Tell HN: Chase shadow banned and closed my bank accounts

[werewrsdf]

Yesterday someone tried to deposit money in my account and they were told my account was "closed". I logged into my account to see and everything looked normal, so I told them they probably had the number wrong and to try again. They went back the next day and got the same response. "Account is closed."

I called Chase today and was informed that my account was "locked". I asked why and how I could get it unlocked. They ended forwarding me multiple times and finally sent me to the Chase compliance department. They informed me again that the account was "locked" and said the account will be closed in a couple days. I asked why and they said your account has been flagged, they did a review and there is no way to reverse the decision. In addition, I am no longer allowed to open any new accounts. I asked what the reason was and they said "For compliance reasons we are not allowed to disclose the reason". They mentioned that the only way they could reverse the decision was to speak with a branch manager.

I immediately went to my local branch and spoke with my branch manager. After multiple phone calls by the manager to the Chase compliance department, she informed me there was no way to appeal and my account would be closed. In addition, my other checking and savings account will be closed in the next couple days and I won't be able to open any new accounts with Chase (new info). The bank manager said she has no power in this situation and doesn't even know the reason. If the compliance team decides something, the branch manager can't do anything.

I never even thought this was a possibility and I feel powerless. Anyone have any ideas of what I should do next? The crazy thing is that when they lock an account, it's frozen for 10-15 days and then when it's closed they send a check in the mail. My money is now being held hostage at Chase until they decide to send me a check.

[cfcf14]

This is 100% related to (suspected) fraud, anti money laundering, or other types of financial/political sanctions. You may be 100% innocent, but they will never disclose any information to you about their reasoning (and in fact it is illegal for them to do so). Sorry this has happened.

[oliwarner]

Illegal? Possibly, but even if it wasn't, they're not going to tell you because it gives you a basis to appeal, or sue.

As things are "computer says no" cold responses keep complainants at bay as they have no footing.

[refurb]

Yup, HN loves to rail on banks like HSBC getting busted for money laundering. Well, this is the result - they come up with certain criteria (which is never divulged or else people could work around it) and if you hit it, boom, your account is closed.

It's the natural response to government attempts at clamping down on money laundering. Your individual value as a customer comes no where close to the financial hit from a massive money laundering scandal.

[werewrsdf]

This was my best guess as well. Unfortunately I have not been able to confirm it since they won't say anything

[jolmg]

> Anyone have any ideas of what I should do next?

Contact the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_...

Their homepage has a link on the top-right to submit a complaint.

It's possible your state government also has an institution for consumer protection in the finance sector. For example, there's the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Department_of_Finan...

Navbar at the top of their homepage has the link to file a complaint with them, if California is your state. If it's not, you can search "<your state> financial consumer protection" to find who's responsible for financial consumer protection in your jurisdiction.

I would try one of state or federal first, and not both at once, so they don't step on each other's toes. If one fails, I'd then consider reaching out to the other.

[giantg2]

If your state doesn't have a specific consumer/financial agency, then these sort of things generally fall to the state attorney General office. You could file a complaint with them.

I wouldn't be surprised if they can't do anything in this case though. It sounds like you got flagged related to some law enforcement activities and there's likely some legal action that will come your way. Their financial powers are basically unbridled and even places like the CFPB have basically no recourse.

[werewrsdf]

I appreciate this. This is one of the only comments giving me some concrete advice instead of speculating why this happened.

[phpisthebest]

Chase is famous for this. Do a search. They have been closing accounts for political reasons for a long time. Not saying that is your issue but chase is known for just closing accounts for a huge array of non-financial reasons.

Don't bank with chase

US citizens have no rights to banking even as we the taxpayers (contray to the feds latest claims ) bear all the risk in insuring and bailing the banks out when they inevitably screw up

FDIC insurance should require banks to open accounts for citizens unless there is clear financial reasons to refuse ( ie fraud, or other criminal acts)

Until then the only thing you can do is

1. Use credit unions. They are member owned and are generally better but not always

2. Spread you money out. Even if you do not have a lot. Have more then 1 account at different place. Have a rent account. A groceries account etc. It sucks but better that then being locked out of all your money

3. Keep some cash on hand

[nindalf]

This bizarre claim that FDIC insurance is funded by taxpayers is becoming more prevalent. So a bank offers financial services to a citizen and in exchange makes money. The bank uses these profits to pay insurance on the deposits. And by some mental gymnastics, this makes the bank taxpayer funded?

If we taxpayers buy phones from Apple, is Apple now taxpayer funded? Is an antitrust fine on Apple meaningless because it’s “borne by the taxpayer”?

At that point, the term “taxpayer funded” becomes meaningless.

[charcircuit]

>FDIC insurance should require banks to open accounts for citizens unless there is clear financial reasons to refuse ( ie fraud, or other criminal acts)

That wouldn't help OP since his account was crosed due to suspected fraud.

[tyoma]

You triggered a fraud/compliance issue. It is serious enough that they are closing all your accounts.

If other banks also start closing your accounts, it may be time to find a lawyer.

[Nextgrid]

> It is serious enough that they are closing all your accounts.

"serious enough" can literally be buying crypto at a legitimate, regulated exchange.

The AML regulations are vague enough that banks do everything possible to cover their ass, and when they've got millions of customers, the few that have even slight indicators of risky activity are cheaper to ban than to investigate appropriately.

[werewrsdf]

Yes, I wrote the first part in the description above. I will definitely need a lawyer if it happens at other banks.

[giantg2]

It sounds like they "locked" the account. It should be time to see a lawyer now, depending on the balance.

Edit: why disagree?

[austin-cheney]

I see this account was created only to post this complaint about an account closure.

Stripe employees have commented on HN about this behavior as it occurs frequently. That behavior being an account with no history whining about how some big evil bank attacked them, a poor powerless innocent victim, for absolutely no reason. Almost always the account is closed due to fraud only after several rounds of correspondence and whining about it on HN is some last ditch effort to garner sympathy or shame the financial institution while the financial institution is legally prevented from public comment.

[corobo]

It does seem like it always comes down to crypto or other shenanigans banks want nothing to do with.

Would love to know all of the unbiased information whenever this type of post happens.

@op the obvious question - what were you doing with the account?

[phpisthebest]

>>while the financial institution is legally prevented from public comment.

I am tired of banks and other companies hiding behind this excuse. The banks lobbied for that, they want that gag order. They want to be able to hide behind that regulation so they do not ever have to provide actual answers to why they banned someone or closed an account

[werewrsdf]

Yes,I created a new account so I couldn't be tied to my main account. I was worried about Chase or other banks retaliation. I was hoping that someone on here had a similar situation and figured out a way to resolve it besides just leaving Chase.

[gadders]

Have you expressed views which are outside of the current overton [1] window politically?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

[werewrsdf]

I have not that I know of (I don't use social media). My best guess of what happened (little to no evidence) is that it's somehow money laundering related.

[tux3]

Is the Overton window still inside the Overton window?

[ChrisMarshallNY]

I suspect there’s a bunch of stuff that is going on, here, and is not being mentioned.

No bank would just refuse to accept money, without [in their eyes] a good reason.

Is the OP running any particular type of business that may be fraught with integrity issues? Is this one of those ever-shifting Amazon storefronts?

etc.

[al_be_back]

Automated KYC/AML rules/ai may flag an activity in err, but if you chased (no pun) the issue with an operator, your local branch and even their Compliance Dept, well then it's likely more serious.

> Anyone have any ideas of what I should do next? I'd hire a chartered Accountant with some experience in AML, to quickly go through your transactions and see if there're any hints/suggestions as to what may've triggered it

[yosito]

What is AML?

[fwlr]

“when they lock an account, it's frozen for 10-15 days and then when it's closed they send a check in the mail”

Sounds like their compliance team has concluded you’re in breach. Pretty sure that 10-15 days is there because it allows for the 7-14 days of forensic accounting / legal investigation to conclude whether you have committed a crime and will forfeit the money. You would know better than us why Chase might think this.

[albertopv]

I assumed it would be a judge or jury task to conclude if someone committed a crime, isn't so in the USA?

[clnq]

It’s also disgusting how no one in the organization has the spine to even address the problem, except the cornered branch manager. They are just playing the classic manager game of hot-potatoing the problem until it magically disappears.

One of my ex managers even told me in a 1-to-1 that it’s one of the best ways to handle problems. They were in a tech lead role in a tech company.

Any org like that is rotten and might be rotten more than what’s publicly known. I’d put my money in some smaller bank or with some broker that cares. Maybe spread it out over a few banks if I’d use fintech startups. Not financial advice, just thoughts.

Just to give an example of how this could be handled with a better bank: my bank sent me a letter a few years ago that they’d close my account because of crypto TXs. I went to their branch and asked them to close it there and then because I, too, wanted to bank somewhere where crypto is fine. We shook hands and moved on. No secrecy, no hot-potatoing, no freezes, no holding anyone’s money hostage.

[alxmng]

My account was randomly locked once too, with no warning or explanation. I went out to eat, tried to pay, and my card was declined. Chase said that there was some system whereby the treasury can just flag/lock accounts, and that they didn’t know the reason. I still don’t understand what they mean, but that’s what they said and that’s all they would say.

I was never involved in any shady business, the only money went in from payroll at a reputable company, and I only ever made normal purchases.

I also learned that you have no right to any money in your bank account, the bank doesn’t owe you an explanation for denying access, nothing. They also don’t owe you any damages from denying access. I had a rent check bounce because this. It’s pretty crazy. After this experience, I learned it’s increasingly common.

Do not ever keep money in a single account, you may be denied access without reason at any time.

Luckily for me, after two weeks, they “unlocked” it. Again, with no notification or explanation.

[jolmg]

> I also learned that you have no right to any money in your bank account, the bank doesn’t owe you an explanation for denying access, nothing. They also don’t owe you any damages from denying access.

I knew this of PayPal. Didn't think it'd be the case with regular banks as well.

[benjaminwootton]

Though this sounds a difficult situation, I do understand that the bank aren’t able to explain the reason as it would potentially be tipping off a fraudster or someone who is breaking sanctions.

Monzo in the UK had this issue and put out quite a convincing defence if I remember correctly, though I cannot find the statement right now.

[YawningAngel]

https://monzo.com/blog/2019/04/04/why-we-block-freeze-close-...

[pavlov]

> "Yesterday someone tried to deposit money in my account"

How are these deposits sent? Do you receive them regularly? Is it business or personal?

Just trying to understand if this could have been the trigger.

[martin_a]

This is just the most useless and stupidest trigger of all.

I've got a PayPal account for my small side business. I did not receive any money on that so far, only paid with that account for whatever I needed. Hundreds, if not thousands, of Euro over the last 3 years.

Last week I received something like 12,30 € and PayPal locked the money and the account somewhat down, because of "unusual behaviour" that needed investigation.

If we were talking 10k € I would understand that, but I'm not sure what kind of money laundering/terrorist operation will send 12,30 on PayPal...

[werewrsdf]

Yes, they are sent regularly. I have a rental apartment that the tenant has been depositing rent into for about 4-5 years. It's only really used for that purpose.

[caeril]

> Yesterday someone tried to deposit money in my account

You opened your post with what is almost certainly the reason for this, especially if this is a frequent occurrence.

Banks are increasingly wary of people other than the account holder depositing into KYC accounts. You probably aren't laundering money, and the bank's compliance department probably doesn't think you are either, but they're still not going to risk having to explain your activity at a KYC audit.

Is it right? No. But this is almost certainly the reason. Chase is one of the more trigger-happy banks at this, but they all do it. If you need to be mad at someone, be mad at the government, not the banks that are required to comply with anti-privacy and anti-freedom regulations.

[sneak]

https://sneak.berlin/20191119/your-money-isnt-yours/

Banks fail closed without notice or recourse or any burden of proof.

Plan accordingly.

[senectus1]

Australia has some pretty decent protections, but the impending GFC part II has got me concerned anyway.

