Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

BLACKLISTED BY THE BANK

Expand Messages
  • ummyakoub
    BLACKLISTED BY THE BANK Sarah Miller, Christian Science Monitor, 8/25/03 http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0825/p15s01-wmcn.html In an age of homeland insecurity,
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 6, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      BLACKLISTED BY THE BANK
      Sarah Miller, Christian Science Monitor, 8/25/03
      http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0825/p15s01-wmcn.html


      In an age of homeland insecurity, financial institutions add layers
      of scrutiny that some critics call overzealous.

      Hossam Algabri ripped open his statement from Fleet Bank one day
      after work last November, and began to read: "We regret to inform you
      that we have decided that it is not in our best interest to continue
      your banking relationship with us."
      Mr. Algabri assumed that a mistake had been made. He hadn't bounced a
      single check since he opened an account at the institution's
      predecessor, BayBank, 11 years earlier.



      J KEHE




      Related stories

      10/19/01

      Tough trail of terror's money

      09/26/01

      Trail to Al Qaeda starts with bin Laden 'Inc.'



      monitortalk

      Weigh in on issues of the day in our forums.



      E-mail this story


      Write a letter to the Editor


      Printer-friendly version


      Permission to reprint/republish




      As he dialed customer service, he began to wonder: Did this have
      anything to do with the war on terrorism?

      "You hear about it all the time, but you never think it will happen
      to you," says the Egyptian native, who came to the United States at
      age 12 and became a citizen this year.

      Algabri sat on hold that day for 20 minutes. Nine months later he is
      still, in essence, on hold. The bank has told him that his account
      was flagged for suspicious activity, but says that is all it is at
      liberty to reveal. He has since opened an account elsewhere.

      Banks have long played a role in stopping the flow of money among
      suspected terrorists, money launderers, and narcotraffickers. But the
      terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, raised the bar. More watch lists
      have been generated, more institutions have become accountable - and
      more consumers may feel the heat.

      And while alleged government violations of civil rights under the USA
      Patriot Act have received steady attention, consumer complaints in
      the private sector have fallen largely off the radar.

      "No one paid attention to the lists because they primarily affected
      foreign nationals," says Peter Fitzgerald, an expert on government
      watch lists at Stetson University in Florida. "Now it affects those
      who do business with those who do business with those who do business
      with someone suspected of terrorism."

      Financial institutions are under pressure from the government. They
      face stiff fines - up to $1 million in some cases - if they don't
      stop money flows or freeze accounts.

      Some observers worry, however, that financial discrimination has
      become an unwanted byproduct. Under an article of the Patriot Act,
      some investigations are now conducted in secret, and American
      consumers like Algabri are increasingly finding their accounts closed
      without explanation - and with little recourse.

      "Blacklisting was set up as a foreign-policy tool," but as the
      practice creeps into the realm of criminality, there are questions
      about whether the mechanisms in place to protect those who are
      accused, Fitzgerald says.

      Targeted financial sanctions are widely supported, both in and out of
      the financial community, as a homeland-security measure. They are
      intended to punish "the bad guys," say sources, instead of an entire
      nation, such as Iraq.

      But are its tentacles reaching too far, gathering up batches of
      mistaken identities? And are financial institutions too often erring
      on the side of caution?

      Algabri's story probably dates back to his former employee, Ptech, of
      Quincy, Mass. The software firm made headlines last winter when it
      became public that one of its financiers, a Saudi national, showed up
      on a Treasury Department watch list.

      The company was later cleared, but Algabri's account - as well as
      those of four Muslim and Arab colleagues - remains closed. Each
      received the same letter from Fleet on Nov. 2, about a month before
      the Ptech story broke, according to sources involved in the case.

      Algabri says he believes in the nation's war on terrorism, but not
      the "overzealous" one that is unfolding today. "I believe they closed
      my account because I am a Muslim," he says. He plans to file a
      discrimination complaint against FleetBoston Financial Corp. in the
      coming weeks.

      Fleet Bank did not return calls to discuss Algabri's account.

      According to civil rights advocates, consumer complaints regarding
      account closures, canceled credit cards, and disrupted wire transfers
      have increasingly surfaced across the nation.

      In Boston, Fleet Bank has closed at least 15 accounts of Muslim and
      Arab holders without explanation, according to the Massachusetts
      office of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. In New
      Jersey and New York City, dozens of Muslims have been asked to
      provide large amounts of documentation without cause, or face credit-
      card cancellation, say several sources, including the American Civil
      Liberties Union (ACLU).

