Maybe this was a technicality or some bank serf overzealous to lick the leg of his master.
Anyway, if or when there is a bank run, things like limits to payments, withdrawal and technical glitches in the money dispensing machines will be the first sign.
Topic: HSBC restricting cash withdrawals in UK (Read 4965 times)
So legally you don't own the money you have in a bank. Is that what you are saying? Show me a law saying that.
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED~!
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2260952
More on the topic with commentary relevant to Bitcoin (CoInvalidation <-- this is the proper spelling):
http://www.dgcmagazine.com/what-a-landmark-legal-case-from-mid-1700s-scotland-tells-us-about-the-fungibility-and-the-very-nature-of-money-and-why-we-should-care-in-light-of-the-recent-coinvalidation-controversy/
The BANK owns your money. Not you.
This is on point. Hence fractional reserve lending.
Just go watch the four horse men on youtube.
luv to smash bones It's over an hour and a half. Got a tl;dw?
So legally you don't own the money you have in a bank. Is that what you are saying? Show me a law saying that.
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED~!
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2260952
More on the topic with commentary relevant to Bitcoin (CoInvalidation <-- this is the proper spelling):
http://www.dgcmagazine.com/what-a-landmark-legal-case-from-mid-1700s-scotland-tells-us-about-the-fungibility-and-the-very-nature-of-money-and-why-we-should-care-in-light-of-the-recent-coinvalidation-controversy/
The BANK owns your money. Not you.
So legally you don't own the money you have in a bank. Is that what you are saying? Show me a law saying that.
I will explain: Obligatory Law which is with us since Roman times in more or less the same form, defines this kind of relationship in simple terms:
1 Upon deposit you hand over money to the bank. The bank owns that money. It's banks money.
2 At the same time bank hand over a "promissory note" to you which roughly reads as: bank promises to hand over (deposited) money to depositor at his/her request at any time. This note may be a simple bank statement.
So money belongs to the bank and you have their obligation to return it at your request. You don't own that money anymore. You own an obligation.
Whether or not they deliver on their promise/obligation or not remains to be seen when you actually request to have your money back. Of course if they do not (they reneg) then you have a legal recourse to have a court force them.
However if a bank fails / goes bankrupt, then your claims become void as the obligation ceased to exist when bank = (legal) person "died" that is bankruptcy procedure ended.
Most countries force commercial banks to insure their depositors up to certain amount for just such an event thus allowing depositors to feel secure about their deposits and making bank runs less likely.
the money in account record belongs to the owner ...
I will explain: Obligatory Law which is with us since Roman times in more or less the same form, defines this kind of relationship in simple terms:
1 Upon deposit you hand over money to the bank. The bank owns that money. It's banks money.
2 At the same time bank hand over a "promissory note" to you which roughly reads as: bank promises to hand over (deposited) money to depositor at his/her request at any time. This note may be a simple bank statement.
So money belongs to the bank and you have their obligation to return it at your request. You don't own that money anymore. You own an obligation.
Whether or not they deliver on their promise/obligation or not remains to be seen when you actually request to have your money back. Of course if they do not (they reneg) then you have a legal recourse to have a court force them.
However if a bank fails / goes bankrupt, then your claims become void as the obligation ceased to exist when bank = (legal) person "died" that is bankruptcy procedure ended.
Most countries force commercial banks to insure their depositors up to certain amount for just such an event thus allowing depositors to feel secure about their deposits and making bank runs less likely.
the money in account record belongs to the owner ...
if you not agree .. F**k .. does not matter if you are Islamic bank or not
So legally you don't own the money you have in a bank. Is that what you are saying? Show me a law saying that.
I will explain: Obligatory Law which is with us since Roman times in more or less the same form, defines this kind of relationship in simple terms:
1 Upon deposit you hand over money to the bank. The bank owns that money. It's banks money.
2 At the same time bank hand over a "promissory note" to you which roughly reads as: bank promises to hand over (deposited) money to depositor at his/her request at any time. This note may be a simple bank statement.
So money belongs to the bank and you have their obligation to return it at your request. You don't own that money anymore. You own an obligation.
Whether or not they deliver on their promise/obligation or not remains to be seen when you actually request to have your money back. Of course if they do not (they reneg) then you have a legal recourse to have a court force them.
However if a bank fails / goes bankrupt, then your claims become void as the obligation ceased to exist when bank = (legal) person "died" that is bankruptcy procedure ended.
Most countries force commercial banks to insure their depositors up to certain amount for just such an event thus allowing depositors to feel secure about their deposits and making bank runs less likely.
the money in account record belongs to the owner ...
