A woman went to the bank to deposit 100,000 in cash and was questioned about the source of the money. The teller even stated, "This is the bank's regulation." How do you view this situation?

Banking Procedures and Customer Experiences

It’s all about the “working procedure.” The tellers probably want to finish quickly and then call the next customer.

You can give any reason; they don’t really care. It seems that if the teller doesn’t ask, they might lose money if caught by surveillance, and serious cases could lead to a reprimand from the “Chief Accountant.” Therefore, they always ask. Depositing 100,000 is usually fine, but for amounts over 200,000, some banks require a form because it’s a large cash transaction that needs to be recorded.

The biggest issue is if you don’t have your ID with you, because for a deposit of 100,000, identity verification is a must, and you’ll have to go back to get your ID.

However, there’s a little trick: You can deposit at an ATM. I believe for deposits of 100,000, an ID isn’t needed, but going back and forth too many times is a hassle. Otherwise, at the counter, you just need to play with your phone and watch her count. Of course, if it’s 50,000 and you don’t have your ID, you can do this: tell her to take out one bill, making it 49,900.

Banks asking about the purpose of transactions is mainly due to Anti-Money Laundering regulations.

According to the People’s Bank of China document “Financial Institutions Customer Due Diligence and Customer Identity Data and Transaction Records Management Measures,” Article 10 When commercial banks, rural cooperative banks, rural credit cooperatives, and village and town banks handle cash deposit and withdrawal transactions for natural persons in an amount exceeding RMB 50,000 or the equivalent of USD 10,000 in foreign currency, they shall identify and verify the customer’s identity and understand and record the source or purpose of the funds.

Personally, I’ve visited banks many times this year, and while waiting in line, the most common complaints I’ve heard aren’t about this.

Most people are more concerned about issues like a card limit of 2000, low online banking transfer limits needing an upgrade, or a card being frozen due to long-term non-use and needing to be unfrozen. There are also various issues with forgetting documents, as well as the hassle of opening an account, which requires a work certificate, etc.

I feel these issues are more contentious and cause more frustration for everyone.

Banking Experiences and Human Connections

What is a normal procedure in banks has been made complicated by some people.

Not just depositing, but withdrawing money also involves inquiries about its purpose.

Anti-Money Laundering became a concern later. In earlier years, when internet banking wasn’t very common, frequent visits to banks for cash withdrawals were necessary. Any amount under 50,000 was easily accessible, as it involved cash cheques, requiring a declaration of the cash’s purpose every time.

Back then, I was quite honest, listing actual reasons like travel expenses, hospitality costs, or purchasing supplies. Sometimes, I even had to think carefully about it.

Until one day, a female teller, after seeing me fill out the form, smilingly told me it wasn’t necessary to go into such detail; simply writing “petty cash” would suffice.

From then on, I learned a trick: no matter the purpose, I always wrote “petty cash” for withdrawals.

---

Off-topic, but worth mentioning:

Taking things easy and being kind to others can reduce a lot of stress.

Bank tellers, despite their smart appearance, are also at the grassroot level of employment. They’re just following regulations, so getting upset with them isn’t really necessary.

This story starts with the teller who advised me to change the cash purpose. Once, I received a call from the bank informing me that our company’s finance department was processing a transaction of a relatively large amount, about 70,000, to a new beneficiary. They called to verify it under their precautionary measures. I immediately confirmed and expressed my gratitude to the bank staff.

Apparently, the bank wasn’t too busy at the time, and the teller curiously asked why we had changed our purchasing vendor, especially to one located out of town.

I explained it was simply because the raw materials from the out-of-town client were 30 yuan cheaper per ton, saving us 300 yuan in total.

Impressed, the teller commended our savings. So, during my next visit to the bank to withdraw cash, she remembered the 300 yuan saving and advised me to change the cash withdrawal purpose accordingly.

Another time, during heavy snowfall, I went to the bank with our cashier, who brought along a small local dog. Obviously, the dog couldn’t enter the bank, so I had to stand outside in the snow holding it. At that moment, a bank security guard invited me inside. Pointing at the dog, I mentioned the inconvenience.

Just then, the same female teller rushed out, shivering, urging me to come in, expressing concern about how cold it was outside and how the dog must be freezing…

Even though it was inconvenient, she insisted, saying that the superiors were not around and her word was final.

There was also an instance when I was shopping and a flashy young girl on the street greeted me. Not recognizing her at first, I thought she was calling someone else. But when she called out my surname and came closer, I realized it was the bank teller, unrecognizable out of her uniform.

She was buying roasted sweet potatoes and offered to treat me, her customer. Of course, I accepted, but I ended up paying. She asked why I hadn’t brought the dog to the bank recently, mentioning that several of her colleagues missed it.

That’s pretty much the extent of my story with this teller. Nothing more.

Oh, and an important point: the total transaction volume I had at her counter in a year didn’t even match the amount of a single transaction from some of her other customers.

---

In the future, I must check who is asking the question before answering. I really am foolish!

Just yesterday, I was muted for a day for mocking a media person who was only seeking attention. And here I am, running into the same situation again.

It’s just like you.

This is not very normal.

A hundred thousand pounds is also a substantial amount of money. In the UK, when making a one-time deposit or transferring over a thousand pounds, or even a hundred pounds, you need to specify the purpose.

Even if the purpose is made up, it still needs to be stated.

If you deposit money directly at an ATM machine and deposit a large amount, they may ask you where the money came from. Otherwise, they might lock your account.

This is quite common.

The logic of the British is that you must explain where the money comes from. You can’t just deposit money in the UK and not pay any taxes, right?

Deceptive Practices in American Telecom Scams

This is an example of an American telecommunications scam, which seems quite similar to the Chinese pattern.

A retired White House scientist was scammed out of their retirement savings, and now they have to pay taxes on behalf of the scammer?

One detail here is that in the United States, individuals are required to pay taxes on their income, but contributions to retirement accounts are tax-free or tax-deductible. If you want to withdraw from your retirement account, you need to make up for the tax benefits you received. When the scientist withdrew money, the retirement fund institution routinely asked: “What are you going to do with the money?” Following the scammer’s instructions, the scientist replied, “I want to invest.” As a result, the withdrawal request was approved. After the scientist’s money was scammed, they received a call from the tax authority: “You need to pay taxes on that investment money according to the rules.” The scientist protested, “I was scammed when I withdrew the money!” The tax authority responded, “How can we be sure you’re not trying to scam us now?”

In addition to the legal regulations mentioned by others, there may also be a layer of disclaimers involved. If this lady’s money was obtained through deception or was intended to be sent to scammers, the bank might produce surveillance footage as evidence, saying, “You were perfectly clear about your intentions back then.”

Is Inquiring About the Source of a Customer’s Deposit a Privacy Violation?

Recently, the incident of a woman being asked about the source of her 100,000 RMB cash deposit at a bank has caused quite a stir online. When attempting to deposit 100,000 RMB in cash, the bank staff questioned her about the source of the funds, which left her feeling very unhappy and triggered a deep reflection on personal privacy protection by the public.

While the bank employees involved explained that “this is a bank’s regulation,” and some banking professionals online argued that it is necessary for anti-money laundering and fraud prevention, such explanations did not completely alleviate the public’s concerns.

According to the reports by Hposter News on January 8, the reporter consulted several bank branches, including China Merchants Bank, Agricultural Bank of China, and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China in Beijing regarding this matter. Among them, banks like China Merchants Bank explicitly stated that customers can directly handle deposit transactions without excessive questioning.

Clearly, various banks have provided different answers to the same question, further adding to the public’s confusion. Simple responses like “this is a bank’s regulation” are insufficient to address public concerns. This reflects the urgent need for banks to find a balance in the financial services sector between safeguarding customer privacy and fulfilling necessary compliance procedures.

First and foremost, it is essential to clarify that anti-money laundering is one of the important responsibilities of financial institutions, and it holds significant importance in maintaining the national economic and financial order and combating illegal activities. However, this does not mean that banks can violate customer privacy. When inquiring about the source of funds from customers, banks should follow the principles of legality, legitimacy, and necessity and ensure that customer privacy is fully protected.

Secondly, regarding some bank employees' responses citing the “Regulations on Due Diligence of Financial Institutions for Customers and Management of Customer Identity Information and Transaction Records,” although it does contain provisions regarding the need for financial institutions to identify and verify customer identities and understand and register the source or purpose of funds when handling large cash withdrawals, this regulation has been temporarily postponed due to technical reasons. Therefore, banks cannot use it as a basis for inquiring about the source of customer funds.

Furthermore, even according to the relevant regulations, there is no need for banks to inquire and register amounts below 50,000 RMB. However, in practice, some banks start questioning the source of funds for amounts as low as 50,000 RMB, which clearly goes beyond the specified scope.

For example, in February last year, a news report about a woman being asked to provide income proof when depositing 50,000 RMB quickly went viral. According to reports, a woman in Huzhou, Zhejiang, encountered an unexpected “interrogation” at a local bank. When she attempted to deposit 50,000 RMB, the bank teller asked a series of questions such as “Where do you work?” and “What is the source of this money?” and requested her to provide income proof. Faced with this situation, the woman felt like a suspect being interrogated.

To bypass this cumbersome process, the woman came up with a clever solution. She immediately withdrew 100 RMB from the 50,000 RMB and deposited 49,900 RMB instead. Surprisingly, this minor adjustment allowed her to complete the deposit transaction smoothly without answering any additional questions or providing any proof.

At the time, the controversy drew widespread attention primarily because the public had doubts about the autonomy of conducting banking transactions. They were concerned that if one could easily deposit money and bypass regulations by withdrawing a small amount, the seriousness and effectiveness of the nation’s anti-money laundering policies might be compromised.

For banks, while anti-money laundering efforts are undoubtedly important, they should not use this as an excuse to violate customer privacy. Banks should minimize interference with customer privacy while ensuring compliance. Furthermore, banks should strengthen employee training and management to ensure that they follow relevant laws, regulations, and internal guidelines when carrying out their duties related to anti-money laundering and other areas.

However, on the other hand, for the public, while being questioned by banks about the source of their deposits may feel uncomfortable, there is no need to feel offended or consider it a violation of privacy. Some banks may ask a few extra questions during the specific transaction process, possibly for anti-money laundering or fraud prevention purposes. As long as the source of income is legitimate, a simple explanation should suffice. Additionally, the public should understand their rights and responsibilities and be willing to say “no” to excessive demands from banks.

In conclusion, anti-money laundering and fraud prevention efforts should not be used as a shield for banks to infringe on customer privacy. Banks should fully respect and protect customer privacy while ensuring compliance. Simultaneously, the public should understand their rights and responsibilities and be willing to question and refuse excessive actions by banks. Only in this way can a harmonious coexistence between banks and customers be achieved, contributing to the maintenance of a sound financial order.

This is how it goes:

She’s the one who questions people’s privacy invasion at the bank,

Yet she’s also the one who wants the bank to compensate her when she gets scammed.

Who are you to control me, and why don’t you control me.

Regulatory Update on Customer Identification and Transaction Records for Financial Institutions

Media reports recently interviewed a lawyer who mentioned a regulation known as the “Regulation on Due Diligence of Financial Institution Customers and Management of Customer Identity Information and Transaction Records.” This regulation was jointly issued by the People’s Bank of China, the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, and the China Securities Regulatory Commission and was originally scheduled to take effect on March 1, 2022. However, according to information from the Legal Daily, on February 21, the three authorities issued a notice stating that the implementation of this regulation would be temporarily postponed due to technical reasons, and related business activities should proceed as per the original requirements.

The original regulation, titled “Regulation on the Identification of Financial Institution Customers and the Management of Customer Identity Information and Transaction Records,” was enacted in 2007 to combat money laundering.

According to this regulation, financial institutions such as policy banks, commercial banks, rural cooperative banks, urban credit cooperatives, rural credit cooperatives, and institutions engaged in foreign exchange transactions are required to identify customer identities and understand the natural persons who effectively control customers and the actual beneficiaries of transactions when establishing business relationships with customers through activities such as opening accounts or providing one-time financial services such as cash remittances, cash exchanges, and bill payments, where the transaction amount is equal to or exceeds RMB 10,000 or the equivalent of $1,000 in foreign currency. Financial institutions must verify customer identities, record basic customer identity information, and retain copies or photocopies of valid identity documents or other identity proof documents. If the customer is a foreign political figure, the financial institution must obtain approval from senior management to open an account for them.

For financial institutions such as commercial banks, rural cooperative banks, urban credit cooperatives, and rural credit cooperatives, when handling cash withdrawal or deposit transactions in RMB exceeding RMB 50,000 or the equivalent of $10,000 in foreign currency for individual customers, they are also required to verify the customer’s valid identity documents or other identity proof documents.

Bank employees may not wish to ask these questions, but they are obligated to follow the regulations. Violations of these regulations will result in corresponding responsibilities for financial institutions.

If you don’t understand, just ask. What would happen if a depositor intentionally refuses to provide accurate information when asked? For example, if they indeed have a legitimate source of 100,000, but when questioned, they claim to have found it on the road, or even more extreme, say they won it through gambling. How would the bank teller handle this situation? Would they refuse the deposit or report it to the authorities?

Media professionals should also learn some basic legal knowledge, otherwise they won’t be able to answer the questions raised.

We actually want to ask about the source of officials' wealth at home. Why isn’t there a requirement to tell the “owners of the country”?

How the United States Deals with Such Matters

Let’s take a look at how the United States handles situations like this. Every country has a high-value declaration system, with China set at 50,000 RMB and the United States at 10,000 USD, roughly at the same level. Song Dandan’s ex-husband, Ying Da, like the group of smart individuals below, split a large amount of cash deposits into amounts less than 10,000 USD to evade the high-value declaration system, resulting in being charged with money laundering, fines, and deportation. If you go to the United States, they will still ask you the same, right?

Ying Da is suspected of money laundering in the United States, and if he holds a US green card, he may be sentenced to less than 30 months in prison.

Chinese man carrying over ten thousand dollars in cash back to another state had it confiscated. A couple’s bank safe deposit box with $40,000 was seized… What to do when cash is confiscated?

It’s not just the high-value declaration system; in the United States, the police have the authority to seize cash that you cannot reasonably explain the source of, as only illegal activities like drugs, gambling, and smuggling tend to involve large cash transactions that cannot be reasonably and legally explained. The U.S. police can directly deem it as illegal income and confiscate it! This inquiry is just the beginning. It’s only considered thorough when it reaches the level of the United States.

Source attribution, isn’t that enough? Can’t you disclose the source?

“My mom gave it to me.”

“Oh.”

Restricting News Industry Recruitment to Law Graduates

Zhang Xuefeng is once again gaining popularity. The media industry should only hire graduates with a legal background and should prohibit the admission of journalism students. Those aspiring to work in the media industry as journalism students must first obtain a legal professional qualification certificate.

“Measures for Due Diligence Investigation of Financial Institution Customers and Management of Customer Identity Information and Transaction Records of Financial Institutions”

Article 10 Commercial banks, rural cooperative banks, rural credit cooperatives, village banks, and other financial institutions handling cash withdrawals or deposits of over 50,000 RMB or the equivalent of 10,000 US dollars for individual clients must identify and verify the client’s identity, as well as understand and record the source and purpose of the funds.

Article 48 If the People’s Bank of China county (city) branch discovers financial institutions violating these measures, it shall report to the higher-level People’s Bank of China branch and the higher-level branch shall impose penalties or provide recommendations according to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.

The vitality of the law lies in its implementation, and the implementation of the law depends on people.

You can ask, but you cannot interrogate.

How to view this matter?

What’s the matter? The bank is simply enforcing existing laws, how else can you view it?

Otherwise, should we follow the example of the beacon country, where a report and proof of identity and source must be provided for a single-day deposit or withdrawal of ten thousand US dollars? If it’s less than ten thousand in a single day but the cumulative amount is significant or follows a pattern, the bank may scrutinize your transactions, or federal investigators may come knocking?

Besides, their per capita income is six times that of our country, so if we adopt similar measures in our country, the threshold should logically be reduced by a factor of six, which is approximately over ten thousand Chinese Yuan.

So, for transactions of over fifty thousand, reporting is required. In practice, it’s not as strict as you might think, and it’s already much more lenient than the beacon country.

So how to view it? Just take it as a lesson.

I’ve already forgotten when was the last time I touched Chinese Yuan banknotes.

Every now and then, I have to deal with some Hong Kong dollars.

Gotham is truly a hassle.

Regulations on Due Diligence of Financial Institution Customers and Management of Customer Identity Information and Transaction Records

Article 10 When commercial banks, rural cooperative banks, rural credit cooperatives, village banks, and other financial institutions handle cash withdrawal transactions for natural person customers in RMB exceeding 50,000 yuan in a single transaction or equivalent to 10,000 US dollars in foreign currency or more, they shall identify and verify the customer’s identity, understand and register the source or purpose of the funds.

“Don’t rely on asking, do you rely on fortune-telling?”

Bank Encounter Abroad

When I was abroad, I once carried a “huge” scholarship of ten thousand dollars to deposit it in the bank.

The staff asked me where this money came from. I said I brought it from my home country. Then she asked why I had so much money and from which country it came.

I realized something was wrong and immediately changed my story, saying it was a scholarship for my education, and that’s why I was depositing it. They accepted it.

What’s even more absurd happened later. I went to deposit money with my landlord, who was a very frugal old man and didn’t know how to use a card or speak English.

He had saved up a large amount of pocket money for groceries over time, and I took it to the bank to deposit. As expected, the teller asked where this money came from.

My English wasn’t great, and I didn’t feel like explaining, so I came up with a clever idea and said it was obtained through begging. One word, “begged,” solved the problem, and they accepted the deposit.

No matter whether it’s corrupt officials, fraudsters, drug dealers, gamblers, or money launderers.

It seems like they’ve obstructed the financial paths of many.

I enjoy seeing the frustrated and helpless expressions on your faces.

Nowadays, payment is so convenient; salaries are directly deposited into bank accounts. How many people still have a significant amount of cash at home?

Even if they do, what’s wrong with the source? Is it something to be ashamed of?