From a Bank's Prospective:
Working in banking currently as an Underwriter for the largest bank in the United States (3rd in the world) who evalutes risk to a bank, and previously as an Assistant Branch Manager who delt with this type of situation on a daily basis, hopefully I can shed some more light on this subject...
The main reason for the increased security measures is risk of loss to the bank and ONLY the bank. The bank will obtain any possible information about a person posing a possible loss to the bank it legally can without putting a tracking device in your skull. The reason for obtaining the information is so when a check or other negotiable item is processed through the bank and returned unpaid for any reason, the bank will exhaust all of it's resources to obtain any sort of retribution from the individual passing the item including prosecution in a court of law. Let's face it, if you're passing bad checks, you probably don't have much of anything of value the bank can take from you.... that's why you passed a bad check, duh!
Over the past 2 years criminals have caught on to the way banks process checks through the Federal Reserve and have found ways to take advantage of it for their criminal gain. A common scam that goes on to this day, mainly targeted at low-income, minimully educated house holds is to mail an envelope containing a check for $10,000 - $50,000 in value (and trust me these checks look good i've seen plenty of them) with a letter of Congratulations inside stating they won a portion of an overseas lottery totaling the amount anywhere from $200,000 - $1 million USD and this check has been sent to you to cover the fees associated with receiving the pay-out (these slime-balls spend good time making these letters, they look very legite) There are explicit instructions on the letter that tell the individual to call a phone number and verify their winnings, when they call obviously it is a person giving them false information & instructions on the other line, these instructions include: TAKE THE CHECK YOU HAVE AND DEPOSIT IT IN YOUR BANK, ONCE THE FUNDS ARE MADE AVAILABLE WITHDRAWAL X AMOUNT OF MONEY AND WIRE TRANSFER IT TO THIS INFORMATION, AT THAT TIME YOUR GRAND PRIZE WILL BE RELEASED. So the people that follow these instructions deposit the check and wait for the following day for the funds to be made available since it is most banks policy to make funds from a check available the next business day (reg CC of the federal government - funds availabilty).
So here is what happens when that check gets deposited, usually the check is drafted off a legit routing number with a bogus account number. The bank receives the check on day 1, day 2 the funds are made available to the customer for withdrawal and the receiving bank sends the check to the federal reserve to be routed to the paying bank and the customer withdrawals X amount of money from the previous day deposit and wire transfers cash to the instructions provided in the winning lottery letter (Receiver of wire transfer gets cash free and clear, no risk, wire transfer is as good as cash). Day 3, Federal Reserve routs check to paying bank, Day 4, paying bank receives check, matches it to a non-legit account number and sends the check back to the federal reserve marked "account does not exist" Day 5, Federal Reserve routes bad check back to depositing bank, bank receieves it and charges amount not received to customers account. So now the customer is out the entire amount of the amount deposited, which includes the amount withdrawn and wired over seas. Depending on the amount, the bank takes proper action to collect loss taken which I personally have seen go as far as placing a lien on the person's home in the amount of the bank's loss, up to $11,000. Yes the banks can do this, customers are responsible for all items deposited into their accounts.
Citizens Financial Group (5th largest bank in the country) reported losses exceeding $8 million in 2005 from the passing of bad/fraudulent checks.
(It's a nice tax write-off i'm sure)
As for the Patriot Act:
The Patriot Act (Established Oct 24, 2001) has nothing to do with the regulations of how banks or consumers negotiate a monetary instrument.
The Patriot Act's main purpose for being put into place was to stop the funding of terrorism and prevent money laundering.
What the Patriot Act means to a bank:
- A financial institution must obatin VERIFY, and keep on file for 5 years the following information about a customer before issuing financial services to that indiviual:
1. Person's legal name
2. Person's Date of Birth
3. Person's Social Security Number
4. Person's Physical Street Address
Bottom line is banks do not lose money, it is why they rule the world.
Hope this helped!
