FDIC Admits To Strangling Legal Gun Stores Banking Relationships

[rudeguy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point


http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankmi...gling-legal-gun-stores-banking-relationships/

The U.S. federal bureaucracy doesn’t often admit wrongdoing. This time it took a change in the political landscape, many businesses threatening legal action and a congressman with a background in banking to force the bureaucracy to admit to misconduct and to stop financial attacks on legal businesses that the Obama administration deems to be politically incorrect.

This week the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) published a statement saying they are instituting changes to stop Operation Choke Point’s discriminatory practices against legal businesses. The U.S. Justice Department still contends that Operation Choke Point is an initiative designed to reduce unlawful fraud by “choking” illegal players out of U.S. financial institutions. However, under direction of the FDIC, Operation Choke Point also affected the banking relationships of many legal businesses, including those of gun stores and other firearms-related companies. Some law-abiding businesses had their long-standing banking relationships terminated as a result of threats from the FDIC to censure financial institutions that do business with gun stores and other firearms-related businesses. Some examples of legal businesses being harmed were included in a report by the House Oversight Committee; still more examples were documented in research done by The Heritage Foundation’s The Daily Signal.

The letter from the FDIC says, “The FDIC is aware that some institutions may be hesitant to provide certain types of banking services due to concerns that they will be unable to comply with the associated requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)….” As a result, the FDIC says it is now “encourage[ing] institutions to take a risk-based approach in assessing individual customer relationships rather than declining to provide banking services to entire categories of customers….”

U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.), who was once a bank regulator for the state of Missouri and who now is a member of the House Financial Services Committee, released a statement after a meeting with FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg and Vice Chairman Tom Hoenig, that said in part: “After a year of mounting pressure from Congress and outside organizations like the National Shooting Sports Foundation, top officials from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation finally acknowledged their involvement and wrongdoing in Operation Choke Point. While I am very pleased the FDIC will put in place new polices and change the culture at the agency, there is still work to be done, specifically with the Department of Justice. I am pleased the National Shooting Sports Foundation supports my legislation, the Financial Institution Customer Protection Act, and I have no doubt the foundation will remain steadfast in educating its members and continuing the fight in ending Operation Choke Point once and for all.”

The FDIC will now require bank examiners to put any recommendation to end a banking relationship in writing. The bank examiner also must explain what law or regulation they believe is or was being violated.

The Daily Signal has also reported that during the investigation by Congress emails surfaced showing FDIC investigators “scheming to influence banks’ decisions on who to do business … [to ensure] banks ‘get the message’ about the businesses the regulators don’t like, and pressuring banks to cut credit or close those accounts, effectively discouraging entire industries.”

Luetkemeyer said, “The FDIC has allowed a culture within their agency to blossom that they believe it’s okay to impose their personal opinions and value system in a regulatory way. They are not a regulatory police—their job is to enforce the law.”

Luetkemeyer says he is pleased that the FDIC admitted wrongdoing and is making administrative changes, but—as in the scandal within the IRS—he is pushing for legislation to make certain another administration doesn’t use the FDIC to attack businesses it doesn’t like—what if, for example, a Republican administration used the FDIC to attack the finances of Planned Parenthood?

The bill would also create a legal path for citizens to take action against banks or regulatory institutions that terminate their banking relationships for ideological reasons.

 

[rudeguy]

Long OP so I'm doing a Dave;


So the Obama Administration decided to force banks to stop doing business with legal businesses? Just because the Admin didn't like those kinds of businesses. It didn't matter that the businesses were ran by hard working Americans who followed every law, it only mattered that the Admin decided they didn't like that business model.

What every happened to due process?

tyranny
[tir-uh-nee]


1.
arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
Synonyms: despotism, absolutism, dictatorship.
2.
the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3.
a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4.
oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5.
undue severity or harshness.

 

[highland145]

What ever happened with your companies banking problem?

 

[rudeguy]

What ever happened with your companies banking problem?

We had to go back to our old bank.



Highland is talking about how this affected my company. We are a large cell phone wholesaler and had changed banks to a large national bank hoping to get better service. That bank shut down all of our accounts, checking and credit cards, because we somehow made this list.

 

[IronWing]

I read the wiki link, the Forbes article, and the FDIC's statement. None of them provided evidence of FDIC wrongdoing. The wiki article could use some heavy editing as it is mostly regurgitating opinion pieces.

Note that I'm not saying that the FDIC did no wrong, only that what has been provided thus far doesn't substantiate any wrong doing. I am rather amused that the FDIC's list of businesses with high fraud rates for which banks need to be extra vigilant includes government grants.

 

[michal1980]

we were told this was not true, that Obama wouldn't use his minions to harm conservatives, that we were all nuts, crazy, or suffered some disorder.

The left has once again been shown to be a bunch of lying thugs.