So legally you don't own the money you have in a bank. Is that what you are saying? Show me a law saying that.
I will explain: Obligatory Law which is with us since Roman times in more or less the same form, defines this kind of relationship in simple terms:
1 Upon deposit you hand over money to the bank. The bank owns that money. It's banks money.
2 At the same time bank hand over a "promissory note" to you which roughly reads as: bank promises to hand over (deposited) money to depositor at his/her request at any time. This note may be a simple bank statement.
So money belongs to the bank and you have their obligation to return it at your request. You don't own that money anymore. You own an obligation.
Whether or not they deliver on their promise/obligation or not remains to be seen when you actually request to have your money back. Of course if they do not (they reneg) then you have a legal recourse to have a court force them.
However if a bank fails / goes bankrupt, then your claims become void as the obligation ceased to exist when bank = (legal) person "died" that is bankruptcy procedure ended.
Most countries force commercial banks to insure their depositors up to certain amount for just such an event thus allowing depositors to feel secure about their deposits and making bank runs less likely.
It's even more difficult in France, Italy or Sweden. Banks make less and less cash transactions, and advise all their customers to use credit cards and wire payments. It's part of the game against money laundering and tax evasion. I think in Italy it's illegal to make a payment of more than 1,000 € in cash.
Sounds familiar with some bitcoin exchanges here and there? Just saying...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25861717
Refusing to give customers the cash unless they provide an adequate reason. People suitably unimpressed at having less control of their money in a bank than they thought.
Is the answer of "I will keep the money in a safe because I don't trust banks that impose such a low withdrawal limit." A good answer, or a bad one?Refusing to give customers the cash unless they provide an adequate reason. People suitably unimpressed at having less control of their money in a bank than they thought.
Considering that interest rates are basically (and artificially) zero now, the only reason to have money in a bank is convenience. So you have to decide if that convenience is greater than the inconvenience that the money is no longer in your possession.
... the cash notes technically are not owned by you either, even if you have them in your hand legitimately.
Take a look on the front, it says right there on it that it is debt belonging to the Bank of England.
... the rabbit hole of the monetary deception is very deep once you choose to go down it. The whole system is one layer of debt built on top of another. Get this in your head, they let YOU OWN NOTHING.
Take a look on the front, it says right there on it that it is debt belonging to the Bank of England.
... the rabbit hole of the monetary deception is very deep once you choose to go down it. The whole system is one layer of debt built on top of another. Get this in your head, they let YOU OWN NOTHING.
Banks in the UK have had cash withdrawal policies like this for years. Getting out anything over £500 is a pain.
nah i've took around £2k a few times not even a flinch, I do anticipate there to be a 'red flag' value but I just haven't hit it yet.
in answer to the "who needs that much money" poster, if you have to get money from A to B in one day then cash is king...
Ownership doesnt change when you put money in a bank, 'posession' changes.
All you armchair lawyers make me laugh.
All you armchair lawyers make me laugh.
So if I walk into a bank and deposit $1,000 into a GIC, I still own that cash? Of course not, this is why it's called "buying a GIC." You give them cash now in exchange for a promise to get cash + interest at some point in the future.
It is less clear when we're talking about chequing accounts, but I'd still argue that what you "own" is a promise that the bank will give you cash on demand, and not the actual cash.
The problem is that the word "money" is ambiguous.
It looks like "demand" has become ambiguous too, conditional upon proof of the purpose. And if they don't like the proof, or the purpose, you can't have the money ("the money" now seems more correct than "your money"). It makes the word "promise" start to look a little ambiguous too.
Ownership doesnt change when you put money in a bank, 'posession' changes.
All you armchair lawyers make me laugh.
All you armchair lawyers make me laugh.
So if I walk into a bank and deposit $1,000 into a GIC, I still own that cash? Of course not, this is why it's called "buying a GIC." You give them cash now in exchange for a promise to get cash + interest at some point in the future.
It is less clear when we're talking about chequing accounts, but I'd still argue that what you "own" is a promise that the bank will give you cash on demand, and not the actual cash.
The problem is that the word "money" is ambiguous.
This comes on the back of news that an Asian report that said HSBC has a massive black hole on their books, assets worth tens of billions less than they were. The report advised stock holders to sell shares
What do you even need cash to pay for? I have never had to withdraw a large amount of cash.. ever...
You know, stuff and things. Stuff and things cost money.
global moderator
Activity: 3934
Merit: 2676
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
Fuck that, I would immediately close the account and move the funds elsewhere.
People should've done that already when this happened: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jul/03/hsbc-money-laundering-settlement-approved
Fuck that, I would immediately close the account and move the funds elsewhere.
Jump to: