Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dormento 25 days ago
> Reason given by bank, broken internal policy, we cannot disclose which. Goodbye.

Wow this sucks. One thing I took from this comment (and the previous one), if you allow me to (badly) synthesize is: we might need less policy making and more policy enforcement.
1 comments
l23k4 24 days ago
Why? It's because of enforcement the bank is doing this.

The policies don't prohibit banks from getting rid of risky customers, they actively encourage it.

link
joe_mamba 24 days ago
What policies of local legal framework and the bank define as a "rksy customer" might vary completely.

For example many EU banks refuse service to US citizens due to them still being tax liable in their own country and the banks not waiting to deal with that shit. Or they refuse service to Iranians, Russians or other nationalities in case of conflicts. That's the definition of a risky customer and they're legally allowed to bail on.

But working legally in your nations arms industry is not the definition of a risky customer because you're a legal citizen with rights in your own country, your arms company operates legally with all the checks and approvals of the government, and the banks should as well. Therefore there's no risks coming from the customer here to the local bank because neither you or the employer are doing anything in gray legal areas to be a risk.

link
l23k4 23 days ago
>What policies of local legal framework and the bank define as a "rksy customer" might vary completely.

No they don't? Your next sentence demonstrates as much:

> For example many EU banks refuse service to US citizens due to them still being tax liable in their own country and the banks not waiting to deal with that shit

Local jurisdiction makes fuck all difference. Ignoring foreign regulations would be suicidal for a bank which wants to take part in international commerce.

> But working legally in your nations arms industry is not the definition of a risky customer because you're a legal citizen with rights in your own country, your arms company operates legally with all the checks and approvals of the government, and the banks should as well

Any bank picks up a very significant regulatory burden by engaging in transactions with such an entity. The idea that any bank could just assume that an arms manufacturer is fully compliant because the Czech government allows them to exist is hilarious.

link