The fact that someone with a political opinion had their account closed is not evidence that Chase is monitoring all their customers' political activity and systematically closing accounts for political activity Chase doesn't like.

The same way that Chase closing a restaurant's account is not evidence that Chase is tasting the food in every restaurant and systematically closing accounts for restaurants that cook food that Chase doesn't like.

Good that you trust Chase and other banks with the lame 'evidence' that they provide such as: "Financial institutions have an obligation to know our customers and monitor transactions that flow through our customers' accounts. After careful consideration, we decided to close your account because of unexpected activity on these or another Chase account."

Based on that standard template, I won't trust big banks, because, hiding behind BSA, banks can use the blanket statement "because of unexpected activity". Now you ask me to trust Banks, because they can't show that evidence to me.

I don't trust Chase as far as I can throw them. But I still trust them more than Nigel Farage.

None of this is about whether I trust Chase or not.

It's about the big claim that Chase monitors the political activity of their customers and systematically closes the accounts of people with opinions Chase doesn't like.

There's precisely zero evidence that they do this.

Even if one blindly accepts your citations from "The 700 Club" and some random post from "Nitter" as authoritative, even they provide zero evidence for that claim.

Big claims require compelling evidence, and you haven't provided any.

So if MSM doesn't report, it doesn't exist? State the requirements of 'compelling evidence'.

You debate like that Chase email explains their reasoning.

"Compelling" evidence would be great, but SOME evidence would be nice too.

The media not reporting it is certainly not evidence, down that path lies true crazy.

FWIW, Nitter is just an alternative frontend to Twitter/X.

So what alternative theory do you have for all those accounts being closed?

Risk avoidance. Extremists (!) are more likely to have dubios donors. And even if they're "normal" political figures or activists, their behaviour in public might damage the bank.

This being said this approach is a pretty wild one still, since people NEED banks, and there should be long duration till the expiration (except in cases of fraud, money laundering, ..)

Their behavior in public, such as their social media activity? Sounds like there's no disagreement here.

No, Natwest got rid of him because he is broke, and the CEO resigned for discussing his personal details in public.

Natwest's initial response was what you said: his accounts fell below a certain threshold after he paid off his mortgage. Then Farage sought info from Natwest using "subject access request". In those documents, it is "found that an internal committee had deemed his views did not align with the bank's own. This formed part of the basis for cutting him, the document showed, alongside commercial considerations." [1]

[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/natwest-meets-quart...

You are incorrect. Natwest was forced to release internal documents about the debanking of Nigel Farage under an FOI request and it is clear from the evidence that he was debanked because of his politics.

From the Guardian 30 July 2023: <https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/30/uk-banks-cl...>:

"Farage used a subject access request to discover that, despite initial denials by NatWest subsidiary Coutts, his political views had played a part in the closure of his account."

> At least in the UK, NatWest debanked Neil Farage's account for his political views. Even its CEO resigned over her lying.

No, a subsidiary of NatWest closed Farage's account when he no longer met the investment thresholds for the account he held. The CEO resigned for telling a journalist the above.

That's not the same thing, at all.

No fan of Farage, but then why was most of the document the bank produced about what he did as a politician? Farage also claims he never met these supposed thresholds.

Combination of reputational damage[0] and him being a PEP.

I believe the account closure was a business decision, but they definitely had no reason to be public about it. One good thing came out of the debacle, though: it put the spotlight on UK retail banking regulations and how they are allowed to treat customers in the first place.

Financial institutions don't like small-time PEPs. They don't net the banks anywhere near the money dictators and kleptocrats do, but are just as likely to engage in ongoing bribery due to their position in society.

0: Farage had apparently been very vocal about having an account with Coutts, and waving that thing around as a sign of ... something. For the bank, that was negative brand value.

Negative brand value is no reason to debank someone, half musicians that do drugs would give their bank a bad name. There must be a legal basis to debank someone.

I don't like Farage's opinions, and being a PEP only means "more eyes on you", doesn't mean "kick them out". 1) Now, if Coutts dropped the ball on something, shame on them. A good lawyer can get some good ££££ for damaging the client's business/etc. 2) If Farage didn't mean a minimum-net-worth.. that's another story.

Farage didn't meet their net worth requirement, which is why his account was closed. A bit like any retail banking product - e.g. HSBC advance, there can be some slack in how strictly the rules are allied. Coutts decided that since he no longer met their net worth requirements, they didn't want to continue to serve him. They may have decided to continue serving other clients whos circumstances changed though for their own reasons.

If farage had met the requirements, none of this would have happened.

> Farage didn't meet their net worth requirement, which is why his account was closed.

Not according to follow-up reports: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38159768

That's not what that says. The quote from coutts is even in the HN comment -

> We acknowledge that the information we reported - that Coutts' decision on Mr Farage's account did not involve considerations about his political views - turned out not to be accurate and have apologised to Mr Farage

That does not say that he did meet the net worth requirements. See [0], and read the article. No outlet has retracted the claim that he didn't meet the wealth requirements which is why his account was flagged for review.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jul/21/bbc-amends-sto...

> and him being a PEP.

I'm a immediate relative of a PEP. And banks treat those just like they treat PEPs.

I've banked in 4 different countries with about 10 banks total, disclosed to them the fact that I'm a PEP or an immediate relative of one, and it has never, ever caused any issue.

PEP = politically exposed person ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politically_exposed_person

> In financial regulation, a politically exposed person (PEP) is one who has been entrusted with a prominent public function. A PEP generally presents a higher risk for potential involvement in bribery and corruption by virtue of their position and the influence they may hold. The terms "politically exposed person" and senior foreign political figure are often used interchangeably, particularly in international forums.

Best I could find.

They resigned for telling a journalist that because it was a lie. https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/britains-bbc-... Britain's BBC has apologised to Nigel Farage over a story it ran on the closure of his accounts at NatWest's (NWG.L) private bank Coutts, which the former Brexit Party leader had said was the result of his political views.

The BBC had previously reported Farage falling below the financial threshold required to be a customer at Coutts - whose website advises its clients should be able to borrow or invest at least 1 million pounds ($1.28 million) with the bank or hold 3 million pounds in savings - was the reason for the closure.But an internal review of the bank account obtained by Farage showed the private bank's wealth reputational risk committee had said his values did not align with the bank's own.

"We acknowledge that the information we reported - that Coutts' decision on Mr Farage's account did not involve considerations about his political views - turned out not to be accurate and have apologised to Mr Farage," the BBC said in the corrections and clarifications section of its website.

Alternatively the facts were not defensible so they came up with an excuse that was.

You've made a jump from the article - it doesn't say it was a lie, it says that it wasn't accurate to say that Coutts decision didn't involve considerations about his political views. They're not the same thing.

No outlets have retracted the claim that he didn't meet the wealth criteria, and nobody has claimed that Coutts lied about him meeting the threshold. In fact, every outlet that I checked today stil claims he didn't meet the wealth criteria, and that the CEO resigned because she discussed details of a client's account with a journalist, e.g. [0]

[0] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/26/business/alison-rose-natw...

Even if Farange was targeted for his political beliefs, that is independent of whether Chase monitors customers political activites. Farange's politics were a matter of celebrity.

This is a false claim.