So citi arrests people for closing accounts

and BOA don't allow people to do same...

I am sure other LARGE banks are doing the same, It has come down to this.

to take their account down to a couple of bucks or whatever the is least they can leave in there and not ever ever put anything back in.

If your balance falls below a certain level, they can assess fees and/or close your account.

If you don't pay the fees, they can damage your credit rating.

The only way to close the account and not get charged fees may be to go in person.

I am very happy that you posted that :)

So, if I wanted to withdraw all my money. I would have to visit every Bank of America ATM in North Georgia.

It's for the protect of the cardholder. At any rate, taking your money out of an ATM is not closing your account.

of $300-$400 per card per day, and most ATM debit cards have a separate limit of $400 - $600 per day, regardless of how many ATMs you go to. When you ask your bank what your debit card limit is, be sure to specify cash per day limit, as most cards have a point of sale limit that is much higher.

That's the purpose of going to a branch in person. They're closing their accts, not merely emptying them.

And I'm sure it is supposed to help prevent a run on the bank. I suspect most banks do the same.

ISTM that banks are hurting their own images.

Either the banks look afraid of the 'unsophisticated' Occupy movement

or

The banks look like they don't have cash on hand to deal with the withdrawls.

Imagine how many 53pers will feel like becoming active 99%ers when everyone starts talking about how the banks don't have to let you have your own money.


Not sophisticated, my ASS!

If you are doing business with a "Too big to fail" bank, you are taking a huge risk. There are 600 T in derivatives floating around out there, when the GDP globally is only 65T. Sooner or later, the chickens are going to come home to roost. I guarantee they won't care about you when they are too busy giving $11 million bonuses to people that caused failures and these messes in the first place. They'll be too busy bailing themselves out to give a damn about you - if that means keeping your money, they will.

That, and a stray bullet might graze the CEO's new Mercedes -- and we can't have THAT, now, can we?

General Dreedle: Take him out and shoot him.
Colonel Cathcart: Sir?
General Dreedle: I said take him out and shoot him... can't you hear?
Colonel Cathcart: Take Major Danby out and shoot him...
Lt. Colonel Moodus whispers in his ear...
General Dreedle: Why the hell can't I?
Colonel Moodus whispered some more...
General Dreedle: You mean I can't shoot anyone I want to?

Any account holder can go to either bank and close out his or her account. A mob can't walk through the doors, though.

No banks are preventing account holders from getting their money.

Now, if you show up and hold a huge demonstration, they aren't going to let the bunch of you walk in. They have security problems. Nor does the group demonstrating have the right to block access to the building. Nor does any person or group of persons have a right to go in and disrupt inside the banking lobby.

Banks do have security procedures for the protection of their employees and customers, and letting a mob into the lobby is a violation of those procedures. People have the right to protest, but on the sidewalk. You don't have the right to protest inside private property belonging to a bank or a business. You also don't have a right to block access to the business by other customers.

If people want to protest by withdrawing their money, just go in and withdraw it! Or write a letter and withdraw it - you can even open another account and instruct City or BofA to close your account and transfer the remaining money to the new account, or send you a check. Just make sure you have no outstanding checks!

PS: There are federal laws involved, and the feds enforce them. A broad enough campaign of this sort could qualify as extortion, which can involve false electronic statements. Be careful. Enough of this shit and Skinner may be getting heat from the Feds.

I saw brief glimpses of these 'bank run' threads but they never seemed to have much staying power so I never ran through them.

to cease doing business with Citibank is not inciting a "bank run". If so, Senator Durbin would be in jail for it, since he advised people to stop doing business with them if they didn't like the $5 fee.

Let's stop with the hyperbole. Citibank, Bank of America or any other bank isn't guaranteed customers if they have reprehensible practices. If that constitutes a "bank run", we are in massive trouble, since last I checked, this is a free market. Or are you advocating that we stop being a free market and that you are required to continue doing business with certain businesses?

Anyone has the freedom to stop doing business with any bank - and if you think your bank is a bad one, I'd encourage anyone to stop doing business with it! Stating that a particular bank is engaging in unethical practices is entirely justified as well, as long as you aren't making false statements.

Making false statements that banks aren't letting their customers withdraw money COULD be a crime, if it is conducted as an organized campaign.

First, federal law governs the process. Banks have to honor a check on a checking account (as long as the account holds the funds). Banks can (look at your Truth in Savings Disclosure) hold your funds for a certain period of time (seven days) to get the physical money to honor a withdrawal request on a savings account. Banks can charge you an interest penalty on premature withdrawal of a time savings account (a CD). Again, this will be disclosed in your Truth in Savings Disclosure. Laws governing the honoring of checks are in the Uniform Commercial Code.

Banks can't stop you from withdrawing your money except for these limitations.

However, it is true that no bank vault has enough cash to pay every customer if we all walk in at the same time to withdraw our money, not that we could possibly fit in the lobby. There are arrangements to get money to banks to cover such runs, but it's not instantaneous.

Someone appears to be trying to create the impression that some or a few banks won't give their depositors the money back, and that there are runs on banks with crowds of people out in front who want to withdraw their money, and that the police are stopping them from going in to withdraw their money. If it is an organized campaign and it gets far enough, there WILL be a criminal investigation. Get that? It's not "might be" it's "will be".

People who are doing this on DU are screwing with DU. It's a lie, and it's a rotten thing to do to DUers.

It has been in the news. Telling the truth is now a crime and "screwing with people"? You must be kidding.

It's this sort of hyperbole, and encouraging people to "be quiet" for fear that the "feds" might investigate people discussing a simple topic with who to do business with that is "screwing with people", IMHO.

If people were shouting for a "bank run" which means a fear that the bank will run out of money and you won't be able to get yours it would be different. These are people saying "take your money out of these banks who impose ridiculous fees and have draconian policies". That's exercising free choice in a free market - very different than "inciting a bank run". Also, if you will recall, that's what prompted anti-trust laws to begin with, because the banks were "too big to fail without ruining the economy".

Does that situation sound familiar? That's stating history and reality. These kind of things HAVE to be discussed to unsnarl us from the messes we are in.

Yes, a big enough crowd can shut down a bank lobby, but that doesn't mean that banks won't let you withdraw your money. It just means that you can't get into that bank lobby at that time.

And no bank, even one that is begging and advertising for deposits, is going to let hundreds of people into its lobby at one time. It's a horrible security risk for the people and for the bank.

You can believe that banks are refusing to let depositors withdraw money if you want to, but it's not true.

to show up at my door because I said Citibank or Bank of America has awful services and I moved my money somewhere else. Exactly which do you think is a bigger true security risk - people protesting and taking their business elsewhere, or people attempting to intimidate others from making their own decisions and trying to squelch discussion by claiming that you can't say Citibank has terrible customer service without getting arrested for "inciting a bank run"?

I'm just responding to hyperbole with hyperbole, because I really can't think of a better way to put it.

LOL. I would never do business with Citi either. I always thought those SOBs were the lowest of the low. What they did with their consumer division OUGHT to be a crime, and sometimes was.

BofA I have one account with - I just use it for easy access because I have to travel.

Hell, I would encourage anyone to get their money out of a bank whose business practices they don't like. Organize a boycott, spread the message - no problem with any of that.

No, what I am warning about is spreading false rumors through DU that banks are NOT letting people withdraw their money and/or that you will be arrested if you try to do so.

You absolutely can go in and withdraw money/close your account. They won't let you hold a demonstration in the lobby, but no one is being arrested for closing their account. People are being arrested for trying to hold demonstrations in the lobby and refusing to leave when asked to do so. That's an important distinction.

Nobody's going to investigate anyone for demonstrating legally outside (unless it's not a demonstration, but an illegal activity, i.e. trying to block customer access) or for withdrawing money. If a campaign develops that appears organized to falsely convince people that they can't get their money out of banks, there WILL be an investigation.

It's not illegal for any single person to be confused by the lie.

IMO spreading these rumors through DU is a rotten thing to do to DU, but have it your own way. I won't be posting at DU any more. Have the fun you want, but this is adult business, believe me.

Thanks for calling me a child because I rebutted your hyperbole. I think I've responded to you in as grown up of a way as I possibly can when someone is trying to intimidate others from having a conversation in a perfectly legal and adult manner.

Do you refute that you were trying to shut down conversation? Because it certainly seemed that way to me. I called you on your efforts to intimidate, and now you have responded with the typical "I'm not going to post anymore here, I'm taking my ball and going home" kind of way. Then you call ME childish for refuting your points with logic.

Alright-y then.

...of claims that the banks were refusing to allow customers to withdraw their money out of fear of a bank run.

It seems to me the only thing certain banks are doing is not allowing shouting people to put on a show in the lobby of the bank. I don't see it as a business refusing to do business with their customers.

By just going to another institution and getting them to handle the transfer of your funds. I've stated that on numerous occasions. What I took offense at was the insinuation that even discussing leaving BoA or Citi was "inciting a bank run", "bad for DU" and can get the "Feds" after anyone discussing changing the institution they do business with.

Attempting to shut down a conversation with tactics designed to intimidate people into silence is far worse than moving your money, and I'm going to stand up to it where I see it. You aren't the one that started it, but I have no qualms about correcting the idea that discussing ending your business with Citibank or any other business as you see fit is a "bank run" and subject to "heat by the feds". That is a sorry attempt to squelch conversation.

and the poster made a blatantly false assertion. There are no federal laws restricting speech against banks, including speech which might incite a bank run.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

on the tv? Gotcha.

Surely if these federal laws exist, you can tell us specifically where to find and read them.

I know you wouldn't just be making stuff up on the internets to try and stifle honest discussion.

Done and done. They'll also have paperwork on their websites for you to request closure in writing. It really doesn't have to be a messy process.

Open an account somewhere else, and let them do the transfer.

Or are we going to call doing business somewhere else a "bank run", too?

demonstrations or not. Will they arrest people who show up at branches not in the path of demonstrations to close their accounts?

I love my credit union.

As someone that works for a retail bank, there are several reasons why the bank may deny a withdrawal request:

- Available cash on hand; most branches keep a limited amount of cash on hand. The 10% reserve required by banking regulations is kept at a separate central bank for each region, not at individual branches. Once cash on hand runs out, other arrangements for large withdrawals ($10,000 and above generally) will need to be made if you want cash, usually either calling another branch to make arrangements for you to stop by or a cash shipment that will arrive in a day or two. Same day service may be available if the customer is willing to pay the courier fee on large amounts. A cashier's check or wire transfer are safer ways to transfer large sums of money.

- If the employee perceives there may be fraud or elderly abuse, the bank must refuse the transaction. A common scenario that we see on almost a monthly basis is a con man / care giver / relative talks an elderly person that has beginning dementia, Alzheimer's, or another mental condition into withdrawing large sums of money for a reason they are not entirely aware of. We make every attempt to ensure the transaction is legitimate, but if we cannot speak to the elderly alone and confirm they know why they are withdrawing the amount, the bank can refuse the transaction. Once the cash is handed over to the "helper" it's gone. Like hospitals reporting possible abuse, we are required not to process the transaction and to report it.

- If the funds are not available due to a Regulation CC hold. Regulation CC is a Federal regulation the dictates availability of deposits, and when and why holds may be placed on deposited funds. Also, if there is an IRS or a court mandated freeze on the account, the funds will be in the account, but not available for withdrawal.

- If it is unsafe to do so. If he branch manager determines that due to circumstances (a mob of angry people in the lobby for example) it would be unsafe to allow clients to have to walk past / through the group with a large sum of cash, the transaction may be denied, but most managers would offer a cashier's check or wire in place of cash when possible.

These are a few of the reasons why a bank could deny a withdrawal, but in the ordinary course of business, it's a bank's business to allow a customer access to their money. It's what banks do.

Is to just go to another financial institution, open an account, and let them do the transfer.