2024 | Susan Quinn

[MtnClimber]

After 9/11, the federal government enacted the Patriot Act to protect citizens and the country from further terrorist attacks. But in what some people would call an extreme reaction, Congress passed a bill that essentially put all Americans under surveillance:

It also beefed up the Bank Secrecy Act, giving Washington greater oversight over everyone in the U.S. financial system -- which amounts to pretty much everyone in the country. And it mandated that banks collect more data on their customers -- also known as ‘know-your customer protocols’” -- and report any suspicious activities.

Over the years, this machinery, which had in theory been created to stop terrorists from harming Americans, shifted its focus to Americans themselves. And it has shown up in a process called “debanking”:

Debanking is an attempt by major financial institutions, those with assets of more than $100 billion, to close the accounts of organizations or individuals with whom they disagree, whether politically or religiously. This growing and disturbing trend denies individuals, businesses, and non-profits access to financial services.

One of the most aggressive banks carrying out debanking is JPMorgan Chase. Not only are their actions egregious, but their demands on one client for keeping the account open were invasive and inappropriate. One of the organizations that was targeted was the National Committee for Religious Freedom (NCRF), which defends the rights of citizens to practice their faith freely. When NCRF found out from a depositor that the account was restricted and marked for closure, they tried to investigate the bank’s actions, but bank staff were unable to disclose information:

[Bayard]

Reason million why Patriot act needs to be repaled.Banks shouldn’t be required to collect this information.

It just encourages political activity in one sided ways.

The opportunity is there by institutionalization so all it takes are a few bad actors with the power to make it happen.

[Wallace T.]

So far in 2024, only two banks have been closed by the OCC or the state banking departments. There are between the FDIC and OCC about 230 enforcement actions issued since 1/1/2022 against banks, some duplicate, for instance, a civil money penalty and a written agreement against a bank. There are about 4,400 banks in the United States. Excluding Federal Reserve or State enforcement actions, less than 6% of all banks are subject to enforcement actions. A majority of them have nothing to do with consumer regulations or the Bank Secrecy Act and related statutes.

[Aeneas2112]

Every fascist dolt, of either party, who supported the PATRIOT act deserves anything the government does to them.

[icclearly]

A majority of them have nothing to do with consumer regulations or the Bank Secrecy Act and related statutes.

I don't believe this has anything to do with BSA or consumer regulations; it has to do with a regulator and their political bosses, including the DOJ and FDIC, implying that certain businesses, as determined by our government, are a problem and should not be banked.

As I commented, Operation Chokepoint was real and effective. It shut out many businesses that were not "acceptable" to the regulator. In fact, it still exists today -- but not quite as intense.

CLICH HERE TO READ ABOUT CHOKE POINT

In addition to the description above, I'm not sure what pressure the regulator applied, but one theory is more emphasis on these specific bank clients that forced the bank or credit union to spend much more on compliance than the more "acceptable" businesses.