This is frightening. Considering just buying and storing metals instead of putting anything in the bank.

[hnbad]

I assume you're the author of that rant? I think you have one valid point:

Liquidity is king. If you have access to large amounts of money, you want to ensure the liquidity of a certain amount of that in various forms of crisis. Don't put it all in the same bank, don't put it all in banks, don't keep all of it digital. Having enough cash to bridge a temporary loss of access to your funds is probably a good idea the same way having enough potable water and non-perishable food at home to bridge a temporary infrastructure failure is a good idea.

The rest of the article however feels like a deepity[0]. Yes, your money isn't yours. But that's because there's no such a thing as "your money", or even "your anything" to begin with. Private property is a social construct, a mutually acknowledged fiction we turn into reality by abiding by it, under the threat of violence. Even gold has no intrinsic value, its value is entirely determined by what others are willing to give you in exchange and your ability to coerce them into doing so rather than simply taking it from you.

In other words, money is no different from any other "liberty" afforded to you by the state. Yes, the state can shut down your bank account but the state can also confiscate your physical cash (especially easily so in the US[1]). The state can even raid your home, put you under arrest or even kill you[2]. The Federal Reserve Bank may be a separate entity from the US government but it exists as the whim of the US government, as does CEDE and Company, which ultimately owns all stocks in the US.

If you think this is bad, you don't object banks, you object the state. And if you want to be ideologically consistent you should also object all corporations (which without the monopoly on violence of the state could only exist through private security, i.e. private militias, no different from feudal lordships in Europe prior to nationalism). This ultimately boils down to libertarian socialism ("free association"[3] being a key concept), though you strike me more as a right-libertarian type so Egoism[4] (not to be confused with "Egoismus" in German, which translated to "egotism" in English, i.e. self-obsession) might be an easier onramp to those ideas for you.

If you think that's going too far, I think you need to think more about the systems you exist within. The state can eradicate you at any moment and it doesn't even have to do so intentionally. There's no way to curtail the power of the state as any rights protected by it are only granted by itself unless there's a more powerful entity ruling over it (e.g. state vs federal law in the US).

On a more practical note, the situation you describe in your article seems to entirely boil down to not following the rules and then finding out there are consequences to that. There's a Process™ and you opted not to follow it out of willful ignorance. You clearly took the time to find out how to register a company but then opted not to find out what the steps to undo that are and offloaded your responsibility to the company handling payroll for you. Yes, this is hard to do yourself and yes, it's unfair that those millionaires you know can probably easily afford to just hire lawyers to take care of all these details without having to know of any of them, but that's pointing at a larger issue of structural preference for people who are already very wealthy. I'm with you on these legal tripwires being unfair because you're just supposed to know them or have the time to look them up (or even know what to look up) but it's just one of many ways in which the system punishes those who are not already in positions of wealth/power, even if it does so entirely without malice.

[0]: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...

[2]: Death penalty aside, law enforcement officers are rarely tried and found guilty for deaths, even in Germany. Infamously a Black immigrant died (either by being set on fire or prior to being set on fire) in a police holding cell in Germany a few years back. The original internal investigation was dropped and while the follow-up investigation in 2020 found evidence for "illegal" behavior from police officers, it found no justification to investigate any of the officers for murder or attempted murder.

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_association_of_producers

[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner#Egoism

[kkfx]

I do not know in USA, but in EU such action would normally led to a formal complain of private money theft and slander. In just few hours the local bank director would be called by fiscal police with such complaint asking him not so gently to quickly provide justification or risk a penal process with potential jails terms...

So well... Anything can potentially happen, but if you have the law on your side and you use it with fierce legal force anyone will both be kind and effective on you AND management learn the lesson: customers are not puppet and might bite.

[TheHappyOddish]

I'd be surprised if this is true. I'm not in the US (or EU), and I've heard almost identical stories in many countries. Read your banks terms, I bet there's a hand wavey paragraph allowing them to shut down your account for "compliance reasons" or similar with no requirement for justification.

I had this happen and contacted the relevant financial ombudsman, and got nothing.

