So a State government, using lawful authority, for taxes owed ordered Chase to hand over your money, and you frame this as Chase "stealing" your money? I'll acknowledge the $150 fee that you ultimately pay is high, maybe even unreasonable, but I feel like your original post was a little disingenuous nonetheless.

Your own explanation of events reads like you tried to ignore a tax liability until you gave them no choice but to seize it. If you believed it was erroneous you should have worked with the State of Indiana to resolve the error (or create a payment plan saving $150 in fees).

It sounds like you aren't considering the possibility that Indiana did not have a legitimate reason to confiscate the money, such as a numerical error on a tax form, which has happened to me.

I did acknowledge that. That's why I said they should have worked with the State to resolve the error, rather than ignore it until a seizure was required.

Seizures are expensive for the state too. If you're working with them on the tax liability (inc. disputing it) they likely aren't going to go the seizure route as a first port of call.

There are situations where the mail that the State sends does not properly reach the taxpayer. I suppose if they confiscate the funds and then are open to swift resolution of the error, that's not so bad, but I'm surprised they don't choose wage garnishment or some other way of contacting the taxpayer before just "surprise, the money is ours!"

So... Chase is, in your imaginary world, supposed to refuse a lawful court order because this person claims that they don't actually owe the money? Hey, maybe Chase could even pony up for a legal defense fund! I mean, why wouldn't they?

When a private company tried to lay a claim to my account, BoA told them to go stuff themselves.

I understand that a court of law is different, but that does not mean that the court has acted ethically or logically-- they have only acted officially.

If your money was stored non-digitally, it would be a bit more difficult to confiscate, such as if it were in a safe that I privately maintained offsite somewhere.

All irrelevant. The GP is bashing Chase for complying with a court order. It's not their place to decide which lawful orders they will follow.

Out of curiosity, are you also one of those Westerners who also criticizes China for being authoritarian?

It's because I'm trying to understand the logic of those who feel like just because an action has been performed by a certain government, it therefore must be logical and ethical 100000% of the time.

I could point to examples of times where private organizations defied specific government orders because they felt the order was unjust, but I have a feeling this wouldn't be a sufficient argument for you.

>Out of curiosity, are you also one of those Westerners who also criticizes China for being authoritarian?

Wow.

>It's because I'm trying to understand the logic of those who feel like just because an action has been performed by a certain government, it therefore must be logical and ethical 100000% of the time.

I literally never said that. Not once in any of these comments. Are you even replying to the right person?

>I could point to examples of times where private organizations defied specific government orders because they felt the order was unjust, but I have a feeling this wouldn't be a sufficient argument for you.

So, in your mind, Chase should perform their own investigation of this man's taxes before complying with the court order? This is really what you think?

Should we also have private companies arrest people who the police say have committed a crime?

Hey! That guy is in your restaurant. Hold him down before we get there. If you don't comply then you are in contempt.

Ummm... no, we have police for that. Of course, the police do not have access to anything and everything in any place at any time, which is why they sometimes need to go through the court in order to compel private entities to assist.

honestly, have you thought through anything that you're saying? How do you imagine any of this could possibly work in the way you imagine? You literally expect every subject of a warrant to conduct their own internal investigation as to the validity of said warrant, even though they have absolutely no right to not comply.

it's so unreasonable that it's comical; I don't even know why I continue to respond. You live in a fantasy land.

In this argument, that point does not matter. OP said that Chase stole money from them. That is not true; banks lawfully complying with government orders is not theft. Banks, or really any private business, do not protect you from the government.

There was no tax liability, no taxes owed. That’s where the “based entirely in fiction” part comes from. States do not have lawful authority to invent nonexistent tax liabilities and seize property in any amount they make up, which is what Indiana attempted here.

Chase charged me $150 to rubber-stamp an illegal seizure of my account. They were entrusted with the funds and they seized them on behalf of a third party which had no legitimate claim to them.

Sounds like Chase stole my money—and charged me to do it.

So you're claiming you never lived in Indiana, received no correspondence from the State of Indiana on a potential tax liability, and absolutely no warning that they were planning on seizing your account?

Correct. It was not a lawful order.

I am unable to see why your comments are being downvoted. Even if you owed money I do not see how state can compel your bank to hand over your personal wealth to recover that. They should employ the exact same methods as some other business might use to collect their debt, going to court should be the last step.

Thanks for the warning and I will never do any business in state of Indiana.

> They should employ the exact same methods as some other business might use to collect their debt, going to court should be the last step.

They said above the state had a warrant. So they did what you wanted them to do, went to court, got a warrant and forced the bank via legal edict to hand over the money.

Tax warrants in indiana can be filed by clerks:

https://www.in.gov/judiciary/admin/2651.htm

It has problems:

https://cbs4indy.com/2019/08/15/state-automatically-issues-t...

https://www.theindychannel.com/news/call-6-investigators/cal...

You can also find tons of evidence of major tax warrant scams hitting Indiana. I wouldn't be surprised if Chase got a letter from the scammer, with a deposit account number, and a link to an official public tax warrant URL.

Private businesses can (and do) also compel your bank to hand over your personal wealth if they have a court order.

> Zero-burden-of-proof state government edict (an Indiana tax warrant)

"Zero-burden-of-proof state government edict" describes the property tax bills every single homeowner gets in the mail and is expected to pay. Pay your taxes.

No; property taxes require a burden of proof: you must own property. That property must be assessed in some way.

In this instance I had no tax liability whatsoever. Zero. No business operations whatsoever in or touching or with their state. Indiana invented numbers out of thin air. Most of a year later I got the money back from Indiana as they agreed on this point (after they skimmed about $1k for “collections fees” incurred as a result of their illegal seizure).

Chase was happy to oblige them with a rubber stamp.

Unfortunately, even Google would concede and hand over the money because it's backed by Citi-Group. Financial institutions listen to court and state orders blindly.

Court orders, sure. But the state should have to go through the courts the same way everybody else would.

And you think they did not in this case?