Yes but a bank is supposed to do this because a law that was written to force them to do it.
There is not reason other than that, and it's circular logic to sidestep due process to point to the law that says that they have to do it as the reason they have to do it.
A bank is not legally required to refuse your money until you can prove you haven’t stolen it. A bank maintains very specific set of government mandated processes where if think something is suspicions they report it to the authorities.
Note the difference (1) if you deposit $50 the bank by default assumes you didn’t just murder someone and take their money, this is true even if you served a sentence for that crime and (2) the bank defers to the government on what to do, they’re not expected to run a parallel justice system figuring out who’s worthy for a bank account
Comments
Yes but a bank is supposed to do this because a law that was written to force them to do it.
There is not reason other than that, and it's circular logic to sidestep due process to point to the law that says that they have to do it as the reason they have to do it.
A bank is not legally required to refuse your money until you can prove you haven’t stolen it. A bank maintains very specific set of government mandated processes where if think something is suspicions they report it to the authorities.
Note the difference (1) if you deposit $50 the bank by default assumes you didn’t just murder someone and take their money, this is true even if you served a sentence for that crime and (2) the bank defers to the government on what to do, they’re not expected to run a parallel justice system figuring out who’s worthy for a bank account
They absolutely do have a parallel justice system of who gets to bank, and it's called OFAC, and the international sanction list.
Neither is ram by banks, they are the recipients of regulation there, not creators.