Posted on 04/04/2016 10:21:21 AM PDT by Lorianne
Skittish banks have been closing what they consider high-risk accounts, many of them held by money transfer firms and humanitarian organizations, prompting the U.S. Government Accountability Office to open an investigation, the Wall Street Journal reported Saturday.
This week, the Journal detailed how such organizations have been forced out of the global banking system.
More than 50 nonprofits sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Secretary of State John Kerry accusing banks and the Treasury of playing the blame game and doing little to solve the problem. They want the U.S. Treasury to state nonprofits aren’t inherently high-risk.
U.S. officials told the Journal they never intended for whole categories of customers to be blocked from the banking system. Rather, they wanted the accounts managed, not avoided.
“The GAO study will identify solutions to restore and expand humanitarian remittances and thus prevent further instability of Somalia and other vulnerable nations,” said Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., whose district has the largest Somali population in the United States.
The acting undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence at the Treasury Department said last November it is unclear who is being cut off. “We don’t have a complete picture,” Treasury Undersecretary Adam Szubin said. “We still need more and better data.”
“Even large international NGOs [non-governmental organizations] are sometimes having trouble operating bank accounts if they’re trying to deliver aid to Syria, Afghanistan or Pakistan,” areas of particularly high risk for terror financing, Vijaya Ramachandran, an expert with the Washington think tank Center for Global Development, told the Journal.
The World Bank reported the closing of bank accounts of money transfer operators to prevent money laundering and combat terrorism has raised the cost of remittances, hiking some costs to 10 percent of the total being sent.
The result is that money is being driven underground, with companies forced to ship bags of cash overseas. More than half of 82 money transfer companies surveyed recently by the World Bank said they had lost bank accounts in 2014.
Congress and the government have for years been turning banks into law enforcement organizations with big penalties if they don’t rat out customers involved in anything shady, whether they know about it or not. This is a perfectly rational reaction to stupid, overbearing regulation.
johnny chung was way ahead of his time.
just carry around grocery bags of money orders he bought at the convenience stores.
What does “high risk” in this context mean? That a lot of these accounts are used for money laundering or financing of terrorism or that there’s a high risk of bounced checks where the bank ends up holding the bag?
The LEOs who make their livings tracking this money will have to justify their jobs by cracking down on innocent citizens who take money out of the bank to buy cars, make real-estate deals, do home repairs, etc. As a bonus to oppressive government it might help them with their cashless money idea.
I think it’s pretty clear at this point the banks were right.
The Panama Papers proved that all non-profits not only enjoy tax exemption, but they make great money laundering operations.
Can’t wait for the other shoe to drop regarding US interests, but I have a sneaking suspicion the reports are going to be scrubbed. I imagine money will be going out to secure censorship of certain members of Congress.
I started as operation chokepoint. Instead of ending the silly practice they’ve doubled down. This is so far from true money laundering or terrorism that it’s not relevant. The banks process payments for organizations and businesses, the FDIC with its cue from the justice department decides those it likes v. doesn’t like and “suggests” the bank stops. Not wanting to upset the regulator the bank closes the customer account. No recourse, no due process, no anything. Bureaucracy and the rule of man run amok.
Looks like there is some light being shone. (Drudge headlines)
WORLD LEADERS CAUGHT IN OFFSHORE DATA LEAK...
Corruption and Crime on Global Scale...
Secret offshore money helps fuel Miami’s luxury real-estate boom...
THE PANAMA PAPERS...
Law firm safeguards secrets...
If we had a tax system like a sales tax, the government would have no need to spy on us.
Keith Ellison getting involved clues us in to the non-PC subtext that the reporter is not allowed to talk about.
These must be Muslim “humanitarian” charities that banks are refusing to deal with, due to the very real likelihood that they are just fronts for funding terrorism.
I believe that there is or at least was recently one large mall chain- Simon properties that sold pre-paid debit cards of up to $500 that did not require ID to purchase. You could only use them in the US, but this would be one way to operate under an alternate identity.
But the 1000 CHF bill (Switzerland) might be even better.
are US $100 bills worth more
than 100 on the street?
the grocery stores gladly takes in singles
just curious
There is a similar rise of banks not taking or handling accounts for gun dealers, gun shops, etc.
Holy Land Foundation charity in Dallas was exactly this, and they were found guilty in a trial of it.
Was watching a “Let’s Make a Deal” from about 1973? on the “Buzzer” channel (http://www.buzzrplay.com) and Monty/Jay were utilizing $500. bills in games...given the rate of inflation since 1973, we should still have $500. bills AND $1K bills! Something fishy scheming going on.
They’re far from the only one, they are just the most famous case because they were tied to some CAIR/Muslim Brotherhood bigwigs who normally don’t get their hands dirty. I think that most of the smaller charities are, at the minimum, helping fund the Palestinian terror groups, and some of them also fund the international terror groups.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.