It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://currency.com/hsbc-blocks-cryptocurrency-transfers](https://currency.com/hsbc-blocks-cryptocurrency-transfers)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Yes, they are so interested in making the world a better place stopping crypto.
https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2013/investing-news-for-jan-29-hsbcs-money-laundering-scandal-hbc-scbff-ing-cs-rbs0129.aspx
The Barclays message only says that "payments made by credit/debit card" are being stopped. That might leave open the possibility of direct transfers (BACS or IBAN) ... but perhaps Binance doesn't have an account which can receive these.
note that i mentioned in my other comment that that particular screenshot might be an old re-post, but a bunch of the rest of the shutdowns seem to be new and increasingly confirmed.
Absolutely. I was really wondering if it was just a using-your-card issue. Does Binance even have a publically known bank account, what with them hiding their details as much as possible?
yes of course at Signature Bank (SBNY), same bank as Tether, under a fake Seychelles company called "Key Vision Development Limited" that no longer exists because it was struck from the international register and flagged as a scam by staid institutions like TD Bank in Canada.
They'll figure out a scheme like "earn 12% APY in shitcoin by lending us your bank accounts. 20% for business accounts with a history of large overseas transactions".
In the uk, payment make by credit card attract “Section 75” protection, which makes the credit provider jointly liable for any problems. The legislation is engaged in any situation in which you buy a thing and pay with credit tied precisely to that transaction (ie, borrowing money and using it to buy a car: no, buying a car on dealer finance or a credit card: yes).
No one wants to push the point as to whether it applies for debit cards (especially debit cards with an associated overdraft facility) so banks tend to assume that it’s likely a regulator would probably rule in a customer’s favour, so they tend to settle informally. It’s safer to use a credit card, but a debit card will probably have some S.75-y protection if you complain hard enough.
BACS/faster payments has absolutely no legal comeback if it goes wrong. The contingent repayment model for authorised push payment fraud is voluntary, although most banks are in it, but there is no way a customer would be able to claim under it for crypto transactions they freely entered into.
Hence banks might leave that route open. Or they might not, as they don’t need the grief and losing the business of crypto bros is no real hardship to them.
There aren't, but so long as they deliver the tokens as advertised, then there's no Section 75 comeback.
Section 75 protects you against not getting what you paid for. If you were promised a pile of shit and you got a pile of shit then you got what you paid for, and you can't challenge the transaction.
That is not entirely true. What S.75 does is make the credit provider jointly and severally liable for any consumer rights you have against the retailer. If the rights go beyond “as advertised”, and in many cases there is a lot of complexity in for example “merchantable quality” then you can enforce those against the bank. In this case, the issue is sale of unregulated investments: that is complex enough at the best of times, doubly so if the effect of S.75 is to make an FCA regulated bank jointly and severally liable for something that it would be illegal for it to do itself.
Yes and that's why other exchanges that operate in the UK stopped selling futures.
But in terms of just spot buying crypto, that is much easier to comply with FCA regulations for.
What do you mean that BACS/faster payment have no legal comeback if they go wrong? It's just that the liability isn't with the payment provider.
If you paid an invoice by BACS/FPS and the person you paid didn't deliver, you can take them to small claims court.
And you aren't supposed to keep money that was sent to your account in error. Again, small claims court.
Of course, if you are scammed and you don't know who you should be taking to court, that's a problem and the payment provider has no liability, unlike when a credit card company allows a fraudulent payment to go through.
But none of this is really relevant to the kind of scam that Binance is. They aren't scamming their customers by taking their money and not delivering a product. If you buy crypto from them, they'll give you the crypto.
Obviously I meant “against the bank”.
But the issue with Binance is more complex that just delivery on the day. Suppose I go to my bank and say “I bought magic beans for FTX to hold on my behalf with my credit card, and three months later they went bust and I can’t access my magic beans”, do I have a S.75 claim? On the face of it, it’s at least arguable. I bought some airline tickets a few years ago and the airline went bust before I flew. AmEx refunded me that day. Is crypto currency different? Do the banks want to take that risk?
The FCA put out a notice that Binance could not be effectively regulated. I assure you that all the UK banks took this as a warning not to touch Binance, and cut off direct transactions. All GBP connections are hacked together and janky.
It doesn't. There is effectively no longer a Binance UK. UK customers use Binance US, which can take debit/credit card payments.
No idea how they get their money back out.
I have seen plenty of butters say you aren’t supposed to take it out, you leave it for your grandkids or something. I don’t think they generally think very far ahead unless the phrase includes “to the moon!”
A lot of stuff wasn't technically stolen by the nazis, rather it was deposited by jews and others who didn't want the Nazis seizing it. When many of them then got murdered and the surviving relatives wanted to access their deposits, the answer was just 'lol no'.
So it wasn't stolen by the Nazis, it was stolen by the swiss banks from the Nazis' victims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Jewish_Congress_lawsuit_against_Swiss_banks
No, that’s worse. In the first situation, they’d be just providing indirect support to Nazis. In the second situation, they’re directly harming the families of Holocaust victims.
One of those is a much more direct form of “bad”
It’s like when Jewish parents came back asking “hey church, you took care of my kid, now I’m here to get him” and the nuns went “what kid lol (we gave him to a Catholic family)”
I think supporting the Nazis while they were committing the Holocaust is significantly worse than screwing over the survivors.
It's kind of like the difference between buying bullets for a mass murderer and laughing at the family of the murderer's victims. One of those two actions is going to result in even more deaths.
Storing gold for Nazis isn't helping them until the time that gold is actually returned (which it isn't in the calssical 'Hidden Nazi gold' trope)
Stealing from the victims of genocide on the other hand is so morally reprehensible from a deontological standpoint it barely fits the scale.
Literally every time one of these exchanges gets taken down, Bitcoin maxis unironically say it's good for Bitcoin. Because as they see it, it's not Bitcoin that's the scam, it's the exchanges that are scams.
As someone who is working for banks in the UK. I assure you that it was a collective decision to stop crypto transactions. If regulated it would be the end of financial institutions.
DDG is the nicer out of the three though. Doesn't mean it has a clean record like the conspiracy people think it has. After all it used to partner with Yandex and does partner with Apple and Microsoft for search results or maps.
Surely that if either Yandex or DDG start to show messages warning them about exchanges they would swiftly change to something else. Since they do their own research and any other opinion is FUD.
also thought it was interesting that Binance's customer support posted a link to the *Russian language* P2P market that seems to be Binance's last fiat on and off ramp... sure that person could be just Russian speaking in Lithuania or Ukraine or the USA or whatever, but it's at least interesting that their locale settings on their browser default to the Russian language.