Working in banking currently as an Underwriter for the largest bank in the United States (3rd in the world) who evalutes risk to a bank, and previously as an Assistant Branch Manager who delt with this type of situation on a daily basis, hopefully I can shed some more light on this subject...
The main reason for the increased security measures is risk of loss to the bank and ONLY the bank. The bank will obtain any possible information about a person posing a possible loss to the bank it legally can without putting a tracking device in your skull. The reason for obtaining the information is so when a check or other negotiable item is processed through the bank and returned unpaid for any reason, the bank will exhaust all of it's resources to obtain any sort of retribution from the individual passing the item including prosecution in a court of law. Let's face it, if you're passing bad checks, you probably don't have much of anything of value the bank can take from you.... that's why you passed a bad check, duh!
Over the past 2 years criminals have caught on to the way banks process checks through the Federal Reserve and have found ways to take advantage of it for their criminal gain. A common scam that goes on to this day, mainly targeted at low-income, minimully educated house holds is to mail an envelope containing a check for $10,000 - $50,000 in value (and trust me these checks look good i've seen plenty of them) with a letter of Congratulations inside stating they won a portion of an overseas lottery totaling the amount anywhere from $200,000 - $1 million USD and this check has been sent to you to cover the fees associated with receiving the pay-out (these slime-balls spend good time making these letters, they look very legite) There are explicit instructions on the letter that tell the individual to call a phone number and verify their winnings, when they call obviously it is a person giving them false information & instructions on the other line, these instructions include: TAKE THE CHECK YOU HAVE AND DEPOSIT IT IN YOUR BANK, ONCE THE FUNDS ARE MADE AVAILABLE WITHDRAWAL X AMOUNT OF MONEY AND WIRE TRANSFER IT TO THIS INFORMATION, AT THAT TIME YOUR GRAND PRIZE WILL BE RELEASED. So the people that follow these instructions deposit the check and wait for the following day for the funds to be made available since it is most banks policy to make funds from a check available the next business day (reg CC of the federal government - funds availabilty).
So here is what happens when that check gets deposited, usually the check is drafted off a legit routing number with a bogus account number. The bank receives the check on day 1, day 2 the funds are made available to the customer for withdrawal and the receiving bank sends the check to the federal reserve to be routed to the paying bank and the customer withdrawals X amount of money from the previous day deposit and wire transfers cash to the instructions provided in the winning lottery letter (Receiver of wire transfer gets cash free and clear, no risk, wire transfer is as good as cash). Day 3, Federal Reserve routs check to paying bank, Day 4, paying bank receives check, matches it to a non-legit account number and sends the check back to the federal reserve marked "account does not exist" Day 5, Federal Reserve routes bad check back to depositing bank, bank receieves it and charges amount not received to customers account. So now the customer is out the entire amount of the amount deposited, which includes the amount withdrawn and wired over seas. Depending on the amount, the bank takes proper action to collect loss taken which I personally have seen go as far as placing a lien on the person's home in the amount of the bank's loss, up to $11,000. Yes the banks can do this, customers are responsible for all items deposited into their accounts.
Citizens Financial Group (5th largest bank in the country) reported losses exceeding $8 million in 2005 from the passing of bad/fraudulent checks.
(It's a nice tax write-off i'm sure)
As for the Patriot Act:
The Patriot Act (Established Oct 24, 2001) has nothing to do with the regulations of how banks or consumers negotiate a monetary instrument.
The Patriot Act's main purpose for being put into place was to stop the funding of terrorism and prevent money laundering.
What the Patriot Act means to a bank:
- A financial institution must obatin VERIFY, and keep on file for 5 years the following information about a customer before issuing financial services to that indiviual:
1. Person's legal name
2. Person's Date of Birth
3. Person's Social Security Number
4. Person's Physical Street Address
Bottom line is banks do not lose money, it is why they rule the world.
Hope this helped!
BOA_Underwriter said:
Yes, but an issuing bank honoring its checks is not providing "financial services", nor is it establishing a "customer" relationship.
The bank cannot legally require a social security number or address to cash its own check.
Does the U.S. Patriot Act ban foreign tourists and anyone else on a non-immigrant visa from cashing a check in the U.S.? No, it does not.
Documentation requirements posted were bullshit, and you know they are.
Adam Selene said:
Adam, you are correct, the bank can not legally require a social security number or address to negotiate a monetary instrument, however it is as the banks discretion whether or not they want to conduct business with an individual. A bank can choose not to negotiate a check even if it is their own if they see fit, for the protection of its own customers(however that isn't alwasy good business for the bank so that tends to happen only in extreme cases).
Again, the Patriot Act has no relevancey to how a bank or a consumer negotiates a monetary instrument with no regard to race, color or residency status. The guidlines to negotiate monetary items are made by the bank.
Negotiating a monetary instrument (cashing a check) IS considered a financial service. By taking one form of payment and converting it into another is a service done to an individual financially.
My apologies, in my first post on the previous page, "The Patriot Act requires Financial Institutions to obtain and VERIFY the following information before issuing financial services" is too vague, I ment to say, instead of financial servies, is before opening a new account (deposit or credit)
Sorry for the mistake!
Sorry for the mistake!
Does the IRS have any use for this information?
For example, let's say I cash every check I get from the issuing bank and get cash for it instead of putting the money into an account. If you get audited, can they trace these checks back to you as income, just like they would if they looked at your bank records?
I would never advocate trying to get out of paying income taxes because the IRS WILL win, but I just don't like a bank (or anyone who has access to the information at a bank) to know every purchase or transaction I make. So it's more of a financial privacy issue to me.
I know people that work at large banks and you wouldn't believe the type of information they can get on any customer of that bank.
I guess I could see some extreme harrassment in an audit by the IRS if someone was doing this because they are not "conforming" to conventional banking methods.
For example, let's say I cash every check I get from the issuing bank and get cash for it instead of putting the money into an account. If you get audited, can they trace these checks back to you as income, just like they would if they looked at your bank records?
I would never advocate trying to get out of paying income taxes because the IRS WILL win, but I just don't like a bank (or anyone who has access to the information at a bank) to know every purchase or transaction I make. So it's more of a financial privacy issue to me.
I know people that work at large banks and you wouldn't believe the type of information they can get on any customer of that bank.
I guess I could see some extreme harrassment in an audit by the IRS if someone was doing this because they are not "conforming" to conventional banking methods.
BOA_Underwriter said:
Mr. Johnson,
I can absolutely understand and respect your concerns in dealing with conventional banking methods. I agree, the IRS will win 100% of the time!
Keep in mind, banks do not work for the IRS, nor do they want to extend extra resources for benefit of the IRS, this would cost banks time and money. For example: the purpose of my job is to take completed loan applications and utilize many different sources of information to determine if the applicant can 1. Afford the loan they are requesting 2. Pay the loan back; and 3. How much of a loan to approve an applicant for
In my job almost on a daily basis people do not reveal all of their income on applications thinking we will disclose this information to the IRS. Common sense comes in though when the customer lists $50,000 of annual income but somehow is making the payments on a $800,000 mortgage and $50,000 BMW.... doesn't make sense. If banks did report income to the IRS, banks would not have many loan customers and the black market for preditory lending and "mafia lending" would be out of control.
Banks are required by law to report 3 main details to the IRS:
- CASH transactions entering or leaving a bank in the amount of $10,000.01 or greater due to the BSA (Bank Secrecy Act) established by Congress to prevent banks and other financial service providers from being used as intermediaries for, or to hide the transfer or deposit of money derived from criminal activity.
- The amount of total interest a customer is paid by the bank through out the tax year if over $10.00. Interest paid on savings, checking and certificate of deposit accounts is considered taxable income.
- The amount of interest paid by a customer on certain tax deductible loans (Mortgages). This amount is considered tax deductible for the consumer.
If the government did not require banks to take these measures, they probably would not. These types of regulations require banks to staff employees and use office space to provide the government with this information which translates to money out of the banks' pockets.
