Bank Refuses to Send Wire Transfer

This stuff is a response to thousands of geezers sending millions of dollars to Nigerian dudes who have convinced said geezers they are hot women who are really into old geezers and need airfare and expenses to prove it.

It's this. One of my first jobs in that industry was doing some scam prevention work for a money transfer company, and the number of times we had an elderly American or Western European man sending money to what is absolutely a hot 23 year old nurse stuck in Ghana or a 19 year old in the Philippines that just cant wait to see them was pretty sad. There were also the lottery scams and all that similar business. Later I did AML work for a wealth management firm, and many accounts were flagged for the same issues, rich or poor, hope springs eternal and scams work.

Various law enforcement and adult protective services groups will absolutely crawl up the *** of institutions they think are lax on stopping old people from getting scammed, which filters down to the employees. Victims are often coached on how to talk to bank employees, and in turn the various denials cease to carry weight with the employees. Some element of the transaction got them worried about it, and without being able to reasonably establish the relationship to the recipient or the purpose of the wire (purchasing a collectible firearm would've been a fine answer) the employee isn't going to risk getting chewed out over approving it without some reason they can give to cover themselves. It's annoying for sure and at best an inefficient solution to the ever expanding scam issues.
 
Wait until those 87,000 new IRS agents get hired. There better be some documentation every time $600 gets added to or withdrawn from your bank account. Better believe it.
*
The way some folks phrase it, it is clear they think that this is 87,000 new positions for criminal investigators. That is not correct.

From Snopes: "This claim misrepresents a 2021 U.S. Treasury Department report estimating that around $80 billion in funding would allow the IRS to incrementally hire nearly 87,000 employees by the year 2031. Most of those hires would be replacements for workers retiring from existing positions, including not only IRS enforcement agents, but also customer service and technology specialists. According to the Treasury Department, audit rates for those earning less than $400,000 in actual income will not rise."

Do I like paying taxes? Nope. That does not mean that false info should be sent about like it is a fact.

Back to the subject of the string: it is possible that fraud protection is a reason for this inquiry. I have a feeling that the way this is presented that fraud protection is not the real issue here. On the other, those us in the CJ system see a whole lot of gullible, often older, folks get taken. I regularly get records requests from one of our local APS investigators, and such fraud is common.
 
Wait until those 87,000 new IRS agents get hired. There better be some documentation every time $600 gets added to or withdrawn from your bank account. Better believe it.

I understand added to, but do I need to pay more tax when I spend the money already in my account?

73,
Rick
 
*
The way some folks phrase it, it is clear they think that this is 87,000 new positions for criminal investigators. That is not correct.

From Snopes: "This claim misrepresents a 2021 U.S. Treasury Department report estimating that around $80 billion in funding would allow the IRS to incrementally hire nearly 87,000 employees by the year 2031. Most of those hires would be replacements for workers retiring from existing positions, including not only IRS enforcement agents, but also customer service and technology specialists. According to the Treasury Department, audit rates for those earning less than $400,000 in actual income will not rise."

Do I like paying taxes? Nope. That does not mean that false info should be sent about like it is a fact.

This is called "spin". The request for billions in new money to hire 87,000 agents correlated with the passing of trillions in spending. Every spending bill must show how it will be paid for.
 
A few years ago I made a cash deposit of $1000. The next day I wrote a check, using most of those funds. I then get a call saying that my check bounced. I go to the bank to find out what happened. I was told they put a two week hold on my cash deposit! Needless to say. all my accounts at that bank were closed that day.
 
The new normal is guilty until proven innocent. Get over it...

Even when the greatest legal minds in our country can't agree what laws actually mean, just do what you're told and don't rock the boat. :rolleyes:

I'm not going to roll over for them. It's my money, my boat, so I'll rock it all I want too. Heck, I could sink it if I wanted too. I'll go down with my ship before I will get on my knee's in front of them.;)
 
It’s been a while since I deposited Cash.
But I have been withdrawing it.
Usually $3,000 a week.
I asked what’s the Cash withdrawal limit?
$10,000 based on availability. There might not be that much cash in a given branch when you want it.
Especially large bills, I love my Benjamin’s!
I ‘bank’ with a Credit Union.
I wouldn’t sign up with one of those Mega Banks unless it was the only one for a 100 miles!
 
