Pay off your credit cards, get labeled a terrorist suspect?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Manedwolf

member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
3,693
Location
New Hampshire
Pay too much and you could raise the alarm
By BOB KERR
The Providence Journal
28-FEB-06


PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Walter Soehnge is a retired Texas schoolteacher who traveled north with his wife, Deana, saw summer change to fall in Rhode Island and decided this was a place to stay for a while.

So the Soehnges live in Scituate now and Walter sometimes has breakfast at the Gentleman Farmer in Scituate Village, where he has passed the test and become a regular despite an accent that is definitely not local.

And it was there, at his usual table last week, that he told me that he was "madder than a panther with kerosene on his tail."

He says things like that. Texas does leave its mark on a man.

What got him so upset might seem trivial to some people who have learned to accept small infringements on their freedom as just part of the way things are in this age of terror-fed paranoia. It's that "everything changed after 9/11" thing.

But not Walter.

"We're a product of the '60s," he said. "We believe government should be way away from us in that regard."

He was referring to the recent decision by him and his wife to be responsible, to do the kind of thing that just about anyone would say makes good, solid financial sense.

They paid down some debt. The balance on their JCPenney Platinum MasterCard had gotten to an unhealthy level. So they sent in a large payment, a check for $6,522.

And an alarm went off. A red flag went up. The Soehnges' behavior was found questionable.

And all they did was pay down their debt. They didn't call a suspected terrorist on their cell phone. They didn't try to sneak a machine gun through customs.

They just paid a hefty chunk of their credit card balance. And they learned how frighteningly wide the net of suspicion has been cast.

After sending in the check, they checked online to see if their account had been duly credited. They learned that the check had arrived, but the amount available for credit on their account hadn't changed.

So Deana Soehnge called the credit-card company. Then Walter called.

"When you mess with my money, I want to know why," he said.

They both learned the same astounding piece of information about the little things that can set the threat sensors to beeping and blinking.

They were told, as they moved up the managerial ladder at the call center, that the amount they had sent in was much larger than their normal monthly payment. And if the increase hits a certain percentage higher than that normal payment, Homeland Security has to be notified. And the money doesn't move until the threat alert is lifted.

Walter called television stations, the American Civil Liberties Union and me. And he went on the Internet to see what he could learn. He learned about changes in something called the Bank Privacy Act.

"The more I'm on, the scarier it gets," he said. "It's scary how easily someone in Homeland Security can get permission to spy."

Eventually, his and his wife's money was freed up. The Soehnges were apparently found not to be promoting global terrorism under the guise of paying a credit-card bill. They never did learn how a large credit card payment can pose a security threat.

But the experience has been a reminder that a small piece of privacy has been surrendered. Walter Soehnge, who says he holds solid, middle-of-the-road American beliefs, worries about rights being lost.

"If it can happen to me, it can happen to others," he said.

(Bob Kerr is a columnist for The Providence Journal. E-mail [email protected].)
(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.shns.com.)
 
I think the "terrorist" part is just the broad way the law is written to cover a lot more than terrorism. While it strikes me as being wrong to use the terror label to go after regular crime, it is not new at all. Both parties seem to be voting for it so all I can say is don't re-elect your representitives if you don't like it. As for privacy, why in the world would you expect a credit card purchace to be private?

Here is what I don't understand:

After sending in the check, they checked online to see if their account had been duly credited. They learned that the check had arrived, but the amount available for credit on their account hadn't changed.

Is he saying they did not credit his account, or saying they did not adjust his limit? The first is theft, the second makes me wonder if he is only complaining about how much he can spend.
 
also if you wire (moneygram, western union, etc) more then 2000 in a day at the same store and they remember your face expect to fill out a special form which is then sent to the goverment, homeland security to be exact I believe, and if the clerk thinks you look "suspicious" expect to fill out a bit more.

Send more then 10,000 expect to stand there for more BS....I was informed of this the other day by my job since yours truly is the guy behind the counter that has to decide if you look "suspicious" and stand there with you while you are (understandably) agravated filing out your various forms.

It is due to money luandering stuff inacted after 9/11
 
Yet the (traceable) investigation into ATM records from the 9/11 terrorists back into Saudi Arabia was stonewalled and killed. 'Cause the Saudis (and now Dubai) are our frrreind$$$$$.... :rolleyes:

Do they even consider the CONTEXT of this? A J.C. Penney credit card? I didn't think terrorists tended to use an oftentimes rather bland selection of clothing and housewares in their evil schemes?

(Watch out for terrorists in knit polo shirts with bombs hidden in formica bedroom sets!)
 
Is he saying they did not credit his account, or saying they did not adjust his limit? The first is theft, the second makes me wonder if he is only complaining about how much he can spend.

Does it matter? The point is that this wasn't an internal matter with the credit card company, which would have been fine...it's your business arrangement with a private company in a free market. The point is that Homeland Security's bloated big-governmentness stepped in and INTERVENED in a private transaction on rather logic-challenged grounds.

