[l23k4]

>The eu it self has a faceless committee that debanks people without a day in court or any oversight.

Which committee is that?

>Banks are said to be required to state a reason for refusing or freezing an account

Such requirements tend to exist only in the case of basic PAD accounts.

>but at the same time they may not disclose reporting you.

So? Reporting you does nothing.

[econ]

If they think you are a fraudster or terrorist (etc) they have to refuse giving you an account and must silently report you. What would happen if they skip/delay the reporting part?

[l23k4]

Banks are required to provide fairly detailed information when refusing basic PAD accounts on those grounds. This doesn't apply to regular bank accounts, but these are specifically the accounts intended by regulators for people who'd otherwise not be able to access banking services.

>What would happen if they skip/delay the reporting part?

They wouldn't. Typically banks take the approach of filing as many reports as they can. If you're overeager in filing the reports, nobody will look at them and you will not be blamed for not filing those reports.

Google for something along the lines of "suspicious activity report flooded" and you'll find endless stories demonstrating how ineffective these systems are.

[joe_mamba]

Fair enough, but what do we do when the banks abuse this system to just cut off honest people they just don't want to serve because of whatever reason, maybe profit? That's the definition of discrimiantion.