Why does my bank suddenly need to know where my money comes from?
"Banks have a financial, and regulational duty called ""Know your customer"", established to avoid a number of historical problems occurring again, such as money laundering, terrorism financing, fraud, etc. Thanks to the scale, and scope of the problem (millions of customers, billions of transactions a day), the way they're handling this usually involves fuzzy logics matching, looking for irregular patterns, problem escalation, and other warning signs. When exceeding some pre-set limit, these signal clues are then filtered, and passed on for human inspection. Needless to say, these algorithms are not perfect, although, thanks to financial pressure, they are improving. In order to understand why your trading account has been suspended, it's useful to look at the incentives: false positives -suspending your trade, and assuming you guilty until proven otherwise- could cost them merely your LTV (lifetime value of customer -how much your business brings in as profit); while false negatives -not catching you while engaging in activities listed above- might cost them multi-month investigations, penalties, and court.  Ultimately, this isn't against you. I've been with the bank for 15 years and the money in the accounts has been very slowly accumulated via direct-deposit paychecks over that time. From this I gather the most likely explanation, is that you've hit somekind of account threshold, that the average credit-happy customers usually do not exceed, which triggered a routine checkup. How do you deal with it? Practice puppetry! There is only one way to survive angry customers emotionally: you have to realize that they’re not angry at you; they’re angry at your business, and you just happen to be a convenient representative of that business. And since they’re treating you like a puppet, an iconic stand-in for the real business, you need to treat yourself as a puppet, too. Pretend you’re a puppeteer. The customer is yelling at the puppet. They’re not yelling at you. They’re angry with the puppet. Your job is to figure out, “gosh, what can I make the puppet say that will make this person a happy customer?”  In an investigation case, go with boredom: The puppet doesn't care, have no feelings, and is eternally patient. Figure out what are the most likely words that will have the matter ""mentally resolved"" from the investigator's point of view, tell them what they have to hear, and you'll have case closed in no time. Hope this helps." Most likely this is connected with new banking regulations related to the Patriot Act, which require banks to be much more inquisitive about their customers and their money. The requirements are mostly about new accounts, but there may be some provisions to backfill this information for existing accounts. Banks and credit unions are constantly required to improve their detection methods for suspicious transactions.  It's not just big transactions anymore, it's scattered little ones, etc. Our credit union had to buy software that runs through transactions sniffing for suspicious patterns.  More regulations and more costs that ultimately get passed on to customers in one way or another. Some of your transactions probably tripped a wire where there was none before. Bank runs very complex software to detect suspicious activity - terrorism financing, money laundering, etc. How would a program know that some person's activity is suspicious? It uses a set of rules. That set might be imperfect (that likely was not intended) - there might be some rule that triggers a warning on your account dominating the fact you've been with them for 15 years. So it's highly likely that an imperfect program triggered a warning on your account and the bank employer didn't dismiss it.
"Definitely this. The fact that it's termed ""identity theft"" is a great PR spin for banks. Someone else is attempting transactions while fraudulently claiming to be you. You did not lose your identity or even a piece of it. You are still fully you.  You are not even involved in the fraudulent transaction! It's a transaction between the bank and the fraudster, and the bank has agreed to some action you did not authorize. They should be responsible for cleanup." One bank is more willing to risk losses and customer hassle in exchange for lower processing costs than the other bank is. It's strictly a business decision. Regarding how they detect suspicious transactions: Patten detection based on your past usage history. I've gotten calls asking me to confirm that I just placed a large order with a company I'd never bought from before, or in a country that I haven't previously visited, or... I feel like no one really has he right to step in and ask me what I'm spending my own money on and why Well, yes - the bank do, and they are legally required to. It's for legal purposes and for your own protection. The bank are looking for money laundering, generally. You can't withdraw more than $10,000 cash without the bank having to report it; however, if you ask for $10,000, the bank tell you that they have to report it, and so you reduce your request to (say) $9,500, the bank will still report it - with a note on the report saying that you initially requested a higher limit. They also check spending patterns. If for the last six months you've withdrawn $1,000 in cash each month, but for the last four days you've asked for $5,000 each time, then they'll ask what the money is being used for, in case you're being defrauded. Your question implies that the 'financial people' are asking for the money in cash. If so, then that's a big (BIG!) red flag. No reputable company would ask for deposits that cannot be traced. In this case, I'd be looking for other 'financial advisors'. Interview several, not just the ones used by your friends and/or relatives. And if you don't understand an investment completely, then you shouldn't be making that investment. Your advisor would not be risking their OWN money on it, would they... Most transactions that the bank performs for you are electronic ACH transactions, so the costs to them are minimal in the long run.  Most banks do it now to keep up with the competition.  Almost every bank does it now, so they have to do it to attract new business and keep existing customers. Also, the more you rely on the bank and use them to pay bills, the more they learn about you over time and can use that data in overall marketing plans.  It's easier for them to record it into their system if it is all electronic to begin with. "I don't see how this concept takes off. First and foremost, BankSimple is NOT a bank but a tech company masquerading as one. BankSimple leaves industry regulation and treasury management -- the CORE of banking, to outside parties.  Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to have as few stops between me and my money as possible. If not for a fear of losing it in a robbery and inability to earn interest, I'd shove it under a mattress. So why would I want to bank with an intermediary, who admittently doesn't understand how the process works? How is that ""looking out for my interests""? And how is your security better than other institutions that offer 128-bit encryption and multiple security questions to test a customer's identity?  I'd like to add that not charging overdraft fees and providing lines of credit to help customers out in the event they spend more than they have is nice in concept, but what happens when those same customers do not make deposits to cover their shortfalls? When it comes to money, people will take advantage of any opportunities they have to circumvent the system. Especially if funds are tight." As a merchant I can tell you that the only thing the bank gets from me.  Is the total amount and a category for my business.  No detail, not ever. "Well, it took some effort to get an explanation from my bank. Turns out that some supermarkets use direct debit as a method of transferring money for purchases payed by so-called ""EC"" cards here. I was told that for some reason, a supermarket decided to reverse one of such transactions." "TLDR:  Why can't banks give me my money? We don't have your money. Who has my money? About half a dozen different people all over the world. And we need to coordinate with them and their banks to get you your money. I love how everyone seems to think that the securities industry has super powers.  Believe me, even with T+3, you won't believe how many trades fail to settle properly.  Yes, your trade is pretty simple. But Cash Equity trades in general can be very complicated (for the layman).  Your sell order will have been pushed onto an algorithmic platform, aggregated with other sell order, and crossed with internal buy orders. The surplus would then be split out by the algo to try and get the best price based on ""orders"" on the market.  Finally the ""fills"" are used in settlement, which could potentially have been filled in multiple trades against multiple counterparties. In order to guarantee that the money can be in your account, we need 3 days. Also remember, we aren't JUST looking at your transaction. Each bank is looking to square off all the different trades between all their counter parties over a single day. Thousands of transactions/fills may have to be processed just for a single name. Finally because, there a many many transactions that do not settle automatically, our settlements team needs to co-ordinate with the other bank to make sure that you get your money. Bear in mind, banks being banks, we are working with systems that are older than I am. *And all of the above is the ""simplest"" case, I haven't even factored in Dark Pools/Block trades, auctions, pre/post-market trading sessions, Foreign Exchange, Derivatives, KYC/AML." As I replied to someone else who said that:  I'm often having to send stuff with the check. Paperwork, a bill etc. While that would work to a person who knows me, it's usually not going to work with a business or government who needs to know why I'm sending this check. "Welcome to the 21st century, the New Order. Forget all that legal mumbo jumbo you may have read back in law school in the 1960s about commercial code. Its all gone now. Now we have Check 21 and the Patriot Act !!! Basically what this means is that because some Arab fanatics burned down the World Trade Center, the US government and its allied civilian banking company henchmen now have total control and dictatorship over ""your"" money, which is no longer really money, but more like a ""credit"" to your account with THEM which they can do with what they want. Here are some of the many consequences of the two aforementioned acts: (1) You can no longer sue a bank for mishandling your money (2) All your banking transaction information is the joint property of the bank, its ""affiliates"" and the US Treasury (3) You can no longer conduct private monetary transactions with other people using a bank as your agent; you can only request that a bank execute an unsecured transaction on your behalf and the bank has total control over that transaction and the terms on which occurs; you have no say over these terms and you cannot sue a bank over any financial tort on you for any reason. (4) All banks are required to spy on you, report any ""suspicious"" actions on your part, develop and run special software to detect these ""suspicious actions"", and send their employees to government-run educational courses where they are taught to spy on customers, how to report suspicious customers and how to seize money and safe deposit boxes from customers when the government orders them to do so. (5) All banks are required to positively identify everyone who has a bank account or safe deposit box and report all their accounts to the government. (6) No transactions can be done anonymously. All parties to every banking transaction must be identified and recorded. So, from the above it should be clear to (if you are a lawyer) why no endorsement is present. That is because your check is not a negotiable instrument anymore, it is merely a request to the bank to transfer funds to the Treasury. The Treasury does not need to ""endorse"" anything. In fact, legally speaking, the Treasury could simply order your bank to empty your account into theirs, and they actually do this all the time to people they are ""investigating"" for supposed crimes. You don't need to endorse checks you receive either because, as I said above, the check is no longer a negotiable instrument. Banks still have people do it, but it is just a pro forma habit from the old days. Since you can't sue the bank, the endorsement is pretty meaningless because it cannot be challenged in court anyway. You could probably just write ""X"" there and they would deposit it." From my reading of the wikipedia page (CRT), this only happens if you deposit or withdraw currency, not checks.  The idea behind this is that checks, ACH, etc. leave paper trails that can be tracked.  Cash doesn't, so it gets this extra level of scrutiny.  If yu get a cashiers check or a money order to pay a bill, I don't think a CRT is created.  If you withdraw $15,000 to buy a car in cash (1 stack of $100 bills), then a CRT would be generated.  It still isn't a problem, as long as you can show a bill of sale showing where the money went (or came from, if you are the seller). The IRS has a FAQ about this.  It says (taken from several spots at that page): Cash is money. It is currency and coins of the United States and any other country.  A cashier’s check, bank draft, traveler’s check, or money order with a face amount of more than $10,000 is not treated as cash and a business does not have to file Form 8300 when it receives them. These items are not defined as cash because, if they were bought with currency, the bank or other financial institution that issued them must file a Currency Transaction Report. The exception to this is if you are buying something with a resale value of more than $10k with a check, money order, etc of less than $10k. "It means that you are expected to have received a separate piece of communication (""advice"") which confirms who the payment came from. This is common with CHAPS payments and overseas transactions." They are networked machines and they talk to all the banks in order to look up the details of your account to provide you with that money. The protocol they use has known vulnerabilities.  A blackhat conference about 5 years ago they made one of the machines output money onto the street. The person you're talking to is probably someone in the company. They need to convey the message to their bank. So you need to explain it to them as if they were 3 year old kids. You may be used to SWIFT transactions because that's how you always get paid, but unless the UK firm regularly employes Russian freelancers, this is probably the first time ever they have heard of it. Similarly, someone in the local branch of their community bank has probably never heard of it before either. In Europe they use IBANs and SWIFTs are rather uncommon. Be patient, explain the issue and the solution in as many words as you can, and suggest them putting you on speaker at the bank so that you could talk directly to the person executing the transaction. If you do the same on your side and let the bankers talk directly to each other - that would probably be ideal. lol- yeah, I know how banks work. My point is EVERY transaction should be recorded somewhere. Banks have both internal and external auditors who's only job it is to monitor the transactions to make sure everything adds up. It just doesn't make sense that the CEO of the company would have so little idea of what is going on. Shades of Enron to me.