14
2
I find it really strange that it happens that so many Bitcoin exchanges have their bank accounts closed.
Outside of the Bitcoin world, I find it very unusual to have a bank account closed, for a reason other then inactivity. The only case I remember is Julian Assange's Swiss Postfinance.ch account closed.
Maybe its a specific practice of banks in certain countries?
Many banks that I had been dealing with, seemed to have the attitude that everyone with a passport (for individuals) or company papers (for companies) can just open an account, no matter what is his business, if he is trading spaghetti, sand on the beach, air or voucher codes is none of banks business, they only worry is that the person who opens the account is really the one who he says he is. The bank doesn't have to understand your business, their business is to verify ID and do maths. The rest is the customers business and responsibility. Of course the bank has to report transactions over a certain threshold and/or suspicious to a certain government agency, but closing accounts?
Maybe its the matter of attitude, common practices, banking culture being different in those countries that the banks closing the accounts where established? The Bitcoin exchanges accounts closed where mostly in "old" western EU (UK, France), and the much more relaxed "no bullshit" attitudes of banks I have encountered is mostly from Central/Eastern EU banks ("new" EU countries).
Is it common for western EU banks to be so picky about customers, and closing accounts despite meeting formal ID requirements of the companies?
The sometimes mentioned claim that it might be illegal to "hold other people's money if you are not licensed to do it" is not very plausible, as any business "holds other people's money" for some time, and they are even ones which sell "numbers which hold a value" for money - prepaid vouchers for mobile phone recharges for example. That voucher is usually a 16-digit long number that holds some value - if that is fine, then Bitcoin must be no different - both are basically selling numbers which hold monetary value.
If you haven't heard of accounts being closed for various reasons, you haven't talked to very many people . It can be for overdrafting, keeping a low balance, being untruthful on some form or even something completely out of your control, such as depositing a check that bounced. Usually when they close an account, they won't let you open a new one either and this can also affect your ability to open accounts at other banks. There is also little legal recourse if it happens to you. – RentFree – 2013-05-30T04:34:49.803
1
Have you got some references? All I can find is: http://bitclockers.com/forums/index.php?topic=394.0
– Highly Irregular – 2011-11-09T23:38:56.3731Not exactly a bank, but PayPal is also refusing to work with Bitcoin sites. – Thilo – 2011-11-10T00:18:38.070
3Bitcoin Solutions LLC has gone through 3 banks. One bank employee was honest about the situation (Risk related to bitcoins) the others simply chose to not state a reason. All three pointed to a section of their terms stating they can close an account for "any reason" and refused to disclose. – Justin Weeks – 2011-11-26T23:08:21.013
1The bank doesn't have to understand your business, their business is to verify ID and do maths. ... this might be true in the rest of the world, but it is definitely NOT true in the USA. There are, unfortunately, laws here called "know your customer" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer) that force banks to do a lot of law-enforcement type stuff. – eldentyrell – 2011-12-09T06:29:02.503
1Thilo, Paypal is about as far from a bank as you can get. If they actually were a bank they couldn't do half of the evil stuff they get away with. Definitely not a bank. More like a gigantic grandfathered loophole in the VISA/Mastercard merchant agreement. – eldentyrell – 2011-12-09T06:30:24.823
It's a great way for the government to get around due process. A law like "it shall be unlawful for anyone suspected of being a terrorist to buy food" wouldn't pass muster, but if they just say "places that sell food must ensure they don't sell food to terrorists" you get the same effect. And you don't have to investigate, charge people with a crime, or give them any process at all. The restaurant or grocery store just says, "sorry we don't want to do business with you". We get to punish people for being merely suspected. (Except we do this with banking, not food.) http://ow.ly/QiKx30cBIgk
– David Schwartz – 2017-06-15T07:29:32.870