Last edited:
All these banks looking out for us, I'm reminded of Cool Hand Luke, "I wish you'd stop bein' so good to me, Cap'n."

What does the teller do when you tell them, "I'm wiring this money to buy a gun"? Do they write it down? Do they make a judgment call on whether to wire the money or not? Are they paid enough to make that judgment call? I doubt it. Is the manager paid enough to make that call?

The banks might face less resistance if they had a form to fill out asking what the money's for, instead of a more confrontational person to person thing. That form should clearly state that the questions are to help protect the customer from scams, and maybe end with, "I understand the risk, gimme my money anyway."
 
Some wise person once said (not an exact quote) those who govern may mean to govern well and govern fairly but they still mean to govern. The government, by its nature, wants to control things. They want to know everything that you are doing so they can suck money out of it to fund its activities which seem to be focused on watching what you are doing.

Instead of actually going after the malefactors directly, they make rules that make the lives of the other 99.99% more interesting. Very few people are actually drug dealers but anyone with cash is suspect. Very few people are laundering money but if you buy gift cards you are suspect. Buying a pay as you go phone is suspect. Buying fertilizer is suspect. Tinted windows make you suspect. Sitting in a parking lot eating your lunch makes you suspect.

The government wants to track your money. The next step may well be that you'll need government approval for expenditures exceeding a certain limit. Likely it will be "We'll approve your new hunting rifle if you donate $100 to daycare for welfare babies".
 
Some wise person once said (not an exact quote) those who govern may mean to govern well and govern fairly but they still mean to govern. The government, by its nature, wants to control things. They want to know everything that you are doing so they can suck money out of it to fund its activities which seem to be focused on watching what you are doing.

Instead of actually going after the malefactors directly, they make rules that make the lives of the other 99.99% more interesting. Very few people are actually drug dealers but anyone with cash is suspect. Very few people are laundering money but if you buy gift cards you are suspect. Buying a pay as you go phone is suspect. Buying fertilizer is suspect. Tinted windows make you suspect. Sitting in a parking lot eating your lunch makes you suspect.

The government wants to track your money. The next step may well be that you'll need government approval for expenditures exceeding a certain limit. Likely it will be "We'll approve your new hunting rifle if you donate $100 to daycare for welfare babies".

Oddly, I've worked for 'the Man' most of my life - I've never met one, not even one, who believes govt at all levels ever would have the workforce or the mandate or interest to manage all of the people. The 'control us all' thing is a fantasy of the Flat Earth Society.

Investigating money-laundering? Well, see if you can devise a reporting system with banks to track regular, large cash deposits singly or in rapid succession (called 'structuring'), or multiple wire transfers with new or little-known customers, or 'churning' small deposits and transfers. In that way you only check potentially problematic accounts.

It's actually much easier just to ignore money-laundering by drug trafficking organizations (and their minions), smugglers (of people and commodities), or terror organizations (both international and domestic). Let's just say, "...the hell with it, not a big deal anyway." Besides, they earned it, correct?
 
Last edited:
Oddly, I've worked for 'the Man' most of my life -

Spoken like a true government employee.

The government treats us all as criminals and we have to prove otherwise to go about our lives unhindered. Inflict incumbrances on 99% of the population because of the actions of 1%.

That's freedom at its greatest.
 
The minions of evil always believe that they are doing good.
 
Last edited:
I believe that this is an issue, especially in light of recent changes by credit card companies and the ongoing shenanigans with UPS and FedEx.

I went to my local Savings Bank on Monday to initiate a wire transfer of just under $1,500. Before asking me which account I wanted to take the money out of, the officious bank employee demanded to know who the recipient was, what my connection with him was, and whether I had met him in person. She also insisted on knowing what the money was for. I replied that I had spoken with him several times on the phone and that I was confident that it was not a fraudulent scheme. That was unacceptable to her. I told her that I was purchasing something, but she insisted “we need to know more about WHAT you are purchasing before we can do a wire transfer.” When I expressed my disbelief that the bank was refusing to transfer MY money pursuant to MY instructions, she said “I’m just doing my job.” To say that I was furious would be an understatement.

I met with the Branch Manager this morning. While she was much more professional about the situation, she insisted that the Bank needed to “know more” in order to “prevent fraud”. When I asked for a written statement of the bank’s policy regarding information required to initiate a wire transfer, she handed me a copy of a US Secret Service Cybercrimes Investigations (unit?) publication entitled “Don’t Be A Mule”. I assured her that I was not a criminal. In other words, they do not have a written policy statement for customers.

So I asked “What if I came into the bank with a check made out to cash for $1,500 - would the Bank demand to know what I was going to do with my money?” The answer was “It depends on the amount of the cash withdrawal.” When I asked what the threshold dollar amount was to challenge a cash withdrawal, she refused to tell me.

I have a personal checking account, 4 business accounts, and 2 safe deposit boxes at this branch. I opened my first account with them almost 10 years ago and my parents started using this bank in the late 1970s. My total funds on deposit are substantial enough that $1,500 is not an unusual or unprecedented transaction amount, not by a long shot.

I explained to the Branch Manager that in my career as an investment banker and financial consultant I had initiated over 100 wire transfers totaling 100s of millions of dollars. When I told her that I used to be a Series 24 General Securities Representative (SEC license), she said “oh that makes me much more comfortable.”

Here’s an interesting observation. I could have lied and said that the recipient was an old college friend who I first met in 1979. I could have lied and said that I was purchasing a used outboard motor. I could have been lying about my career in investment banking. Yet the bank almost certainly would have accepted those lies and transferred MY money as I instructed. Criminals might also be liars…

Instead, I told them the truth. I was unwilling to tell them that I was purchasing a collectible firearm for reasons that should be obvious to anyone. I was unwilling to explain that the intended recipient and I were both members of a firearms collectors group for the same reasons.

Moral of the story: the younger generation of bank employees think it is perfectly acceptable to refuse to follow a depositor’s instructions unless they get a “sufficient explanation” of the transaction AND of your relationship with the recipient. The bank employee is the sole arbiter of what constitutes a “sufficient explanation.”

Canadian banks shutting down private citizens’ accounts at the direction of the national government was NOT an aberration. It is how our world works today.

P.S. if you are a member of a younger generation remember the #1 rule of banking - any business really. KNOW YOUR CUSTOMER.

/rant off/
The bank is under extreme stress from the federal auditors to follow their play book with severe penalties if they don't-kinda like screaming to the poor little old man/lady at the exit to WalMart when they ask to see your receipt. IT IS THEIR JOB. Don't make it harder on them.
Next time, try lying-it always works for me.
 
Perfectly legal. The agreement that you sign when you open the account says that you and they can chose to end the arrangement for any reason. I ran this up to the Comptroller of the Treasury, the department that deals with banks and was told, "Yup, they can do that. "

Poking around on line I found quite a few stories of PNC screwing with people.

Not questioning the legality of it. Just don’t understand why they would want to. Just chasing away customers is crazy
 
From post 55: "Don't make it harder on them.
Next time, try lying-it always works for me."

Me too. If I want to pursue a gripe, I need to direct it to the top dog. Not the low paid person with no policy say, who has to deal with me. If we are talking about a government gripe, that needs to go to my Congressman or Senator. Or, the current POTUS.

73,
Rick
 
Not questioning the legality of it. Just don’t understand why they would want to. Just chasing away customers is crazy

A friend suggested that it is because I don't carry any debt. No HELOC. No credit card debt and I never use my debit card.

It bothers me that they'd kick me out and I'm pissed that they banned me from their banks for "being rude and offensive" but I'd really like to know the simple reason why they did it.
 
5% interest rate is the highest ever. Money laundering: should be some kind of reason for the banks or Fleds to aggravate someone over their own money, like a law vs our rights. Courts would most likely throw it out. It DOES offer Fledrul employees a reason to hire more guvment.
More guvment, questioning our rights. My money after paying taxes all my life and treat me like a crook. I'm a good bit aggravated they are treating regular citizens like this. Where in the IReS handbook does it give them the right without probable cause? I've witnessed their employees bypassing their own rules against honest people. No notice of intent given. These guys work FOR us.

I can see a well-dressed, young lady, dressed to kill hooker
trying to deposit 2K in Vegas: and where did you get this money? Maybe one will disclose how they actually got it while in line at a bank.
 
I took $10,000 cash out of my checking account at one bank and deposited into a joint checking account (with my wife) at another bank. I got a phone call, from the second bank, a couple weeks later, asking me where that money came from. I felt like saying "none of your business" but I didn't.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top