[crufty42]

This happened to me with Citi when I added a signatory to my account - it triggered some fraud algorithm. Apparently there are legal reasons they cannot explain the details which is super frustrating for the customer and the staff as nobody can say what is happening. They froze and closed my account and it took 90 days for the balance check to arrive. Someone with legal expertise may be able to explain the details but it’s a real thing that happens and not anything sinister, just a crappy algo.

[fatneckbeard]

you have provided a lot of details on what the bank did

you have provided absolutely zero details on what kind of transactions you are doing in this account

[werewrsdf]

I didn't provide details of the transaction because I was more interested in what to do next and not have people speculate on the reason.

The transactions in the account are rental payments from a tenant and bills paid related to the rental. The account has had the same types of transactions for 4-5 years. It is a shared account with someone else (because I only own part of the rental), so it's possible I am being caught up in something related to them. They are closing that shared account and my personal accounts.

[briantakita]

I wonder if this is happening to anyone else.

Speculation: Possibly a rolling bail in? I wonder what Chase's financials look like. Perhaps they are letting go of unprofitable customers while keeping their money on the books as some banks are having solvency issues; to hedge against the impacts to the credit market.

[werewrsdf]

I appreciate the guess, but I think this is not right. There was a good amount of money in the account (~20k).

[throwaway2037]

The most basic bank account is a right afforded by law. No matter how bad your credit history or even if you are homeless, they have to give you the most basic account. Of course, it is your responsibility to keep the balance non-negative.

[bolanyo]

this isn't very good speculation

[werewrsdf]

It looks like my post has been flagged. Is there a reason? How do I get the flag removed?

[briantakita]

Like the bank, there is no appeal

[trollied]

A couple of things. KYC and risk are big now. There's obviously something in your transaction history, credit file or other mysterious data that they really don't like (crypto? gambling? chargebacks/refunds? You're the only one that knows your history).

They do not need to tell you why. I know it sounds bad & counter-intuitive, but if they revealed lots of little parts of their risk model, fraudsters could use it to their advantage.

There are some really good articles about AML/KYC on the patio11 blog: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/

Lastly, this is not a support forum. I don't like the whole "create a new HN account to post about an experience" thing, but that might just be me. Post on your main account.

[luckylion]

> I know it sounds bad & counter-intuitive, but if they revealed lots of little parts of their risk model, fraudsters could use it to their advantage.

This is a commonly stated argument, but I don't think it holds water.

I once worked with a company that did grey area SEA stuff where they'd bid on one thing and then show another thing to the users to get around regulatory issues. Of course, Ad-Networks don't like that for all kinds of reasons and shut down their accounts. So they hired people who previously worked at those networks on compliance, enforcement, or in customer support. Those people gave them all the info they needed to make their accounts not get flagged, not look suspicious when someone glances at them etc.

The fraudsters and manipulators are making money, and they're happy to pay money, and will usually find an ex-employee (or current, large corps don't have super-loyal employees) to spill the beans.

The legitimate customers will not, and they'll be harmed and annoyed because of the secrecy (which I think is more to cover corporate asses anyhow, because corporate knows all of this, obviously).

[andrewinardeer]

For all we know, OP my be a sanctioned person by the US Government for ties to the upper echelons of the current Russian government.

Of course Chase will stop doing business with you.

[sumedh]

> Of course Chase will stop doing business with you.

Why cant the bank say we are closing your account because of X reason

[briantakita]

If that were the case, why would they legally expose themselves by posting their situation online?

[KrazyHamburger]

What is happening with the USA? Holding a citizen's money should be illegal at all times no matter what's wrtiten in the contract.

[werewrsdf]

I completely agree. I am going to try to go to the local bank today and demand my money. Will update with what happens.

[antibasilisk]

i've been hearing ALOT about people's bank accounts being suddenly closed like this for the last couple of years, it's starting to sound like something fishy is going on and they're just looking for an excuse to limit withdrawals

[DeathArrow]

I think you have enough reasons to sue them. Keeping your money hostage can result in all kind of loses for you.

[KrazyHamburger]

What the