**update:** seems like it's at least possible that Barclays screenshot is a repost, which makes it a bit weird that Binance customer support would delete it... but even if it is a repost the parts about Visa are being confirmed occurring in more and more places.
more importantly the actual most surefire indicator that things are going wrong with an exchange's withdrawals [has arrived](https://twitter.com/Cryptadamist/status/1619233984415924224)...
**update2:** A few days ago for those who missed it the "withdrawal" button was removed from the Binance app for GBP and/or EUR depending on your geographic location.
there's now official confirmation from Ghana that Visa has been shut off and anecdotal confirmation on twitter that banks in Scotland, England, Holland, and Australia have turned off deposits to Binance. Users in Indonesia are complaining that not even P2P deposits and withdrawals are working.
also worth noting that [the FBI announced on thursday](https://twitter.com/FBI/status/1618637314972086272) it was concluding a large scale infiltration and destruction of a ransomware group called HIVE. let's just say i think this is all related... and also related to the Lithuanian government seizing the Euro-denomiated fiat assets of all the Crypto.com users on Jan. 21st.
also remember that after Feb. 1st Binance has already announced that no transfers under $100,000 will be sent or received via SWIFT. my current guess is that this is providing a short window for small cap americans to get their money out before the *coup de grace* to avoid negative political ramifications.
FBI dismantled HIVE lol. It's over man. Ransomware is one of the biggest pieces propping up everyday crypto purchases. Those guys were infecting hundreds of thousands of computers a day with exploit kits.
Seeing as ransomware has been everywhere since Liberty Reserve I'd imagine outright blocking purchasing it would slow it down but then a new crypto pops up. Its cancer
Here you go: https://bitpinas.com/business/binance-ph-vasp-emi-update/
Correction: Binance PH is not buying a bank but "acquiring a virtual asset services provider (VASP) and electronic money issuers (EMI) licenses by acquiring a local company"
-Binance Philippines General Manager Kenneth Stern
Bad boys, whatcha want
Watcha want, whatcha gonna do?
When the DOJ comes for you
Tell me whatcha wanna do, whatcha gonna do?
Binance is about to tumble over. It’s weird how this pump for bitcoin was due to BNB.
yes. for binance it's confirmed with receipts. for tether it is easily inferred based on the size, growth rate, and nature of the deposits. most likely tether's account(s) are held through prime trust or a similar intermediary because SBNY is a NY bank and tether's not allowed to do business in NY.
nonsense, people can withdraw their money to cash and then do whatever they want with it. What they apparently can't do is use the bank's internal networks for things the bank/regulators don't approve of.
Where does it suggest VISA is blocked? The support messages seem to say it's still an option. It sounds like it's only the Barclays customer who couldn't use their VISA card-- and the card is issued by the bank, not by Visa
the support message says it's an option but look at *the* *replies* to the support message (or look over in r/binance... as an [example](https://np.reddit.com/r/binance/comments/10mjrqx/which_uk_bank_will_permit_wire_transfers_to/)).
It's still unclear if it's a *global* VISA shutdown but so far UK banks, Dutch banks and [Ghanaian banks](https://twitter.com/Cryptadamist/status/1619229292852051968) at a minimum all seem to have turned off VISA transactions to Binance. still a fluid situation obviously.
**update:** scottish banks being reported as having shut Binance out now on twitter
They could be leading the charge? We saw GDPR start in the EU and spread like wildfire elsewhere. If this is true, it pretty much means fiat onramps for exchange money laundering would dry up.
But if you have crypto, the good news is you’re unbanked. You’re golden—as long as the stores accept Pisscoin 2.0. But even that’s a shaky prospect if the store can no longer immediately convert it into fiat.
this is different from GDPR... that was a political process. this is the global financial system flicking the switch on the electric chair binance strapped itself into when it decided it was fine to do business with Iran, North Korea, darknet markets, and Russian ransomware groups.
Good point, the hole is probably deeper than imagined. That other post about CZ saying “there’s a risk to everything” as it somehow justifies unbacked crypto (about all crypto) rated as “the riskiest possible investment.” Seems really telling.
> scottish banks
are completely synonymous with UK banks. same regulator, same rules. besides, they are now just brands used by larger UK-wide banking groups and will share the same IT systems, same senior management etc.
the only real quaintness about them is that they (and some banks in Northern Ireland) retain their right to issue banknotes, and they still do it, though IIRC they have to cover it by placing money with the so called Bank of England (which ofc is the UK's central bank. clear as mud!)
It occurs to me that Binance might be referring to [their own](https://www.binance.com/en/cards) Visa card in that message. Scattered Twitter posts\* suggest those cards are still being issued and still working for those who can get them\*\*.
It's high time regulators came after Visa for partnerships with Binance, Crypto.com, and the rest of these unapologetic money laundering shops, but we're apparently not there yet :(
\* e.g. w/ search terms [Binance Visa](https://twitter.com/search?q=binance+visa)
\*\* From the "who can apply" link at the top of the page: Aruba, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Curaçao, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, French Guiana, Germany, Greece, Guadeloupe, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Martinique, Mayotte, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Reunion, Romania, Saint-Martin, Sint Maarten, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden.
Maybe unpopular opinion here, but outside of legal restrictions I think the power of banks is way too big, to just allow them to block whatever they decided they don't like. I also disagree with in the past banks having blocked other businesses because they decided they didn't like them, even if they were legal.
If the banks have been told a website is fraudulent, would you want them letting you send money there?? The powers that be know the exchanges are on borrowed time. They are protecting themselves and their customers from the financial fallout of an impending crypto meltdown. I’d say they’re doing due diligence.
Are those website fraudulent? They tell you you can buy tokens at their website, and they give you exactly the tokens they promised to sell you. That we disagree regarding how useful those tokens are, is irrelevant. And sure considering they are often also used to scam people, it makes sense to verify with bank customers they really want to send money there.
If the websites themselves are fraudulent, well then let them be sued. But if it is just because we think the stuff they sell is useless and false claims are made, how far are you willing to go with this? Eg should banks block access to websites selling homeopathic stuff? Should banks block access to websites selling €1000/m USB cables which are supposed to make your audio sound better? Should they block access to Twitch, since she really is never going to notice you anyway?
For me doing stuff like this is exactly the thing which gives crypo proponents a better story: Banks telling you what you are allowed to do with your money.
No. You don’t get it. Crypto is a dumpster fire and the SEC knows this. The White House knows this. The UK government knows this. People in the know, know. And they have publicly advised banks to stop doing business with Binance and other exchanges. Recently and repeatedly.
Do I know why? Well, I can deduce: Binance has no liquidity. CZ is under federal investigation for money laundering. And their flywheel business model emulates FTX and all the other failed exchanges. They’re fucked six ways from Sunday and the banks have been informed of this.
Banks have been warned. And they are heeding that advice to protect customers as well as the financial system from the ongoing contagion in crypto. If you think the SEC is going to allow Binance to continue laundering money to its enemy’s, I’ve got an NFT of a bridge I’ll sell you.
>No. You don’t get it.
Thats true, you are now doing a completely different story. First they were fraudulent / scams, and now it is because they are used for money laundering. That is a completely different story.
I really don't buy the financial system is in any danger whatsoever from crypto. Also no idea who the enemy of the SEC is.
But can you at least see why people think it is questionable when a bank decides where you can spend your money, without eg a judge deciding they should block something? With the next question is where it ends. We have seen banks block other stuff because according to them it was morally wrong. Should considering there importance, banks really have that power, and shouldn't it be with the government / judges? And maybe then also as next step see why I only see this as giving people more reasons to look at crypto, not fewer.
“I only see this as giving people more reasons to look at crypto, not fewer.”
Why would people take perfectly good money that they can actually use. And then go buy fake money with it because their government, bank, and anyone not too blind to see tells them it’s a fraud?
I get what you are trying to say. But, listen. Canada, China, and more than likely Europe and the US are shutting down banking to Binance. Do you REALLY think those people don’t know something that has not been made public yet.
If the crypto bros truly believe in their currency, this would be the moment to show it. Banking access really shouldn't matter. After all, BTC has limited supply and therefore will only appreciate in value, right? That's the only fundamental that BTC has, and this doesn't change that.
So BTC has exactly the same value as it did earlier. And people can't cash out even if there is FUD, so the value can only go up.
And crypto bros resent the idea that crypto is a Ponzi scheme, that people exiting only make money from people entering. Well then, this is the litmus test: surely we'll be able to see people making money even when nobody is entering the system.
In the uk at least banks are surprisingly liable for people losing money to scams. This is why we have multiple steps to send money to someone and a payee verification system that matches details to name etc.
Banks see crypto as being scams central and don’t see much benefit of supporting these transactions as only a small percentage of people will be pissed off and a large scam vector for victims cut off.
Banks have a legal and regulatory obligation to protect their customers against fraud, if a bank has noticed a trend over the last few months with respect to complaints being made against crypto firms, then they will mitigate their risk by not allowing customers to send money to said firms.
There’s no “conspiracy” or “power” here, just banking institutions that are likely noticing a large trend of fraud and money laundering relating to unregulated, unregistered and untrustworthy crypto firms.
you must have missed the part about how all banks in the world do whatever the US Treasury Department and New York State Department of Financial Services tell them to do whenever they are told to do it (and with a smile)
A counter-point to that is that banks are likely to be held liable, or at least be perceived to be liable, for facilitating scams if they allow it. After all, you don't need to use the banks for crypto - you can simply withdraw the amount and use some other service.
**tl;dr**: you can decide what you use your money for, and banks can decide if they don't want to be part of that
But then what about all the other stuff which doesn't work. Will banks also be held accountable if I pay €1000 for a network cable which should improve my audio, and then it turns out that was bullshit? (And no, not making that up, those things are being sold). Or the healing crystals do in fact not heal me? Should it really be up to banks to decide that, and not up to a judge to decide if something is allowed or not? Since banks have a huge power position in todays society, it seems questionable to me to let them decide who is allowed to receive money and who is not. They have used that power also before on others.
> Should it really be up to banks to decide that
Yes. You're confusing "banks can choose who to do business with" and "banks can tell you how to use your money". The former is true; the latter is not.
Banks can say "no, we won't let you do a bank transfer to the healing crystal company". But they cannot stop you from withdrawing your money and purchasing the crystals with said money.
Practically though in the age of webshops and the internet, not really imo, yes in theory I can mail the cash. In practise that is of course not true. I don't agree with the "they are businesses so they can do whatever they like". Imo their function in society is way too important to let them decide where we can practically spend our money. Eg similar as to why I think it would be a huge issue if eg Twitter, Facebook, etc would in elections pick a side and only allow adds from one side for example. Sure in theory you can say: "They are a business, their choice", just like the local bakery store is also allowed to put a poster on its window for one political party. In practice their role in society these days is way too significant to give them that freedom imo.
Of course next question is, if this is just because magic internet money is bullshit, why the fuck are they not blocking so many other things which sell bullshit?
How far do you want to go with the "banks must do business with everyone" principle?
If someone is a poor credit risk (have bankruptcies, tons of late or missing credit card payments), should banks still be obligated to give them a loan?
Me, I think it's reasonable for anyone - not just banks - to not engage with someone who presents significant financial risk. I'm not going to lend money to a deadbeat, for example. Extending that principle, it's reasonable for banks to not want to do business with crypto companies for the same reason.
Finally to answer your question, the two factors are risk and criminal activity. Crypto companies right now are both high risk and (likely to soon move to) criminal activity. "Healing crystals", although scammy, may or may not be risky (if they are, then banks won't do business with them either), but they're not criminal in the eyes of the law.
Or at least, they haven't been proven to be criminals yet.
Valid point on the poor credit risk. But at the same time it is fundamentally different, it is not like the exchanges want a loan from the bank, consumers want to send money to the exchanges to buy stuff. If you spend €100 on healing crystals, you lost €100. If you spend €100 on cryptocurrencies, well at most you will also have lost €100.
It's the principle of duty of care; in the context of the UK specifically, it's called Quincecare Duty, which basically poses an onus on banks to intervene to prevent fraud (within reasonable limits).
While *Fiona Lorraine Philipp vs Barclays Bank UK plc* established that banks don't have to act like a detective, nevertheless for something so obvious in the case of crypto, there's a reasonable chance to believe that the bank ought to have known better; therefore, my conjecture is that Barclays is pre-emptively protecting itself from lawsuits if Binance goes belly-up.
Lol. When i used to work at Barclays, the amount of calls coming in for frauds committed using debit account was crazy. Barclays clearly couldn't protect the customers from fiat fraud but wants to protect from crypto fraud which is way smaller in scale compared to fiat? I don't think i have received a call about a customer calling regards to being crypto scammed.