The bottom line is if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about! Hope this helped!
I can absolutely understand and respect your concerns in dealing with conventional banking methods. I agree, the IRS will win 100% of the time!
Keep in mind, banks do not work for the IRS, nor do they want to extend extra resources for benefit of the IRS, this would cost banks time and money. For example: the purpose of my job is to take completed loan applications and utilize many different sources of information to determine if the applicant can 1. Afford the loan they are requesting 2. Pay the loan back; and 3. How much of a loan to approve an applicant for
In my job almost on a daily basis people do not reveal all of their income on applications thinking we will disclose this information to the IRS. Common sense comes in though when the customer lists $50,000 of annual income but somehow is making the payments on a $800,000 mortgage and $50,000 BMW.... doesn't make sense. If banks did report income to the IRS, banks would not have many loan customers and the black market for preditory lending and "mafia lending" would be out of control.
Banks are required by law to report 3 main details to the IRS:
- CASH transactions entering or leaving a bank in the amount of $10,000.01 or greater due to the BSA (Bank Secrecy Act) established by Congress to prevent banks and other financial service providers from being used as intermediaries for, or to hide the transfer or deposit of money derived from criminal activity.
- The amount of total interest a customer is paid by the bank through out the tax year if over $10.00. Interest paid on savings, checking and certificate of deposit accounts is considered taxable income.
- The amount of interest paid by a customer on certain tax deductible loans (Mortgages). This amount is considered tax deductible for the consumer.
If the government did not require banks to take these measures, they probably would not. These types of regulations require banks to staff employees and use office space to provide the government with this information which translates to money out of the banks' pockets.
The bottom line is if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about! Hope this helped!
I don't think the banks asking for that information is a big deal. If I am running a bank, I am not going to be in the business of getting stiffed etc. You don't like my rules, go somewhere else. Last week, I was in the bank and a guy wanted to take out $10,000 cash. The bank said they could not give him it all at once and for a transaction like that would need one week notice. The most they could give him was $4000. The guy started screaming in the bank, at the teller etc, told everyone he was a "businessman". They said he could go to another branch and get 3 or 4K more from them too and then the rest on Saturday. He threatened to close his account and go somewhere else and they said that was fine and said they could do that if he wanted as well.
Bottom line, the bank makes the rules and if you don't like it, tough.
Bottom line, the bank makes the rules and if you don't like it, tough.
You think a bank telling you what you can or cannot do with YOUR MONEY is o.k.? If that guy wanted to take out his full account balance of say $30,000, he should be able to with no questions asked as long as he can provide ID etc. You are a customer of the bank, and they do not own or control your money, they are holding it for you, and you are really doing them a favor by keeping your money there. To get treated like this is a bunch of B.S. IMO, and really why I keep as little money in the bank as possible.
Banks are pretty close to legalized loan sharks. They practice fractional reserve banking, and can loan out 10x the amount of money they actually have. If I tried doing this, I'd be in jail.
Banks are pretty close to legalized loan sharks. They practice fractional reserve banking, and can loan out 10x the amount of money they actually have. If I tried doing this, I'd be in jail.
Gorella said:
VERY interesting BOA on that scam, Just the other day my sons girlfriend (who is living with us) received one of those checks for about 2800.00 to cover the expense and processing of a lottery of about 100,000 that she would receive. It stated very clearly that the 2800.00 was to be use ONLY for the processing of her winnings. The check looks very legitamite. She told me also of friend of hers also received one of these and try to cash and the bank called the police????? Lately I have been getting e-mails notification that I have won a London lottery. Its a scumy world we live in but heyour own US government is just as BAD.
Are you really being serious?