As for privacy, why in the world would you expect a credit card purchace to be private?
Because it's a business transaction between you and the company that gave you the credit card. The government has no place interfering in it or nosing about in it unless there's probable cause for a criminal investigation. Makes you want to make sure you buy all guns and ammo with cash only, perhaps?
 
Hmmm I sent in a similar payment last year to citibank to clear my card out, it was credited the same speed as my usual payments as far as I could tell. Makes me wonder if homeland security went prying through my shopping habits.
 
I knew I should have used that tax refund for more guns, rather than do the "responsible thing" and pay off some debt like my wife recommended.

Oops, gotta go, I see the blacked out suburbans circling the block. Wish me luck!
 
I'd like to know specifically what law requires/allows the credit card company (and I'd like to know which one) to report internal transactions with their customers to the .gov. I am aware that any transaction (deposit?) to a bank of $10k or more triggers some kind of reporting requirement. Anyone have a handle on specifics?
 
Well, my wife and I are in the process of buying our first home. I liquidated part of my collection to fund the downpayment. I had to photograph the check that I deposited, then photograph the deposit slip. I was told by U.S. Bank this was to verify any large deposits because of the Patriot Act or some such thing. Take it with a grain of salt, but that's what I was told.
 
BS Meter....

I'm sorry, but my 20 years in the finance and payment industry tell me that this story is B******t. Ya wanna know what happened? They credited the payment but there hadn't been ENOUGH TIME FOR THE CHECK TO CLEAR. (and since it was a large payment, compared with the smaller ones, they might have stretched the time. We don't know the credit history of the story teller, either)

The Texan probably had po'd enough people that the functionary told him the Homeland security BS to get him off the phone.

Also the $10,000 currency reporting rule came in over 10 years ago as a method to curb the money flow of drug smugglers.
 
Recently wired $20K while re-financing a loan. I bet that I'm in the clear, since the bank was Navy FCU.
 
Because it's a business transaction between you and the company that gave you the credit card. The government has no place interfering in it or nosing about in it unless there's probable cause for a criminal investigation. Makes you want to make sure you buy all guns and ammo with cash only, perhaps?

Definitely. We are all suspects.

Welcome to "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave."
 
Well, patriot steals a lot of laws from RICO and jsut replaces "organized crime" with "terrorist".

The rico laws require notification at the $10,000 limit. However many financial institutions voluntarily set th notification limit to $5000.


What I smell here is not BS as suggested above, but questionable practices by the bank issuing the credit card.

Look at it this way. THey WANT you to be making interest paymets. If you pay off a substantial balance, they make less money. So why not use the law to allow them to mire your payment of your debts in government paperwork, thereby making you pay interest for at LEAST one more billing cycle.


Sounds pretty reprehensible to me.
 
I'm with Mongo on this one. There is no way that Homeland Security is reviewing payments to Penny's.
 
Got to agree with Mongo, Credit card companies do a lot thing in the name of the Patriot Act, easy blame to cover unpopular corporate policy and scare tactics to prevent people from paying off cards quickly. If I can't physically pay cash (paper money) all my gun purchases are done on a credit card (stop payments are an option, etc). Last purchase, when I tried to pay off my balance I was told, by the issueing bank that I couldn't pay more than 6% a month, because of the "Patriot Act". Problem was fixed, no longer bank there.

It can easily take a check 4 weeks to clear. And people that pay off large debts and then suddenly inquire about available credit raises internal flags for the credit card companies.

Funny how the "Patriot Act" doesn't get used to stop people from making large withdrawals from mutual funds or prevent them from buying large amounts of foriegn currency.
 
If the story is not BS (and I gotta agree with Mongo that it may be), I guess I'm probably considered a terrorist because I have NO debt. :uhoh:

In the late 90's, back when I had a "real job" that paid a decent wage (I'm now self-employed and relatively more poor, even if way more happy), I paid off all my debts and cut up all my credit cards. Now, all I have is a bank debit card.

If I can't pay cash for something, I don't buy it.

(Which is why it's taking me so long to buy a new 7mm08.)

18%+ interest? Are you kidding? :what:

No thanks.

Nem
 
Quote:
Is he saying they did not credit his account, or saying they did not adjust his limit? The first is theft, the second makes me wonder if he is only complaining about how much he can spend.


Does it matter? The point is that this wasn't an internal matter with the credit card company, which would have been fine...it's your business arrangement with a private company in a free market. The point is that Homeland Security's bloated big-governmentness stepped in and INTERVENED in a private transaction on rather logic-challenged grounds.

Yes it matters. If his only complaint is his credit limit took an extra day or two to return to normal he is probably crying about the time it takes for a check to clear. To me that is classified as "so what". If he is saying Homeland Security held up the payment (and at best we only have his word that the bank told him that, hardly airtight evidence) then it rises to another level.

As far as privacy goes, if you don't want anybody to have a record of your purchaces, pay cash.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top