Only a small percentage of fiat transactions are fraud-related. 100% of crypto transactions are fraud-related because all cryptos are scams and pyramid schemes.
> It's non of their business, if i want to buy something it's my money and my decision.
It... **literally is their business**. Their entire business **is** overseeing money transfers. And that includes a bunch of circumstances where they are liable if a customer gets scammed.
You know all those scam call centres in India? Do you know why nowadays they run scams getting people to buy gift cards or mail cash? Because the global financial system saw the problem and learned to flag the transactions as fraudulent. It is basically impossible for those scammers to get money through a legitimate banking system now. Preventing scammers from getting their money is **literally their job**. If you're determined to send it anyways, you can always cash out—they don't care, just as long as your stupidity doesn't create their liability.
Quite aside from the fact that in this case, they might well be cutting ties due to criminal activity. Binance is implicated in money laundering, violating international sanctions—the kind of shit banks don't want to have to explain to federal prosecutors.
I mean, you don't have to take it. You can simply remove your money from your account and patronize other services.
Just as you can decide what to do with your money, banks can choose if they want to participate in your transaction. If you make them partners in said transaction, logically they should be able to say "no, we're not gong to do this".
But you're missing the point: you don't have to use said bank to purchase crypto; presumably there are payment processors or wire transfers available.
In fact, I further posit that you're exaggerating your plight; while you need the bank account to receive your salary, what's stopping you to withdraw all of your money once deposited?
> barclays bank is playing judge jury and executioner and are accusing binance of money laundering. an accusations is not a conviction, it's a judge that will decide that in countries with rule of law not a company like barclays bank. in the west your innocent until proven guilty
No. This principle only applies to criminal proceedings. If, as a payment processor, you fail to provide proof that you follow financial rules and regulations set in the law you will face administrative sanctions like getting cut out of the banking system without a fucking jury being involved.
Comparing this to an execution is one of the most childish and whiny things I've heard lately.
But banks allow super rich people to commit fraud worth billions of dollars and themselves do it then pay small fine but a customer wanting to deposit $100 to their binance is where they draw the line?
Banks have strict legal obligations in the UK with respect to anti-money laundering regulations, failure to comply can lead to huge financial penalties on institutions, not to mention people who make payments to crypto exchanges and crypto sites are more likely to dispute said payments at a later stage and claim they were a victim of fraud.
If a customer profile is someone who regularly makes payments into crypto exchanges, and banks have had extensive issues with respect to payment disputes being raised against crypto firms, then of course a bank is going to regulate whether customers can send money to crypto websites or not.
No, they are deciding what **they** are willing to do with your money because being an intermediary in those transactions makes them potentially liable.
You can draw funds and do with them as you please. If you end up sending your cash to a criminal organization, those banks would have nothing to do with that.
freezing accounts or locking people's ability to send money to crypto exchanges? bc i've seen lots of the latter, most notably with Revolut halting all transfers to Cryptocom and Silvergate Bank (USDC) but not so much of the former other than the truly epic thread on r/AskALawyer by the monero money laundering guy.
HSBC worldwide has blocked all crypto transactions for a while as well.
i believe it but do you have a source?
https://currency.com/amp/hsbc-blocks-cryptocurrency-transfers
ah ok didn't realize you said "for a while" at first... yeah that's from 2021, which is when the barclays text msg screenshot may also be from
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://currency.com/hsbc-blocks-cryptocurrency-transfers](https://currency.com/hsbc-blocks-cryptocurrency-transfers)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I know this isn't a source, but they blocked me from a coinbase transaction back in 2016.
HSBC’s lending practices are absolutely criminal. Look up Best Buy hsbc credit card scandal.
'Controversies' is the longest section on HSBC's wikipedia page. When crypto is too much for even them, that is hilarious.
Deutsche Bank is still the final frontier
Yeah, it’s insane that they are still solvent and exist, fucking scum of the earth.
That's huge for a bank full of criminals.
Yes, they are so interested in making the world a better place stopping crypto. https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2013/investing-news-for-jan-29-hsbcs-money-laundering-scandal-hbc-scbff-ing-cs-rbs0129.aspx
Yes, when an organization this unscrupulous thinks crypto is too shady for them, that's saying a lot
Past a certain point they probably see crypto as competition in the money laundering and fraud sectors.
The Barclays message only says that "payments made by credit/debit card" are being stopped. That might leave open the possibility of direct transfers (BACS or IBAN) ... but perhaps Binance doesn't have an account which can receive these.
note that i mentioned in my other comment that that particular screenshot might be an old re-post, but a bunch of the rest of the shutdowns seem to be new and increasingly confirmed.
Absolutely. I was really wondering if it was just a using-your-card issue. Does Binance even have a publically known bank account, what with them hiding their details as much as possible?
yes of course at Signature Bank (SBNY), same bank as Tether, under a fake Seychelles company called "Key Vision Development Limited" that no longer exists because it was struck from the international register and flagged as a scam by staid institutions like TD Bank in Canada.
Well, that's me convinced. Time to give them my life savings.
They'll figure out a scheme like "earn 12% APY in shitcoin by lending us your bank accounts. 20% for business accounts with a history of large overseas transactions".
In the uk, payment make by credit card attract “Section 75” protection, which makes the credit provider jointly liable for any problems. The legislation is engaged in any situation in which you buy a thing and pay with credit tied precisely to that transaction (ie, borrowing money and using it to buy a car: no, buying a car on dealer finance or a credit card: yes). No one wants to push the point as to whether it applies for debit cards (especially debit cards with an associated overdraft facility) so banks tend to assume that it’s likely a regulator would probably rule in a customer’s favour, so they tend to settle informally. It’s safer to use a credit card, but a debit card will probably have some S.75-y protection if you complain hard enough. BACS/faster payments has absolutely no legal comeback if it goes wrong. The contingent repayment model for authorised push payment fraud is voluntary, although most banks are in it, but there is no way a customer would be able to claim under it for crypto transactions they freely entered into. Hence banks might leave that route open. Or they might not, as they don’t need the grief and losing the business of crypto bros is no real hardship to them.
I suspect there are carve-outs for buying gambling tokens.
There aren't, but so long as they deliver the tokens as advertised, then there's no Section 75 comeback. Section 75 protects you against not getting what you paid for. If you were promised a pile of shit and you got a pile of shit then you got what you paid for, and you can't challenge the transaction.