It is not that the bank doesn't want you to have your money, but the fact that you will affect its operations for everyone else in the area. Think about it, not every bank in town is going to have 100K sitting in the vault. By taking out a large sum like that you screw up the rest of the banking operations. They are more than happy to give you the money if you give them notice. With everything going on right now, the bank is going to report that 30K left your account in cash anyway, so what is the point of not just paying $7 for a cashiers check? I agree with you, they don't hassle you when you are depositing the money but when you want to take it out, you have to jump through some hoops. The bank is doing a favor for you by keeping you money safe and insuring it under FDIC. Homeowner's insurance or Vito isn't going to to that. You could always just put all your money in a safe deposit box at the bank too.
Maybe the BOA guy can comment on this too.
It is not that the bank doesn't want you to have your money, but the fact that you will affect its operations for everyone else in the area. Think about it, not every bank in town is going to have 100K sitting in the vault. By taking out a large sum like that you screw up the rest of the banking operations. They are more than happy to give you the money if you give them notice. With everything going on right now, the bank is going to report that 30K left your account in cash anyway, so what is the point of not just paying $7 for a cashiers check? I agree with you, they don't hassle you when you are depositing the money but when you want to take it out, you have to jump through some hoops. The bank is doing a favor for you by keeping you money safe and insuring it under FDIC. Homeowner's insurance or Vito isn't going to to that. You could always just put all your money in a safe deposit box at the bank too.
Maybe the BOA guy can comment on this too.
Good conversation on this thread, glad to be a part of it...
stef: Sorry to hear someone attemted to get you to fall for the scam and especially when the bank called the police. That is a common occurence though when these fraudulent checks try to be passed at a bank and unfortunetly the bank does not know if the person presenting the item is behind the scam or not and has to take every step to not only protect the bank and it's customers, but also assist in fighting crime. That scam seems to be the most popular to date, I could write you a book of other scams people try, some of them so stupid it would make you laugh, I know I did!
Mr. Johson: I totally understand where you are coming from and I agree with you it is not right for a bank to hold your money from you. Working in a branch for years and experienceing this situation numerous times, hopefully I can try to explain the method behind the madness. A bank really has no interest in keeping $30,000 or even $100,000 in cash from a customer, I mean, it sounds bad but, most banks we deal with are billion, even trillion dollar banks, even the smaller banks. Do you think your measley $30,000 - $100,000 is really going to make tht bank go out of business? Absolutely not! Withdrawaling $30,000 in cash is simply NOT a normal transaction and the suspision of a fraudulent withdrawal (meaning not the true account owner) is trying to perform this transaction. Banks can keep as much money in their vaults at one time as they would like, however for risk purposes, depending on the area, market and traffic you have, most branches will hold no more than $100,000 - $200,000 in cash in different denominations (the bulk being 20's). Keep in mind that amount goes up and down by $10,000 an hour, again, depending on area, market and traffic. There is nothing more embaressing for a bank then to have to tell it's customers "Sorry, we're out of money" It's like going to a restaurant and the waiter telling you "I'm sorry we don't have any food to serve you tonight!" Chances are, you won't be going back to that restaurant anymore (at least I wouldn't!!). So the number one reason is the availability of the cash for withdrawal. The second reason, which is most important to the teller performing the transaction. Is that if the teller does not follow proper procedure and/or performs the transaction and it turns out to be fraudulent, the teller will automatically lose their job and further, be investigated for being involved as an accomplice in the fraudulent transaction, which may subject him/her to legal hearings. The third reason is liability to the bank. Say when Mr. Customer makes his $30,000 withdrawal and Jon Doe at the teller window next to him sees the amount of cash he is putting in his pocket, then decides to follow Mr. Customer outside, bop him in the head and take all of his money, the bank is liable for what happens on their property. In turn, Mr. Customer can sue the bank for damages from being bopped in the head by Jon Doe and sue the bank for damages, including the amount of finacial loss accrued. This was a common scam years ago and still is attempted today. Bottome line, the bank has no problem giving you as much cash as you want as long as you give them notice. Almost everyone, mainly business people, who do request large amount of cash to be withdrawn, already know these measures and take steps to avoid both parties being inconvenienced. Alot of times when you see the angry person screaming at the teller, it is because they have been caught doing something possibly illegal.
I agree with you Mr. Johnson, you are doing the bank a favor by having your account with them, that's how they make money. Wether it be from fees they charge you on the account or if you have alot of money in the bank, the bank is investing the money you have and your money is earning the bank interest. That is why they want you to open accounts with them! Banks make money in 2 main ways 1. Fee income 2. Interest income (there is a whole other thread we could start on how banks make money, i'll keep it simple!)
I think calling banks leagalized loan sharks is a bit extreme, but I can't argue with it. Billions of people around the world have loans out from banks right now, so they must be doing something right! The government controls how high they can set their interest rates, who, what and how they can loan money also. The government, you may not know, is highly involved in the operations of banks. The reason for this is FDIC ... if a bank fails, each depositer is insured up to $100,000 correct? Who do you think pays that to the customer? The government does, not a bank!!! So the government does not like to see banks fail!
Gorella: Thanks for the input, I can tell you are the type of customer the bank enjoys waiting on. As apposed to the customer screaming and making a scene in the lobby simply because the bank employees are simply doing their job. TRUST ME, if it was up to the employess, they would just give everyone the money they want with no hassle, if it didn't mean they would lose their job, you can't beleive they actually enjoyed being screamed at all the time! Which is pretty much the main reason I got out of working in a branch, directly with the public.
The best piece of advise I can give is KNOW YOUR BANKERS! When you go into the same bank, and see the same teller(s) week in and week out, you begin to develop a relationship with those people. They begin to know your face, know your name and understand your banking habbits. When they see you coming in every Monday at 11:30 am, withdrawling $20,000 in cash and they haven't lost their job, after a while, my tellers made it a priority to have $20,000 in cash already waiting for the customer before they even came into the bank. This way they don't question you when you make transactions on your accounts, most will not even ask for ID because that relationship has been built! Not only does it help you when you're in the bank, it helps you more when you're NOT in the bank! When you have that relationship with the tellers, say someone steals your checks and decides to write themselves out a nice check to themselves and bring it into your bank, the teller(s) you have built that relationship with will look at that check and say "Hmmm, this does not seem like something Mr. Johnson would do, this doesn't even look like his signature" and stop the fraudulent transaction there and prevent Mr. Johnson from any loss of money. Or the alternative, the teller sees the check and says "Oh boy, this is that guy's account who yelled at me and bit my head off the other day, I better cash this check with no question or he will come in here and cause another scene" .. which would you rather have happen?
stef: Sorry to hear someone attemted to get you to fall for the scam and especially when the bank called the police. That is a common occurence though when these fraudulent checks try to be passed at a bank and unfortunetly the bank does not know if the person presenting the item is behind the scam or not and has to take every step to not only protect the bank and it's customers, but also assist in fighting crime. That scam seems to be the most popular to date, I could write you a book of other scams people try, some of them so stupid it would make you laugh, I know I did!