 

[rudeguy]

I read the wiki link, the Forbes article, and the FDIC's statement. None of them provided evidence of FDIC wrongdoing. The wiki article could use some heavy editing as it is mostly regurgitating opinion pieces.

Note that I'm not saying that the FDIC did no wrong, only that what has been provided thus far doesn't substantiate any wrong doing. I am rather amused that the FDIC's list of businesses with high fraud rates for which banks need to be extra vigilant includes government grants.

The Forbes article is much better than the Wiki. The Wiki provided a list of all the different business types the affected, so I posted that. That Wiki page is junk.

 

[PokerGuy]

This is now yet another example of government agencies being used to punish people/businesses for nothing but a different political affiliation or ideological differences. The people/businesses did nothing wrong or illegal, but because they did something the white house and his fellow party members didn't like, they got punished. DoJ going after reporters while ignoring other criminals, IRS abusing conservative groups, FDIC used to punish companies that deal in firearms... and on and on.

This is how tyrannies get stronger, they use the force of government to punish political or ideological opposition.

It's fine that they've acknowledged this abuse, but people need to go to jail for it to send a clear message that it's not acceptable.

 

[IronWing]

It's fine that they've acknowledged this abuse, but people need to go to jail for it to send a clear message that it's not acceptable.

Again, where is the evidence of abuse? You propose to jail people without offering any evidence of a crime. Evidence first, please.

 

[PokerGuy]

Again, where is the evidence of abuse? You propose to jail people without offering any evidence of a crime. Evidence first, please.

Well, just from the article linked in the OP, the FDIC has (apparently) acknowledged wrongdoing:

the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation finally acknowledged their involvement and wrongdoing

And:

during the investigation by Congress emails surfaced showing FDIC investigators “scheming to influence banks’ decisions on who to do business … [to ensure] banks ‘get the message’ about the businesses the regulators don’t like, and pressuring banks to cut credit or close those accounts, effectively discouraging entire industries.

That sure seems like abuse and wrongdoing to me. In this case, I haven't read enough details to sort out the political hype from the truth, but there is certainly enough evidence of operation choke point and similar initiatives hurting legitimate businesses.

 

[KB]

Again, where is the evidence of abuse? You propose to jail people without offering any evidence of a crime. Evidence first, please.

"This week the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) published a statement saying they are instituting changes to stop Operation Choke Point’s discriminatory practices against legal businesses."

Their statement is in essense a confession. Aren't confessions admissable as evidence?

 

[nickqt]

"This week the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) published a statement saying they are instituting changes to stop Operation Choke Point’s discriminatory practices against legal businesses."

Their statement is in essense a confession. Aren't confessions admissable as evidence?

Was there criminal wrongdoing?

The Federal government can discriminate against legal business. Hell, taxing certain products at higher rates is discriminating against legal business.

What did the Federal government do that is illegal?

 

[rudeguy]

Was there criminal wrongdoing?

The Federal government can discriminate against legal business. Hell, taxing certain products at higher rates is discriminating against legal business.

What did the Federal government do that is illegal?

Really? Where is that written?

 

[IronWing]

"This week the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) published a statement saying they are instituting changes to stop Operation Choke Point’s discriminatory practices against legal businesses."

Their statement is in essense a confession. Aren't confessions admissable as evidence?

I read the FDIC's statement which is linked in the Forbes article. No wrongdoing is admitted. So far we have an unsubstantiated allegation of wrongdoing whipped up into a Meringue of Outrage™.

 

[boomerang]

Their statement is in essense a confession. Aren't confessions admissable as evidence?

Yeah, when the .gov decides to charge the .gov for the .gov's actions this could definitely come into play.

 

[CPA]

Was there criminal wrongdoing?

The Federal government can discriminate against legal business. Hell, taxing certain products at higher rates is discriminating against legal business.

What did the Federal government do that is illegal?

and pray tell what taxing of certain products are you referring to? The feds don't have a sales tax. Are you speaking of the federal excise tax on, say, tobacco that is supported by a specific regulation?

 

[nickqt]

and pray tell what taxing of certain products are you referring to? The feds don't have a sales tax. Are you speaking of the federal excise tax on, say, tobacco that is supported by a specific regulation?

Well, certain specific taxes, such as telephone, alcohol, tobacco, whatever. But also business structure, SCorp v. partnership, etc.

I mean, all of those things are taxed differently, and one or the other could (and do) argue that they're being discriminated against.

I haven't read the article. What did the FDIC admit to doing, exactly? The government, for example has had an effect with wikileaks and how they bank. Is that discrimination?

 

[Genx87]

Well, certain specific taxes, such as telephone, alcohol, tobacco, whatever. But also business structure, SCorp v. partnership, etc.

I mean, all of those things are taxed differently, and one or the other could (and do) argue that they're being discriminated against.

I haven't read the article. What did the FDIC admit to doing, exactly? The government, for example has had an effect with wikileaks and how they bank. Is that discrimination?

You are really trying to put a tax on an item and a policy that shut out legitimate business from the financial markets as equivalent?

Whether or not this policy was done with malice or not does not change the fact it happened. And now the FDIC is changing course.

 

[nickqt]

You are really trying to put a tax on an item and a policy that shut out legitimate business from the financial markets as equivalent?

Whether or not this policy was done with malice or not does not change the fact it happened. And now the FDIC is changing course.

Uh, no. I've asked what the FDIC did. All I've heard is "discriminatory", and I can't currently read that article.

And I don't believe that the Federal Government should discriminate by locking a business out of banking, whether legal businesses like gun stores, or legal websites like wikileaks. If a business hasn't committed fraud or some other specific crime, then it shouldn't be targeted.

 

[rudeguy]

Uh, no. I've asked what the FDIC did. All I've heard is "discriminatory", and I can't currently read that article.

And I don't believe that the Federal Government should discriminate by locking a business out of banking, whether legal businesses like gun stores, or legal websites like wikileaks. If a business hasn't committed fraud or some other specific crime, then it shouldn't be targeted.

So you argued that the government doing this was fine, then you said you didn't actually read the release, now you are saying what they did was wrong.

You are a blithering moron. Just tell us who you were before you were banned. Please? Fess up now.

 

[Genx87]

Uh, no. I've asked what the FDIC did. All I've heard is "discriminatory", and I can't currently read that article.

And I don't believe that the Federal Government should discriminate by locking a business out of banking, whether legal businesses like gun stores, or legal websites like wikileaks. If a business hasn't committed fraud or some other specific crime, then it shouldn't be targeted.

The FDIC had a list of "high risk" business types. This policy like many pushed down from a regulatory agency is basically an outline of what a bank should do. If they dont follow the list then they are open to who knows what when a business they opened their bank to on the "high risk" list commits a crime. It wasn't a firm you cant do business with these types of business. But a if you do open your bank to these business and something runs afoul you run a risk of being a target of us. Most businesses when presented with those options will take the course of least resistance. Why stick your neck out and run the risk?

 

[nickqt]

So you argued that the government doing this was fine, then you said you didn't actually read the release, now you are saying what they did was wrong.

You are a blithering moron. Just tell us who you were before you were banned. Please? Fess up now.

You're a blithering moron who clearly has zero reading comprehension skills.

You are also the 5th or 6th delusional conservative who has accused me of being a previously banned user, which is delusional, and funny, because no, hotshot, I have never been a user here before.

Want to know why you're a blithering moron without any reading comprehension, delusional conservative?

Because I never supported and discriminatory practices, I simply asked if there was criminal wrongdoing, said that the government discriminates through taxation policy now, and then said that I don't support the government getting in the way of legal business and banking.

So, do me a favor, and next time you wish to display your blithering idiocy and lack of reading comprehension, aim it at someone else.

Thanks bro!

 

[rudeguy]

You're a blithering moron who clearly has zero reading comprehension skills.

You are also the 5th or 6th delusional conservative who has accused me of being a previously banned user, which is delusional, and funny, because no, hotshot, I have never been a user here before.

Want to know why you're a blithering moron without any reading comprehension, delusional conservative?

Because I never supported and discriminatory practices, I simply asked if there was criminal wrongdoing, said that the government discriminates through taxation policy now, and then said that I don't support the government getting in the way of legal business and banking.

So, do me a favor, and next time you wish to display your blithering idiocy and lack of reading comprehension, aim it at someone else.

Thanks bro!

Sorry...you caught my attention. Now you get to deal with me.

Why are you commenting on an article you haven't read? Care to explain?

 

[nickqt]

Sorry...you caught my attention. Now you get to deal with me.

Why are you commenting on an article you haven't read? Care to explain?

Because as a libruul, I'm clearly moocherin' and looterin' on your hard work.

Actually, I'm sitting in class right now and between taking notes and reading/commenting here, I'm not going to go read an article. So, I'll ask, since it isn't too difficult to post a short synopsis, or people will respond.

I came in here, and there's talk of criminal and confessions, yet if nothing was illegal, then there wasn't a crime. Terrible government policy, sure, but not crime.

I'm a lefty, but I'll be reasonable with people who are reasonable with me.

 

[Nebor]

Because as a libruul, I'm clearly moocherin' and looterin' on your hard work.

Actually, I'm sitting in class right now and between taking notes and reading/commenting here, I'm not going to go read an article. So, I'll ask, since it isn't too difficult to post a short synopsis, or people will respond.

I came in here, and there's talk of criminal and confessions, yet if nothing was illegal, then there wasn't a crime. Terrible government policy, sure, but not crime.

I'm a lefty, but I'll be reasonable with people who are reasonable with me.

So you have time to write this post but not read the article? :hmm: