Pay too much and you could raise the alarm

 

By BOB KERR

The Providence Journal

28-FEB-06

 

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Walter Soehnge is a retired Texas schoolteacher who traveled north with his wife, Deana, saw summer change to fall in Rhode Island and decided this was a place to stay for a while.

 

So the Soehnges live in Scituate now and Walter sometimes has breakfast at the Gentleman Farmer in Scituate Village, where he has passed the test and become a regular despite an accent that is definitely not local.

 

And it was there, at his usual table last week, that he told me that he was "madder than a panther with kerosene on his tail."

 

He says things like that. Texas does leave its mark on a man.

 

What got him so upset might seem trivial to some people who have learned to accept small infringements on their freedom as just part of the way things are in this age of terror-fed paranoia. It's that "everything changed after 9/11" thing.

 

But not Walter.

 

"We're a product of the '60s," he said. "We believe government should be way away from us in that regard."

 

He was referring to the recent decision by him and his wife to be responsible, to do the kind of thing that just about anyone would say makes good, solid financial sense.

 

They paid down some debt. The balance on their JCPenney Platinum MasterCard had gotten to an unhealthy level. So they sent in a large payment, a check for $6,522.

 

And an alarm went off. A red flag went up. The Soehnges' behavior was found questionable.

 

And all they did was pay down their debt. They didn't call a suspected terrorist on their cell phone. They didn't try to sneak a machine gun through customs.

 

They just paid a hefty chunk of their credit card balance. And they learned how frighteningly wide the net of suspicion has been cast.

 

After sending in the check, they checked online to see if their account had been duly credited. They learned that the check had arrived, but the amount available for credit on their account hadn't changed.

 

So Deana Soehnge called the credit-card company. Then Walter called.

 

"When you mess with my money, I want to know why," he said.

 

They both learned the same astounding piece of information about the little things that can set the threat sensors to beeping and blinking.

 

They were told, as they moved up the managerial ladder at the call center, that the amount they had sent in was much larger than their normal monthly payment. And if the increase hits a certain percentage higher than that normal payment, Homeland Security has to be notified. And the money doesn't move until the threat alert is lifted.

 

Walter called television stations, the American Civil Liberties Union and me. And he went on the Internet to see what he could learn. He learned about changes in something called the Bank Privacy Act.

 

"The more I'm on, the scarier it gets," he said. "It's scary how easily someone in Homeland Security can get permission to spy."

 

Eventually, his and his wife's money was freed up. The Soehnges were apparently found not to be promoting global terrorism under the guise of paying a credit-card bill. They never did learn how a large credit card payment can pose a security threat.

 

But the experience has been a reminder that a small piece of privacy has been surrendered. Walter Soehnge, who says he holds solid, middle-of-the-road American beliefs, worries about rights being lost.

 

"If it can happen to me, it can happen to others," he said.

 

Yikes. That's exactly what Im doing right now. Doesn't make sense though why the government would care if you pay off your credit cards. :blink:

I can see where it would be suspicious, it is kind of unusual to just send in a check for six grand.

And this is why this act is a load of sh*t.

Hey! Let's politicize this!

 

The Bank Privacy Act (actually called the Right to Financial Privacy Act) was passed in the 1970s. It has ALWAYS provided for the fact that money will be halted and an investigation launched if there's suspicious activity.

 

Under 12 U.S.C. ?3403?, financial institutions and their employees have complete immunity from civil liability for the reporting of known or suspected criminal offenses or suspicious activity by filing a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), part of the Department of Treasury.

 

The obligation to report personal financial information on a SAR is easily triggered. Essentially, a financial institution must file a SAR, if any of the following information is discovered:

 

* Any kind of insider abuse of a financial institution, involving any amount;

* Federal crimes against, or involving transactions conducted through, a financial institution that the financial institution detects and that involve at least $5,000 if a suspect can be identified, or at least $25,000 regardless of whether a suspect can be identified;

* Transactions of at least $5,000 that the institution knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect involve funds from illegal activities or are structured to attempt to hide those funds;

* Transactions of at least $5,000 that the institution knows, suspects or has reason to suspect are designed to evade any regulations promulgated under the Bankruptcy Secrecy Act; or

* Transactions of at least $5,000 that the institution knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect have no business or apparent lawful purpose or are not the sort in which the particular customer would normally be expected to engage and for which the institution knows of no reasonable explanation after due investigation.

 

For more information: http://www.epic.org/privacy/rfpa/

 

That was from the original document. In fact, there were very few changes due to the USA PATRIOT Act:

 

(f) AMENDMENTS TO THE RIGHT TO FINANCIAL PRIVACY ACT- The Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 is amended--

 

(1) in section 1112(a) (12 U.S.C. 3412(a)), by inserting `, or intelligence or counterintelligence activity, investigation or analysis related to international terrorism' after `legitimate law enforcement inquiry';

 

(2) in section 1114(a)(1) (12 U.S.C. 3414(a)(1))--

 

(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking `or' at the end;

 

(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; or'; and

 

? by adding at the end the following:

 

`? a Government authority authorized to conduct investigations of, or intelligence or counterintelligence analyses related to, international terrorism for the purpose of conducting such investigations or analyses.'; and

 

(3) in section 1120(a)(2) (12 U.S.C. 3420(a)(2)), by inserting `, or for a purpose authorized by section 1112(a)' before the semicolon at the end.

 

None of those would impact this person's situation. It was impacted by the ORIGINAL document of almost 30 years ago.

 

Once again, it's an attempt to politicize something that isn't political. Happy day!

And this is why this act is a load of sh*t.

 

 

What would your brilliance suggest the government do?

And this is why this act is a load of sh*t.

 

 

What would your brilliance suggest the government do?

 

well i guess i should say the blame here is on the credit card company and not knowing what the real reason for this is...

 

 

good job by the holders of the jc penney credit card.

 

 

idiots.

 

 

i have no problem with it being a part of the banking act in the 70s

 

 

i have a problem with this being an attempt at the government doing whatever they damn well please when they shouldnt be.

And this is why this act is a load of sh*t.

 

 

What would your brilliance suggest the government do?

 

well i guess i should say the blame here is on the credit card company and not knowing what the real reason for this is...

 

 

good job by the holders of the jc penney credit card.

 

 

idiots.

 

 

i have no problem with it being a part of the banking act in the 70s

 

 

i have a problem with this being an attempt at the government doing whatever they damn well please when they shouldnt be.

 

 

Although i agree with you, this sort of thing has happened way before 911, it was actually commonly used as an indicator of drug activity or some other racket type stuff

I say give me the $6,522 and I'll make smaller payments to many of my credit card debts.