      "Recently we have started to see a number of cases ... all of which
      seem to have something to do with the Patriot Act," says Christopher
      Dunn, a legal adviser with the New York branch of the ACLU. But it is
      a nascent issue, he says. "We are only now trying to understand what
      is happening."

      In fact, the pockets of complaints that have bubbled up are thought
      to signal a much deeper problem.

      "Many of [those targeted] are immigrants. They don't want to draw
      attention to themselves," says Khurram Wahid, a legal adviser for the
      Council of American-Islamic Relations in Washington. "They don't want
      themselves on any system complaining about anything."

      Blacklisting dates back to World War I, says Fitzgerald, when it was
      used principally as a political tool - to make a statement about an
      unsavory regime. In the 1990s, President Clinton used blacklisting to
      stymie narcotraffickers and terrorists. After Sept. 11, its role
      expanded once again.

      The government's principal watch list of Specially Designated
      Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) - generated by the Office of
      Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) at the Department of the Treasury -
      currently lists more than 5,000 individuals and entities with whom
      the US is not to do business.

      Financial institutions are required to cross-reference their
      customers and the constantly revised, 80-page OFAC list to make sure
      they have no matches. They do so via outside vendors or within in-
      house compliance departments. Any time a transfer occurs, for
      example, the names of sender and receiver are run through a program
      comparable to a computer spell-checker, which pulls up all
      possible "hits."

      Cross-referencing is time consuming. "But it's the law, and we abide
      by the law," says John Hall, spokesman for the American Bankers
      Association. "We are doing our part in the fight against terrorism."

      While the OFAC list is available on the Treasury Department's
      website, investigations of suspected terrorists or money launderers
      under Section 314 of the USA Patriot Act are more controversial, at
      least from a consumer perspective. Section 314 authorizes the
      government to communicate with financial institutions about
      suspicious activity. The institution then reports to the Treasury's
      Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. The customer is unaware that
      authorities have contacted the bank, but may find his or her account
      inexplicably closed.

      For months, Fleet Bank refused to give Algabri - and his lawyers - a
      reason for shutting down his account. After two meetings with bank
      officials, Algabri found out that a one-time withdrawal of $7,000, as
      well as his habit of depositing different checks in individual
      envelopes at the same time, constituted suspicious behavior.

      While banks are not required to shut down accounts - as they are when
      a name appears on the OFAC list - the government does instruct
      institutions to be prudent. In most cases, that means closing down
      the account.

      "The institution has to make a decision," says John Byrne, senior
      counsel at the American Bankers Association. "A 314 is a serious
      demand ... if they are contacting you, it's for a good reason."

      But doubts remain about mistaken identities. "People get accused,
      then cleared, and there is no repercussion for accusing anyone," says
      Merrie Najimy, president of the Massachusetts branch of the American
      Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. "Banks can hide behind ... the
      Patriot Act and can get away with what they want."

      Consumers have also found themselves on unofficial lists spun from an
      FBI suspect list generated after Sept. 11. "That list got into
      private hands," says Lara Flint, staff counsel at the Center for
      Democracy and Technology in Washington. "Many on that list have long
      since been cleared, but they are still feeling the ramifications,"
      she says. "It's one example of how a list can get out of control."

      Financial institutions acknowledge that closing customer accounts is
      not good business. Wire companies, for example, have been hit hard by
      having to disrupt customer transfers.

      "And it has created a good deal of acrimony [among customers]," says
      Jorge Guerro, president of the National Money Transmitters
      Association. "They don't understand that we are under obligation by
      the government."

      As Sept. 11 showed, seemingly insignificant transfers can support
      colossal terrorism. Now, corporate America is especially eager to
      show it is doing "the right thing," says W. Michael Hoffman,
      executive director of the Center for Business Ethics at Bentley
      College.

      Still, there is a fine line between violating customers' rights and
      allowing terrorist money to flow through an institution, he
      says. "They must set up clear and transparent protocols for
      conducting any investigation."

      Some call those protocols unclear. "The question is, how does one get
      oneself off one of these secret government watch lists?" asks
      Flint. "I think that's still an unanswered question."

      Of the 15 people whose accounts have been closed in Boston, only
      Algabri has fought back.

      "It draws attention to you, in your community," Algabri says. "It
      places a big question mark over your head." Most of his peers have
      opted to quietly set up accounts elsewhere.

      "People feel powerless to do anything, so they've resigned themselves
      to being targets," says Salma Kazmi, assistant director of the
      Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center. "People just want to get
      on with their lives."


      *********************************************************************

      NEWS AND VIEWS DISTRIBUTED HERE ARE THE AUTHOR'S RESPONSIBILITY
      AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OPINION OF WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
      vwns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

      NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vwns/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.