Mr. Johson: I totally understand where you are coming from and I agree with you it is not right for a bank to hold your money from you. Working in a branch for years and experienceing this situation numerous times, hopefully I can try to explain the method behind the madness. A bank really has no interest in keeping $30,000 or even $100,000 in cash from a customer, I mean, it sounds bad but, most banks we deal with are billion, even trillion dollar banks, even the smaller banks. Do you think your measley $30,000 - $100,000 is really going to make tht bank go out of business? Absolutely not! Withdrawaling $30,000 in cash is simply NOT a normal transaction and the suspision of a fraudulent withdrawal (meaning not the true account owner) is trying to perform this transaction. Banks can keep as much money in their vaults at one time as they would like, however for risk purposes, depending on the area, market and traffic you have, most branches will hold no more than $100,000 - $200,000 in cash in different denominations (the bulk being 20's). Keep in mind that amount goes up and down by $10,000 an hour, again, depending on area, market and traffic. There is nothing more embaressing for a bank then to have to tell it's customers "Sorry, we're out of money" It's like going to a restaurant and the waiter telling you "I'm sorry we don't have any food to serve you tonight!" Chances are, you won't be going back to that restaurant anymore (at least I wouldn't!!). So the number one reason is the availability of the cash for withdrawal. The second reason, which is most important to the teller performing the transaction. Is that if the teller does not follow proper procedure and/or performs the transaction and it turns out to be fraudulent, the teller will automatically lose their job and further, be investigated for being involved as an accomplice in the fraudulent transaction, which may subject him/her to legal hearings. The third reason is liability to the bank. Say when Mr. Customer makes his $30,000 withdrawal and Jon Doe at the teller window next to him sees the amount of cash he is putting in his pocket, then decides to follow Mr. Customer outside, bop him in the head and take all of his money, the bank is liable for what happens on their property. In turn, Mr. Customer can sue the bank for damages from being bopped in the head by Jon Doe and sue the bank for damages, including the amount of finacial loss accrued. This was a common scam years ago and still is attempted today. Bottome line, the bank has no problem giving you as much cash as you want as long as you give them notice. Almost everyone, mainly business people, who do request large amount of cash to be withdrawn, already know these measures and take steps to avoid both parties being inconvenienced. Alot of times when you see the angry person screaming at the teller, it is because they have been caught doing something possibly illegal.
I agree with you Mr. Johnson, you are doing the bank a favor by having your account with them, that's how they make money. Wether it be from fees they charge you on the account or if you have alot of money in the bank, the bank is investing the money you have and your money is earning the bank interest. That is why they want you to open accounts with them! Banks make money in 2 main ways 1. Fee income 2. Interest income (there is a whole other thread we could start on how banks make money, i'll keep it simple!)
I think calling banks leagalized loan sharks is a bit extreme, but I can't argue with it. Billions of people around the world have loans out from banks right now, so they must be doing something right! The government controls how high they can set their interest rates, who, what and how they can loan money also. The government, you may not know, is highly involved in the operations of banks. The reason for this is FDIC ... if a bank fails, each depositer is insured up to $100,000 correct? Who do you think pays that to the customer? The government does, not a bank!!! So the government does not like to see banks fail!
Gorella: Thanks for the input, I can tell you are the type of customer the bank enjoys waiting on. As apposed to the customer screaming and making a scene in the lobby simply because the bank employees are simply doing their job. TRUST ME, if it was up to the employess, they would just give everyone the money they want with no hassle, if it didn't mean they would lose their job, you can't beleive they actually enjoyed being screamed at all the time! Which is pretty much the main reason I got out of working in a branch, directly with the public.
The best piece of advise I can give is KNOW YOUR BANKERS! When you go into the same bank, and see the same teller(s) week in and week out, you begin to develop a relationship with those people. They begin to know your face, know your name and understand your banking habbits. When they see you coming in every Monday at 11:30 am, withdrawling $20,000 in cash and they haven't lost their job, after a while, my tellers made it a priority to have $20,000 in cash already waiting for the customer before they even came into the bank. This way they don't question you when you make transactions on your accounts, most will not even ask for ID because that relationship has been built! Not only does it help you when you're in the bank, it helps you more when you're NOT in the bank! When you have that relationship with the tellers, say someone steals your checks and decides to write themselves out a nice check to themselves and bring it into your bank, the teller(s) you have built that relationship with will look at that check and say "Hmmm, this does not seem like something Mr. Johnson would do, this doesn't even look like his signature" and stop the fraudulent transaction there and prevent Mr. Johnson from any loss of money. Or the alternative, the teller sees the check and says "Oh boy, this is that guy's account who yelled at me and bit my head off the other day, I better cash this check with no question or he will come in here and cause another scene" .. which would you rather have happen?
I don't know how we went from the situation Gorella was describing, a withdrawal of $10,000 ,(to $100,000) but $10,000 seems like a meager amount of cash for a bank to be able to provide. As long as the necessary paper work if required, is completed, what's the big deal? If they don't have $10,000 on hand for withdrawals, I would suggest doing business with an alternate bank.
