Well I can't see this ending well. It's either more invasive KYC or it's a push towards debanking people out of favor with the government again.
It’s probably both of what you’re worried about.
Notably, it’s likely a reaction to the original ‘no gun stores, no porn, etc’ rules which banks have defacto had for awhile.
Endless waste of time, red tape, administratrivia...
All for exactly nothing.
Having a social security or other tax-related ID has sufficed for banks so far, which doesn't guarantee the holder is a citizen but does demonstrate enough relevant "status" with the government for banking to probably go smoothly.
Digging ourselves deeper into our already awful decentralized partially-privatized (the CRAs, mostly) identification system by expanding the set of things we have to prove in even more circumstances is not a good thing.
[0] - https://huggingface.co/datasets/open-index/hacker-news
Any policy that suddenly pulls the rug on them is notable precisely because we created the problem (or not-a-problem, depending on your leanings) in the first place.
[0] - https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/country-insights#/ranks
[1] - https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?most_rec...
That stuff most certainly exists. It's just not for cog #897345673847456 to use in an above the table on the record capacity as part of their run of the mill daily job duties.
You could probably look up a name and birth date and establish if a citizen exists with that information, I guess. You could check social security (which I'm not sure definitively indicates status) and see the same for that. But it's a very messy system in general.
My name is actually different in a few government databases - in one I have two middle names, in the other two last names. Just random clerical stuff like that is common.
(yes, checking against name / DOB / ssn always has some inherent messiness to it)
The live update would add an extra element of terror to the system, of course.
https://www.businessinsider.com/banks-requirement-citizenshi...
An interesting quote:
> Dissuading people from banking was "one of the more predictable outcomes," Braunegg said, adding that could include people ... and dual citizens who are "wary of cross-border reporting."
Just one example: Foreign banks must report all financial activities of Americans to the US. An American official wad asked in an interview if the US would then report financial activities of non-Americans to their home tax authorities. The answer was "lol, no, that would be too much effort".
I am having a moment of Schadenfreude...
"Forced"?
You're _way_ everestimating US influence.
Most countries not just "collect citizenship data", they require you to have a valid non-expired ID, valid non-expired residential registration, a fresh digital photo, verified phone number and a valid tax number. All of that without any US interference.
bix6•42m ago
pjc50•39m ago
gib444•39m ago
bix6•3m ago
> But that doesn’t satisfy Bessent. “Why can unknown foreign nationals come and open a bank account?”
To do business obviously. Are you seriously telling me the government, armed with Palantir, can’t already flag money laundering? Why is an “unknown” in the country in the first place given this admin’s extremely hostile view towards immigrants?
busterarm•35m ago
It's estimated that between $250 billion and 500 billion is laundered through US banks every year, though some portion of that is via correspondent banking and not just individual account money muleing.
And this just collects that information. It doesn't actually stop people from opening these accounts or shut them down.
giantrobot•28m ago
hrimfaxi•20m ago
bonsai_spool•22m ago
The money laundering is not happening through consumer deposit accounts (I've never heard your term money mueling and it's almost definitely not people moving $10,000 at a time if that's what you are suggesting).
It is wanton disingenuity to think that the goal of this rule is prevention of money laundering.
busterarm•14m ago
And absolutely it happens, particularly with networks of accounts connected to China. Just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. FinCEN has been publicly chasing this down for years. Although hawala networks are also a big source of that not mainly personal banking.
Also you're missing the forest for the trees here. Money laundering will most often happen through business bank accounts but a large number of business account holders also have personal accounts at the same bank and link them out of convenience.
bix6•6m ago
busterarm•2m ago
giantrobot•32m ago
cucumber3732842•27m ago
The groundwork for this crap was laid in the 1870s when they were going after the klan, then the 1920s bootleggers, then the 1940s-50s mobsters, 1980s drug traffickers, 2000s terrorists, etc, etc. Every step of the way people cheered.
gadders•25m ago
throwawaypath•12m ago
Or an easy out group like the Freedom Convoy protest truckers.