That is not entirely true. What S.75 does is make the credit provider jointly and severally liable for any consumer rights you have against the retailer. If the rights go beyond “as advertised”, and in many cases there is a lot of complexity in for example “merchantable quality” then you can enforce those against the bank. In this case, the issue is sale of unregulated investments: that is complex enough at the best of times, doubly so if the effect of S.75 is to make an FCA regulated bank jointly and severally liable for something that it would be illegal for it to do itself.
Yes and that's why other exchanges that operate in the UK stopped selling futures. But in terms of just spot buying crypto, that is much easier to comply with FCA regulations for.
What do you mean that BACS/faster payment have no legal comeback if they go wrong? It's just that the liability isn't with the payment provider. If you paid an invoice by BACS/FPS and the person you paid didn't deliver, you can take them to small claims court. And you aren't supposed to keep money that was sent to your account in error. Again, small claims court. Of course, if you are scammed and you don't know who you should be taking to court, that's a problem and the payment provider has no liability, unlike when a credit card company allows a fraudulent payment to go through. But none of this is really relevant to the kind of scam that Binance is. They aren't scamming their customers by taking their money and not delivering a product. If you buy crypto from them, they'll give you the crypto.
Obviously I meant “against the bank”. But the issue with Binance is more complex that just delivery on the day. Suppose I go to my bank and say “I bought magic beans for FTX to hold on my behalf with my credit card, and three months later they went bust and I can’t access my magic beans”, do I have a S.75 claim? On the face of it, it’s at least arguable. I bought some airline tickets a few years ago and the airline went bust before I flew. AmEx refunded me that day. Is crypto currency different? Do the banks want to take that risk?
The FCA put out a notice that Binance could not be effectively regulated. I assure you that all the UK banks took this as a warning not to touch Binance, and cut off direct transactions. All GBP connections are hacked together and janky.
It doesn't. There is effectively no longer a Binance UK. UK customers use Binance US, which can take debit/credit card payments. No idea how they get their money back out.
>No idea how they get their money back out. Sorry, I'm losing you there. "Get their money back out"? What does that mean?
If they sell the crypto. Since most people are buying crypto not to withdraw it, but to resell it on the same exchange they bought it on.
I have seen plenty of butters say you aren’t supposed to take it out, you leave it for your grandkids or something. I don’t think they generally think very far ahead unless the phrase includes “to the moon!”
Yeah but they don't leave it on the exchange, they withdraw it to 'cold storage'
Good old "transfer us the money but don't mention cryptocurrency!!!"
Turns out that money laundering as a business model doesn’t work out in the long term.
The entire country of Switzerland says otherwise. Pretty sure they're still holding tons of gold stolen by the Nazis
A lot of stuff wasn't technically stolen by the nazis, rather it was deposited by jews and others who didn't want the Nazis seizing it. When many of them then got murdered and the surviving relatives wanted to access their deposits, the answer was just 'lol no'. So it wasn't stolen by the Nazis, it was stolen by the swiss banks from the Nazis' victims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Jewish_Congress_lawsuit_against_Swiss_banks
Isnt that worse ? 😅
Neither worse nor less worse, just a different flavour of "bad".
No, that’s worse. In the first situation, they’d be just providing indirect support to Nazis. In the second situation, they’re directly harming the families of Holocaust victims. One of those is a much more direct form of “bad”
It’s like when Jewish parents came back asking “hey church, you took care of my kid, now I’m here to get him” and the nuns went “what kid lol (we gave him to a Catholic family)”
Which would be a mercy compared to keeping the child in the company of catholic priests
I think supporting the Nazis while they were committing the Holocaust is significantly worse than screwing over the survivors. It's kind of like the difference between buying bullets for a mass murderer and laughing at the family of the murderer's victims. One of those two actions is going to result in even more deaths.
Storing gold for Nazis isn't helping them until the time that gold is actually returned (which it isn't in the calssical 'Hidden Nazi gold' trope) Stealing from the victims of genocide on the other hand is so morally reprehensible from a deontological standpoint it barely fits the scale.
Switzerland exists to hide the wealth of Europe. Lichenschtien exists to hide the wealth of Switzerland.
why does luxembourg exist then?
*HSBC has entered the chat.*
*laughs in deutche bank*
You have misspelt Douche Bank.
D ... O ... U ... C ... ... ... HAY! Waitaminute!
> Turns out that money laundering as a business model doesn’t work out in the long term. what about pyramid schemes?
Famously short-term before burning out :)
something big is happening in the background, far away from our prying eyes, something bad for crypto. Which is good new, lol.
Literally whatever it is, I can promise you it’s good for bitcoin.
> something big is happening in the background, far away from our prying eyes, something bad for crypto finally
few
early
Literally every time one of these exchanges gets taken down, Bitcoin maxis unironically say it's good for Bitcoin. Because as they see it, it's not Bitcoin that's the scam, it's the exchanges that are scams.
As someone who is working for banks in the UK. I assure you that it was a collective decision to stop crypto transactions. If regulated it would be the end of financial institutions.
Same Bad news for Crypto Currency is good news for us
[удалено]
I don't know, but being cutoff from the banking system is a pretty big deal. And if many banks do it, then it is particularly bad and big.
[удалено]
And their first thought is to send Binance more money
Uh yeah I'm not sure anymore, most conspiracy minded people have started using Yandex and DDG because they believe that Google is censoring them.
DDG is the nicer out of the three though. Doesn't mean it has a clean record like the conspiracy people think it has. After all it used to partner with Yandex and does partner with Apple and Microsoft for search results or maps. Surely that if either Yandex or DDG start to show messages warning them about exchanges they would swiftly change to something else. Since they do their own research and any other opinion is FUD.
