That's why it's a problem.  That's why people are losing their life savings.

 

We are seeing the first rumblings of a War On Cash by the banks.  They do not like cash.  They can't create it with a few taps on a keyboard like they can create digital money.  When you get a house loan, the check you hand to the previous owner comes from nowhere.  The bank just made it up.  The money was invented when they decided you were willing to make payments.

 

If the bank had to come up with $250,000 cash for you to give to the previous homeowner, that would be a problem.  But if they hand you a check to give to the previous owner, the previous owner will have to deposit the check - in a bank - in the system.  The cost is zero for the banks.  The payments you make for 30 years are pure profit.  It wasn't their house or their money.

 

Money in the bank is not equivalent to cash in the hand.  For now, they interchange at 1:1, but they are not the same.  Put 50k cash in the bank and try to withdraw it and you will run into problems with both the deposit and the withdrawal.

What in the hell are you talking about?

---

What in the hell are you talking about?

 

You, too, huh?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

I could be mistaken, but I believe paperwork is only involved if you deposit more than $10,000.00 at once.

 

 

That's where the SAR comes in. And it applies to deposits and withdrawals.

 

There are a number of different conditions with related dollar amounts that can trigger a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR), but a $10,000+ cash transaction does not automatically do so.  Any cash transaction greater than $10,000 does require the bank to file a Currency Transaction Report (CTR).  If said transaction appears suspicious, the bank is also required to file out a SAR.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

YOUR MONEY ISN'T REALLY YOURS, Part 2


Here's where it gets nasty. Under "Dodd-Frank 2010" at-risk banks will no longer get a bailout from the government. Instead, they will get a "bail-in" from depositors. Instead of covering your losses if your bank fails, the FDIC is now tasked with taking your deposits. Under Dodd-Frank, Title II, Sec. 209 (b):


if claims are made against a firm, they will be paid in this order:
<ul class="bbcol decimal">[*]administrative costs[*]the government[*]wages, salaries, or commissions of employees[*]contributions to employee benefit plans[*]any other general or senior liability of the company[*]any junior obligation[*]salaries of executives and directors of the company; and[*]obligations to shareholders, members, general partners, and other equity holders (that's you
).</ul>
The liquidation during resolution is done at the discretion of the receiver, the FDIC, on the basis of salvaging what is, in its view, most important for financial stability. Under Title II, Sec. 9 E, it is stated that the FDIC, “shall, to the greatest extent practicable, conduct its operations in a manner that–..(iii) mitigates the potential for serious adverse effects to the financial system.”

Isn't that what happened in cypress?

---

I thought this could be a catch-all thread for banking issues.  Most people probably think the banking system is secure and stable.  But there are deep systemic cracks undermining the foundation.

 

Several of these systemic changes came with The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, better known as the "Dodd-Frank" act.  This was a banking reform bill that was supposed to solidify our financial system after the 2008 meltdown. 

 

YOUR MONEY ISN'T REALLY YOURS, Part 1

 

One thing most people don't realize is that once you deposit money in a bank, it no longer belongs to you.  It is legally considered an unsecured loan to the bank, and getting "your" money is at the sole discretion of the bank.  There are various capital controls preventing the withdrawal of cash.  If you try to withdraw $10,000 or more you will have to fill out forms under the Bank Secrecy Act and undergo Homeland Security and IRS scrutiny.  Some banks require the paperwork for a withdrawal as little as $3000, and some will fill out a "suspicious activity report" for withdrawals as little as $2000. 

 

Some of this depends on the casual "interview" you will get from the bank teller.  They will ask what the money is for, and your answer had better be cordial, non-evasive, and plausible.  "I'm going to the big auction in Yulee tomorrow" would likely get a pass, while, "None of yer durned business" would likely result in a Suspicious Activity Report.

 

 

Sigh.....

 

You really dont have to go through this if you go to the same bank and the Branch Manager/ Tellers are familiar with your business/personal transactions. If they dont know you or you make one of these types of transactions once a year you have to fill out the CTR report or the bank risk getting fined.  

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

What in the hell are you talking about?

 

Fractional reserve banking.

---

Isn't that what happened in cypress?

 

Yes.  Cypress was the model for bail-ins. 

---

I don't have time to read the entire wiki link but are you saying that if a business operates with cash only payments, deposits large amounts of cash, and accounts for every dime on their tax return, their bank account can still be seized without the the chance of getting it back after proving no wrong doing?

 

Jeez, at least take 15 seconds to read the first part.

 

Say a company or person makes several deposits in cash just under $10,000.00 in a short period of time.  That can raise suspicion of criminal activity, even if there is no criminal activity.  Any deposit in cash  above $10,000.00 requires paperwork.

 

Here's a couple of paragraphs from the wiki explaining some of this.

 

 


Seizures of funds in a bank account<span style="color:rgb(85,85,85);">[edit]</span>
<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-familyans-serif;">The government can seize money directly from a bank account. One way this happens is when there are large numbers of cash deposits which government investigators suspect are done as a way to avoid deposits which exceed $10,000, since deposits greater than that amount must be reported to the federal government. But it can happen that legitimate businesses have regular large deposits of cash. In one instance, the Internal Revenue Servicewaited for large deposits to be placed into an owner's bank account, and then forced the bank by legal means to surrender it to the agency by means of a secret warrant;^[22] authorities took $135,000 from Michigan restaurant owners, named the Cheung family, who made cash deposits from their Chinese restaurant.^[21] In another instance, a businessman in New Jersey made repeated cash deposits to save for purchasing a house; each payment was below the $10,000 threshold for reporting to the government, but there were 21 deposits over a period of four months, which caused government to suspect that criminal activity was involved; as a result, the IRS seized $157,000 and the businessman was forced to hire an attorney to get his funds returned.^[12] Officials seized $35,000 from the bank account of a grocery store "without any warning or explanation" in 2013.^[21]


Contested seizures<span style="color:rgb(85,85,85);">[edit]</span>
<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-familyans-serif;">After police and authorities have possession of cash or other seized property, there are two ways in which the seized assets become permanently theirs: first, if a prosecutor can prove that seized assets were connected to criminal activity in a courtroom, or second, if nobody tries to claim the seized assets.^[30] What happens in many instances is that the assets revert to police ownership by default. If a victim challenges the seizure, prosecutors sometimes offer to return half of the seized funds as part of a deal in exchange for not suing.^[14] Sometimes police, challenged by lawyers or by victims, volunteer to return all of the money provided that the victim promises not to sue police or prosecutors; according to the <i>Washington Post</i>, many victims sign simply to get some or all of their money back.^[25] Victims often have "long legal struggles to get their money back".^[25] One estimate was that only one percent of federally taken property is ever returned to their former owners.^[31]

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Epic fail of a thread. Lol. It's easier to make an unsubstantiated thread about false flags. But when you try that muck with every day things it exposes the lunacy of this type of world view.


Banks are fraudsters and crooks. Look at what happened with wells Fargo. You don't have to fall down a rabbit hole and have tea with insane YouTubers to find fault with large multinational corporations.

---

Fractional reserve banking is not a conspiracy theory... but ok you're the smart guy here

---

Epic fail of a thread. Lol. It's easier to make an unsubstantiated thread about false flags. But when you try that muck with every day things it exposes the lunacy of this type of world view.


Banks are fraudsters and crooks. Look at what happened with wells Fargo. You don't have to fall down a rabbit hole and have tea with insane YouTubers to find fault with large multinational corporations.

 

The thread was meant to more of a cautionary tale.  Most people think banks are safe and nothing bad can happen to "their" money in the bank.  Many don't realize deposits are the property of the bank, not the depositor.  Many big banks are actually insolvent, many cannot pass the so-called "stress tests" given by the Fed.  None of them have complied with the "Volcker Rule" prohibiting exotic and risky investments, etc.  Did you know if the bank is hacked your deposits are not covered? 

 

I have more to say about the War On Cash and NIRP (negative interest rates), but I hear the dinner bell.

---

Threads like this make a strong case for abolishing the Internet. There are so many bull [BLEEP] websites out there, and so many people who gravitate to them and get misled about the state of things and how the system works.


Did you know that when you put your money in a bank, it's not really there? Did you know that if every depositor asked for their money back at the same time, the bank would probably only come up with 5 cents for every dollar deposited? Wow, you mean my money isn't back in the vault in cash? Wow, you mean to tell me the Federal Reserve System can make money appear and disappear?


This isn't earth shattering stuff. It's how a modern financial system works. If the banking system didn't operate this way, we wouldn't have a financial system, the economy wouldn't function, we'd all be farmers trying to survive on our own crops.


Jesus Christ, some people should just get stop reading the Internet. It's doing more harm than good for them.

---

Banks are fraudsters and crooks. Take a valium, maybe two.
Look at what happened with wells Fargo. You don't have to fall down a rabbit hole and have tea with insane YouTubers to find fault with large multinational corporations. Not all banks are large multinational corporations and not all large multinational corporations are inherently evil.


 

​Without banks, local commerce would be trading a chicken for a gallon of gas in the village square.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Threads like this make a strong case for abolishing the Internet. There are so many bull [BAD WORD REMOVED] websites out there, and so many people who gravitate to them and get misled about the state of things and how the system works.


Did you know that when you put your money in a bank, it's not really there? Did you know that if every depositor asked for their money back at the same time, the bank would probably only come up with 5 cents for every dollar deposited? Wow, you mean my money isn't back in the vault in cash? Wow, you mean to tell me the Federal Reserve System can make money appear and disappear?


This isn't earth shattering stuff. It's how a modern financial system works. If the banking system didn't operate this way, we wouldn't have a financial system, the economy wouldn't function, we'd all be farmers trying to survive on our own crops.


Jesus Christ, some people should just get stop reading the Internet. It's doing more harm than good for them.

 

LOL. I am having a hard time believing some of the stuff in this thread as well. Particularly, the feds seizing a bank account consisting of money solely from large cash deposits that were legally reported as income. I just can't see it.

---

Did you know that when you put your money in a bank, it's not really there? Did you know that if every depositor asked for their money back at the same time, the bank would probably only come up with 5 cents for every dollar deposited? Wow, you mean my money isn't back in the vault in cash? Wow, you mean to tell me the Federal Reserve System can make money appear and disappear?


This isn't earth shattering stuff. It's how a modern financial system works. If the banking system didn't operate this way, we wouldn't have a financial system, the economy wouldn't function, we'd all be farmers trying to survive on our own crops.

 

You are admitting the system is based on fraud, which is exactly my point.  The bigger story is that it's not sustainable.  The banking system wasn't always so predatory, and the economy was a lot more stable. 

 

Now we are at the cusp of negative interest rates, which is economic insanity.  The BORROWER earns interest, not the lender.  This is a signal that what we call "money" is actually worth LESS THAN NOTHING.  The thing is, only banks and governments will "borrow" at negative interest.  It's just a euphemism for theft. 

---

Guys, what we do without the mega banks hoarding trillions? We need that like really badly or else we'd all be counting eggs and chickens and stuff.

---

Banks aren't hoarding trillions, they're insolvent, covered up with accounting tricks which violate GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles).  The Volcker Rule was supposed to make banks divest themselves of derivatives and other risky investments.  No banks have complied, they keep asking for extensions to the Rule.  The latest extension goes to 2026.  The reason they can't sell these investments is, there's no market for them. 

 

Q:  How do you price an investment that has no market? 

A:  Any way you want to.

 

These derivatives were one-time payment scams like credit default swaps.  For instance, JP Morgan charges the Bank of Cypress $5 billion to insure $100 billion against a default.  Then the Bank of Cypress goes belly up.  Does JP Morgan pay the Bank of Cypress $100 Billion?  Nope.  Only a little-known committee of the IMF can declare a default, and they never will.  The $5 billion payment to JP Morgan was pure profit.  The depositors in Cypress get the shaft.

---

LOL. I am having a hard time believing some of the stuff in this thread as well. Particularly, the feds seizing a bank account consisting of money solely from large cash deposits that were legally reported as income. I just can't see it.

 

Example 1

 

Example 2

 

Should I go on, or do you know how to google?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/11/the-irs-seized-107000-from-this-north-carolina-mans-bank-account-now-hes-fighting-to-get-it-back/'>Example 1</a>

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/us/law-lets-irs-seize-accounts-on-suspicion-no-crime-required.html'>Example 2</a>


Should I go on, or do you know how to google?

I bing. So how in the hell is a perfectly legal cash only business supposed to operate? Only deposit more than 10k at a time??

---

Deposits in a bank are guaranteed by the government over here. Is that not the case there?


Up to 250k I think.

---