National City closing my account due to online gaming - Page 4

DavidNB · #31 06-02-2007, 02:52 PM

If you ask me, depsoiting 8G's a month apart throws up a red flag and telling them it was poker related didn't help much. Switch to another bank and don't tell them its poker. Just make sure you switch everything over so the new bank deals with more then one account.

apefish · #32 06-02-2007, 05:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Meh. I'm not sure the bank has the right to know what the money is from, but I'm more sure you shouldn't be saying "games on the internet that my country is being stupid about and most banks don't want to be associated with", especially if they have terms and conditions about this.
That said I close all of my accounts thru that bank and if they ask why I tell them "because you are asshats".

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only do they have a right to know, they pretty much are required to know and to look into certain kinds of transactions. Two $8K transfers--each just under the level where they are required to file a report--from an unknown source, spaced closely together likely flipped the triggers that IDd potential transaction structuring. That's a common money laundering tactic designed to help evade required scrutiny and banks have systems in place to catch such things. That's probably what generated the first call.

NatCity might actually have a clear policy regarding transactions with gambling sites and it may or may not be enforced consistently. Or they may have a more vague policy that some officers are interpreting to ban transactions with gambling sites. Banks are basically just making stuff up now, since the actual rules haven't been published yet, so you're going to get a wide variation in what's allowed or not allowed and how it's enforced.

[/ QUOTE ]

You actually made all of my points for me. I wasn't saying the bank absolutely acted out of line. I was saying that in grey spots when they make inquiries where the activities haven't reached automatic thresholds for generating a report that they are winging it right now, and I am not at all sure one should stay with a bank where they are grilling you about things that don't cross those limits, especially if the transactions are not on a regular basis but the customer is a regular established customer.
And OP did nothing to help his cause.

fluorescenthippo · #33 06-02-2007, 05:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
telling them the truth was a big mistake. you know banks are suppose to stop online gaming transactions. you will prolly need to get another bank. next time tell them the transactions are from an online business.

gl.

[/ QUOTE ]

when i cash checks from FT and stars they usually ask where they are from because they look weird. am i supposed to lie? or is this just for wire transfers not checks. and i thought FUNDING was the issue only.

2easy · #34 06-02-2007, 08:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As far as I know though, the banks aren't supposed to send money to online gambling businesses. I don't believe that there is anything covered by UIGEA regarding an individuals receiving of funds from such businesses.

Welcome to the new RedScare/McCarthy-ism, with rampant over-zealousness at it's best.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't really just about the UIGEA, the fact that he recieved two 8k transfers so close to each other probably made the bank worry about smurfing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I made the assumption that since they told him that his account was being closed due to gambling activity that it might have had something to do with gambling and gambling legislation.

But it was an assumption, though given what he said, it seemed like a pretty logical one.

Fat Nicky · #35 06-02-2007, 08:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
telling them the truth was a big mistake. you know banks are suppose to stop online gaming transactions. you will prolly need to get another bank. next time tell them the transactions are from an online business.

gl.

[/ QUOTE ]

when i cash checks from FT and stars they usually ask where they are from because they look weird. am i supposed to lie? or is this just for wire transfers not checks. and i thought FUNDING was the issue only.

[/ QUOTE ]

"these are funds owed to me for some work i did online" = not a lie.

mrcommonsense · #36 06-02-2007, 10:26 PM

"these are funds owed to me for some work i did online" = not a lie

Exactly. An answer like that is exactly what the banks wants to hear. They don't want the extra information but have no choice but to follow strict protocols based nothing more on "just in case" versus actual laws.

Please have some common sense people.

lockplayer13 · #37 06-03-2007, 12:04 AM

I don't think there is a law that requires you to answear to the bank where the funds came from if the deposit is less than 10k, otherwise you have to fill out papers by law.
So it is not bank's business where the money came from, if they don't think the funds are legit, they by law can put a hold on the check maximum 30 business days and only that is for international checks.
They have no right to close an account if you didn't break any laws in their regulations. And I really doubt that any of their regulations prohibit depositing ganbling checks. If you win in a casino you can request a certified check as well, so in fact that is gambling money too.

brendanb438 · #38 06-03-2007, 12:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think there is a law that requires you to answear to the bank where the funds came from if the deposit is less than 10k, otherwise you have to fill out papers by law.
So it is not bank's business where the money came from, if they don't think the funds are legit, they by law can put a hold on the check maximum 30 business days and only that is for international checks.
They have no right to close an account if you didn't break any laws in their regulations. And I really doubt that any of their regulations prohibit depositing ganbling checks. If you win in a casino you can request a certified check as well, so in fact that is gambling money too.

[/ QUOTE ]

After your first few words are, " I don't THINK there is a law" I should have quit reading. Just say I don't have a clue, but my opinion is this. Why does everyone on 2+2 think they know something about everything?
These banks are a business and they have the right to do business with whoever they want to. They can terminate doing business with you whenever they want to. It is there RIGHT!! They want to have a hard on that they are doing good by not accepting these checks from abroad then guess what? They will have that hard on. Also your nonsense about hold time and international checks and yadayada, did ya just group together a bunch of what you have read on 2+2 this week into one big stupid paragraph? Too bad CardCounter isn't still here to rip ya a new one. This is about the only time he was worthwild.

-Brendan

mrcommonsense · #39 06-03-2007, 01:50 AM

The point of the matter is the guy didn't have to tell the bank EXACTLY what it was for. No legal action can be taken against the individual. The worst case scenario is they shut the account down. Why make it easy for them? Don't be so specific and have some common sense. If you're worried about this from a legal point of view then don't play anything online.

Bobo Fett · #40 06-03-2007, 05:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The point of the matter is the guy didn't have to tell the bank EXACTLY what it was for. No legal action can be taken against the individual. The worst case scenario is they shut the account down. Why make it easy for them? Don't be so specific and have some common sense. If you're worried about this from a legal point of view then don't play anything online.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sadly for many, there is nothing common about common sense.