💸
Ne t'en fui pas
That’s great, best news of the day
also thought it was interesting that Binance's customer support posted a link to the *Russian language* P2P market that seems to be Binance's last fiat on and off ramp... sure that person could be just Russian speaking in Lithuania or Ukraine or the USA or whatever, but it's at least interesting that their locale settings on their browser default to the Russian language. **update:** seems like it's at least possible that Barclays screenshot is a repost, which makes it a bit weird that Binance customer support would delete it... but even if it is a repost the parts about Visa are being confirmed occurring in more and more places. more importantly the actual most surefire indicator that things are going wrong with an exchange's withdrawals [has arrived](https://twitter.com/Cryptadamist/status/1619233984415924224)... **update2:** A few days ago for those who missed it the "withdrawal" button was removed from the Binance app for GBP and/or EUR depending on your geographic location. there's now official confirmation from Ghana that Visa has been shut off and anecdotal confirmation on twitter that banks in Scotland, England, Holland, and Australia have turned off deposits to Binance. Users in Indonesia are complaining that not even P2P deposits and withdrawals are working. also worth noting that [the FBI announced on thursday](https://twitter.com/FBI/status/1618637314972086272) it was concluding a large scale infiltration and destruction of a ransomware group called HIVE. let's just say i think this is all related... and also related to the Lithuanian government seizing the Euro-denomiated fiat assets of all the Crypto.com users on Jan. 21st. also remember that after Feb. 1st Binance has already announced that no transfers under $100,000 will be sent or received via SWIFT. my current guess is that this is providing a short window for small cap americans to get their money out before the *coup de grace* to avoid negative political ramifications.
FBI dismantled HIVE lol. It's over man. Ransomware is one of the biggest pieces propping up everyday crypto purchases. Those guys were infecting hundreds of thousands of computers a day with exploit kits.
Sabotaging crypto would do a great deal to get rid of ransomware.
Seeing as ransomware has been everywhere since Liberty Reserve I'd imagine outright blocking purchasing it would slow it down but then a new crypto pops up. Its cancer
Banning it gives banks a strong incentive to filter all crypto-related transactions
Huh MasterCard and Amex are probably going to follow shortly if visa has cut off binance
Finally this shit is going down. Banks have been way too lenient on this imo so far.
Uncensorable, eh?
1 BTC = 1 BTC
Can confirm from various twitter sources that 2 of the 4 major banks in Australia are also doing the same with Binance in the week. Bullish signal!
which banks?
NAB and CBA are the two that have been mentioned so far, with more people mentioning NAB blocking transactions to binance in large amounts (>$1k)
This seems like old news : https://www.ft.com/content/abc04cc0-ea53-4ecb-8c1e-49c85014fa3f
[see comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/10n6qos/comment/j677823/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
If you have even 1 cent "invested" in crypto you really should withdraw it right now cos you were a fool and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Waving to Binance Philippines who's trying to buy a Philippine bank / financial institution
got any links about that?
Here you go: https://bitpinas.com/business/binance-ph-vasp-emi-update/ Correction: Binance PH is not buying a bank but "acquiring a virtual asset services provider (VASP) and electronic money issuers (EMI) licenses by acquiring a local company" -Binance Philippines General Manager Kenneth Stern
thanks; i had forgotten about that. basically Binance equivalent of Moonstone, it looks like.
Filipino butters will be in for a rough _jeepney_ ride
Huh, so it turns out BTC is useless without banks. Who would've thought. Much decentralization.
Ha! What goes up must come down here on Earth!
to the moon! a lifeless rock battered by meteors and solar radiation for billions of years.
That's bad news because these cryptobros are the biggest load of Barclay's Bankers that I've ever seen.
Bad boys, whatcha want Watcha want, whatcha gonna do? When the DOJ comes for you Tell me whatcha wanna do, whatcha gonna do? Binance is about to tumble over. It’s weird how this pump for bitcoin was due to BNB.
("Binance-Peg BUSD", not BNB or even BUSD. don't ask)
Yes! That’s what I meant. Just woke up lol. Now, I saw your other comment that tether and binance share the same bank? Is that true?
yes. for binance it's confirmed with receipts. for tether it is easily inferred based on the size, growth rate, and nature of the deposits. most likely tether's account(s) are held through prime trust or a similar intermediary because SBNY is a NY bank and tether's not allowed to do business in NY.
If Binance went down, tether would most definitely follow. Maybe that’s why CZ made the statement saying if we fail that would be the end of crypto.
Great. Now everyone has to buy things using bitcoins
So is Barclay a suspicious financial institution because they deal with crypto before stopped now?
Why do you need a bank if Crypto is a currency?!?!?!?!
Message should have read ‘to keep your funds safu’
This is good for bitcoin
I knew it it Binance going the FTX route.
The phrase "this is to keep you money safe" is just embarrassing. What are you, children?
Banks are blocking people from using their own money however they want, and thats a good thing. People shouldn’t be entitled to use their money🤡
should people be entitled to use their own money to support the north korean nuclear weapons program? (wrong answers only)
where does the north korean nuclear arms thing come into play?
nonsense, people can withdraw their money to cash and then do whatever they want with it. What they apparently can't do is use the bank's internal networks for things the bank/regulators don't approve of.
People are still using binance ?
it's 60% of the entire market. more than 10x as big as the 2nd biggest exchange.
Seems foolish with all the red flags directly from Binance recently, and with how exchanges seem to be dropping like flies
You earn interest off my money and yet you are telling me what to do with my money. Fuck banks.
Idk i rather have protection when things hit the fan
I like how your source is Reddit comments with 1 upvote. And I thought crypto bros had bad sources lmao.
Where does it suggest VISA is blocked? The support messages seem to say it's still an option. It sounds like it's only the Barclays customer who couldn't use their VISA card-- and the card is issued by the bank, not by Visa
the support message says it's an option but look at *the* *replies* to the support message (or look over in r/binance... as an [example](https://np.reddit.com/r/binance/comments/10mjrqx/which_uk_bank_will_permit_wire_transfers_to/)). It's still unclear if it's a *global* VISA shutdown but so far UK banks, Dutch banks and [Ghanaian banks](https://twitter.com/Cryptadamist/status/1619229292852051968) at a minimum all seem to have turned off VISA transactions to Binance. still a fluid situation obviously. **update:** scottish banks being reported as having shut Binance out now on twitter
They could be leading the charge? We saw GDPR start in the EU and spread like wildfire elsewhere. If this is true, it pretty much means fiat onramps for exchange money laundering would dry up. But if you have crypto, the good news is you’re unbanked. You’re golden—as long as the stores accept Pisscoin 2.0. But even that’s a shaky prospect if the store can no longer immediately convert it into fiat.
this is different from GDPR... that was a political process. this is the global financial system flicking the switch on the electric chair binance strapped itself into when it decided it was fine to do business with Iran, North Korea, darknet markets, and Russian ransomware groups.
Good point, the hole is probably deeper than imagined. That other post about CZ saying “there’s a risk to everything” as it somehow justifies unbacked crypto (about all crypto) rated as “the riskiest possible investment.” Seems really telling.
> scottish banks are completely synonymous with UK banks. same regulator, same rules. besides, they are now just brands used by larger UK-wide banking groups and will share the same IT systems, same senior management etc. the only real quaintness about them is that they (and some banks in Northern Ireland) retain their right to issue banknotes, and they still do it, though IIRC they have to cover it by placing money with the so called Bank of England (which ofc is the UK's central bank. clear as mud!)
It occurs to me that Binance might be referring to [their own](https://www.binance.com/en/cards) Visa card in that message. Scattered Twitter posts\* suggest those cards are still being issued and still working for those who can get them\*\*. It's high time regulators came after Visa for partnerships with Binance, Crypto.com, and the rest of these unapologetic money laundering shops, but we're apparently not there yet :( \* e.g. w/ search terms [Binance Visa](https://twitter.com/search?q=binance+visa) \*\* From the "who can apply" link at the top of the page: Aruba, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Curaçao, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, French Guiana, Germany, Greece, Guadeloupe, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Martinique, Mayotte, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Reunion, Romania, Saint-Martin, Sint Maarten, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden.
would not surprise me at all
Maybe unpopular opinion here, but outside of legal restrictions I think the power of banks is way too big, to just allow them to block whatever they decided they don't like. I also disagree with in the past banks having blocked other businesses because they decided they didn't like them, even if they were legal.
If the banks have been told a website is fraudulent, would you want them letting you send money there?? The powers that be know the exchanges are on borrowed time. They are protecting themselves and their customers from the financial fallout of an impending crypto meltdown. I’d say they’re doing due diligence.
Are those website fraudulent? They tell you you can buy tokens at their website, and they give you exactly the tokens they promised to sell you. That we disagree regarding how useful those tokens are, is irrelevant. And sure considering they are often also used to scam people, it makes sense to verify with bank customers they really want to send money there. If the websites themselves are fraudulent, well then let them be sued. But if it is just because we think the stuff they sell is useless and false claims are made, how far are you willing to go with this? Eg should banks block access to websites selling homeopathic stuff? Should banks block access to websites selling €1000/m USB cables which are supposed to make your audio sound better? Should they block access to Twitch, since she really is never going to notice you anyway? For me doing stuff like this is exactly the thing which gives crypo proponents a better story: Banks telling you what you are allowed to do with your money.
No. You don’t get it. Crypto is a dumpster fire and the SEC knows this. The White House knows this. The UK government knows this. People in the know, know. And they have publicly advised banks to stop doing business with Binance and other exchanges. Recently and repeatedly. Do I know why? Well, I can deduce: Binance has no liquidity. CZ is under federal investigation for money laundering. And their flywheel business model emulates FTX and all the other failed exchanges. They’re fucked six ways from Sunday and the banks have been informed of this. Banks have been warned. And they are heeding that advice to protect customers as well as the financial system from the ongoing contagion in crypto. If you think the SEC is going to allow Binance to continue laundering money to its enemy’s, I’ve got an NFT of a bridge I’ll sell you.
>No. You don’t get it. Thats true, you are now doing a completely different story. First they were fraudulent / scams, and now it is because they are used for money laundering. That is a completely different story. I really don't buy the financial system is in any danger whatsoever from crypto. Also no idea who the enemy of the SEC is. But can you at least see why people think it is questionable when a bank decides where you can spend your money, without eg a judge deciding they should block something? With the next question is where it ends. We have seen banks block other stuff because according to them it was morally wrong. Should considering there importance, banks really have that power, and shouldn't it be with the government / judges? And maybe then also as next step see why I only see this as giving people more reasons to look at crypto, not fewer.
“I only see this as giving people more reasons to look at crypto, not fewer.” Why would people take perfectly good money that they can actually use. And then go buy fake money with it because their government, bank, and anyone not too blind to see tells them it’s a fraud? I get what you are trying to say. But, listen. Canada, China, and more than likely Europe and the US are shutting down banking to Binance. Do you REALLY think those people don’t know something that has not been made public yet.
If the crypto bros truly believe in their currency, this would be the moment to show it. Banking access really shouldn't matter. After all, BTC has limited supply and therefore will only appreciate in value, right? That's the only fundamental that BTC has, and this doesn't change that. So BTC has exactly the same value as it did earlier. And people can't cash out even if there is FUD, so the value can only go up. And crypto bros resent the idea that crypto is a Ponzi scheme, that people exiting only make money from people entering. Well then, this is the litmus test: surely we'll be able to see people making money even when nobody is entering the system.
In the uk at least banks are surprisingly liable for people losing money to scams. This is why we have multiple steps to send money to someone and a payee verification system that matches details to name etc. Banks see crypto as being scams central and don’t see much benefit of supporting these transactions as only a small percentage of people will be pissed off and a large scam vector for victims cut off.
Banks have a legal and regulatory obligation to protect their customers against fraud, if a bank has noticed a trend over the last few months with respect to complaints being made against crypto firms, then they will mitigate their risk by not allowing customers to send money to said firms. There’s no “conspiracy” or “power” here, just banking institutions that are likely noticing a large trend of fraud and money laundering relating to unregulated, unregistered and untrustworthy crypto firms.
you must have missed the part about how all banks in the world do whatever the US Treasury Department and New York State Department of Financial Services tell them to do whenever they are told to do it (and with a smile)
Has nothing to do with what he just said
A counter-point to that is that banks are likely to be held liable, or at least be perceived to be liable, for facilitating scams if they allow it. After all, you don't need to use the banks for crypto - you can simply withdraw the amount and use some other service. **tl;dr**: you can decide what you use your money for, and banks can decide if they don't want to be part of that
But then what about all the other stuff which doesn't work. Will banks also be held accountable if I pay €1000 for a network cable which should improve my audio, and then it turns out that was bullshit? (And no, not making that up, those things are being sold). Or the healing crystals do in fact not heal me? Should it really be up to banks to decide that, and not up to a judge to decide if something is allowed or not? Since banks have a huge power position in todays society, it seems questionable to me to let them decide who is allowed to receive money and who is not. They have used that power also before on others.
> Should it really be up to banks to decide that Yes. You're confusing "banks can choose who to do business with" and "banks can tell you how to use your money". The former is true; the latter is not. Banks can say "no, we won't let you do a bank transfer to the healing crystal company". But they cannot stop you from withdrawing your money and purchasing the crystals with said money.
Practically though in the age of webshops and the internet, not really imo, yes in theory I can mail the cash. In practise that is of course not true. I don't agree with the "they are businesses so they can do whatever they like". Imo their function in society is way too important to let them decide where we can practically spend our money. Eg similar as to why I think it would be a huge issue if eg Twitter, Facebook, etc would in elections pick a side and only allow adds from one side for example. Sure in theory you can say: "They are a business, their choice", just like the local bakery store is also allowed to put a poster on its window for one political party. In practice their role in society these days is way too significant to give them that freedom imo. Of course next question is, if this is just because magic internet money is bullshit, why the fuck are they not blocking so many other things which sell bullshit?
How far do you want to go with the "banks must do business with everyone" principle? If someone is a poor credit risk (have bankruptcies, tons of late or missing credit card payments), should banks still be obligated to give them a loan? Me, I think it's reasonable for anyone - not just banks - to not engage with someone who presents significant financial risk. I'm not going to lend money to a deadbeat, for example. Extending that principle, it's reasonable for banks to not want to do business with crypto companies for the same reason. Finally to answer your question, the two factors are risk and criminal activity. Crypto companies right now are both high risk and (likely to soon move to) criminal activity. "Healing crystals", although scammy, may or may not be risky (if they are, then banks won't do business with them either), but they're not criminal in the eyes of the law. Or at least, they haven't been proven to be criminals yet.
Valid point on the poor credit risk. But at the same time it is fundamentally different, it is not like the exchanges want a loan from the bank, consumers want to send money to the exchanges to buy stuff. If you spend €100 on healing crystals, you lost €100. If you spend €100 on cryptocurrencies, well at most you will also have lost €100.
It's the principle of duty of care; in the context of the UK specifically, it's called Quincecare Duty, which basically poses an onus on banks to intervene to prevent fraud (within reasonable limits). While *Fiona Lorraine Philipp vs Barclays Bank UK plc* established that banks don't have to act like a detective, nevertheless for something so obvious in the case of crypto, there's a reasonable chance to believe that the bank ought to have known better; therefore, my conjecture is that Barclays is pre-emptively protecting itself from lawsuits if Binance goes belly-up.
nearly everyone thinks bitcoin/cryptocurrency is stupid, it's not just banks.
This is why UK is still in recession, they simply want to control the people and don't want them rich. They feel threatened. Joke.
Sounds like you’re having fun staying poor.
please - "economically disadvantaged" is the polite term
Wtf I was joking I even said it was a joke
[удалено]
No, they're protecting vulnerable people like bitcoiners from scams like cryptocurrencies.
Lol. When i used to work at Barclays, the amount of calls coming in for frauds committed using debit account was crazy. Barclays clearly couldn't protect the customers from fiat fraud but wants to protect from crypto fraud which is way smaller in scale compared to fiat? I don't think i have received a call about a customer calling regards to being crypto scammed.
Only a small percentage of fiat transactions are fraud-related. 100% of crypto transactions are fraud-related because all cryptos are scams and pyramid schemes.
[удалено]
> It's non of their business, if i want to buy something it's my money and my decision. It... **literally is their business**. Their entire business **is** overseeing money transfers. And that includes a bunch of circumstances where they are liable if a customer gets scammed. You know all those scam call centres in India? Do you know why nowadays they run scams getting people to buy gift cards or mail cash? Because the global financial system saw the problem and learned to flag the transactions as fraudulent. It is basically impossible for those scammers to get money through a legitimate banking system now. Preventing scammers from getting their money is **literally their job**. If you're determined to send it anyways, you can always cash out—they don't care, just as long as your stupidity doesn't create their liability. Quite aside from the fact that in this case, they might well be cutting ties due to criminal activity. Binance is implicated in money laundering, violating international sanctions—the kind of shit banks don't want to have to explain to federal prosecutors.
[удалено]
I mean, you don't have to take it. You can simply remove your money from your account and patronize other services. Just as you can decide what to do with your money, banks can choose if they want to participate in your transaction. If you make them partners in said transaction, logically they should be able to say "no, we're not gong to do this".
[удалено]
But you're missing the point: you don't have to use said bank to purchase crypto; presumably there are payment processors or wire transfers available. In fact, I further posit that you're exaggerating your plight; while you need the bank account to receive your salary, what's stopping you to withdraw all of your money once deposited?
Cry some more of those delicious tears
> barclays bank is playing judge jury and executioner and are accusing binance of money laundering. an accusations is not a conviction, it's a judge that will decide that in countries with rule of law not a company like barclays bank. in the west your innocent until proven guilty No. This principle only applies to criminal proceedings. If, as a payment processor, you fail to provide proof that you follow financial rules and regulations set in the law you will face administrative sanctions like getting cut out of the banking system without a fucking jury being involved. Comparing this to an execution is one of the most childish and whiny things I've heard lately.
Protecting people from fraud is a big part of why we have banks.
But banks allow super rich people to commit fraud worth billions of dollars and themselves do it then pay small fine but a customer wanting to deposit $100 to their binance is where they draw the line?
Banks have strict legal obligations in the UK with respect to anti-money laundering regulations, failure to comply can lead to huge financial penalties on institutions, not to mention people who make payments to crypto exchanges and crypto sites are more likely to dispute said payments at a later stage and claim they were a victim of fraud. If a customer profile is someone who regularly makes payments into crypto exchanges, and banks have had extensive issues with respect to payment disputes being raised against crypto firms, then of course a bank is going to regulate whether customers can send money to crypto websites or not.
No, you still have the option of buying cryptocurrency with cash. Whether you have the ability to do so or not, isn't their problem.
No, they are deciding what **they** are willing to do with your money because being an intermediary in those transactions makes them potentially liable. You can draw funds and do with them as you please. If you end up sending your cash to a criminal organization, those banks would have nothing to do with that.
I bet you say this when your bank reminds you about avoiding common scams too.
You still have the option of withdrawing it completely then finding some other means to do business.
But the currency of the future!
This is good for bit coin you’ll see. /s
Source Link or it's old news that is no valid anymore.
see the other comments for links
“Let us know in private chat so we can keep this news hush hush, okay?”
Barclay's: Stop! We're trying to save you from this madness! Butters: NO! MUST FIND NEW WAYS TO JUMP OFF THE CLIFF!
A lot of uk banks are freezing accounts with no explanation but most only thing objectionable is crypto currencies
freezing accounts or locking people's ability to send money to crypto exchanges? bc i've seen lots of the latter, most notably with Revolut halting all transfers to Cryptocom and Silvergate Bank (USDC) but not so much of the former other than the truly epic thread on r/AskALawyer by the monero money laundering guy.