JP Morgan Chase Bans The Storage Of Cash In Its Safety Deposit Boxes

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Some JPMorgan Chase customers are receiving letters informing them that the bank will no longer allow cash to be stored in safety deposit boxes.

The content of a post over on the Collectors Universe message board suggests that we may be about to see a resurgence of the old fashioned method of stuffing bank notes under the mattress.

My mother has a SDB at a Chase branch with one of my siblings as co-signers. Last week they got a letter outlining a number of changes to the lease agreement, including this:

“Contents of the box: You agree not to store any cash or coins other than those found to have a collectible value.”

Another change is that signatures will no longer be accepted to access the box. The next time they go in they have to bring two forms of ID and they will be issued a four-digit pin number that will be used to access the box then and in the future.
The letter, entitled “Updated Safe Deposit Box Lease Agreement,” was sent out to customers at the beginning of the month.

“Hide your wallets, the banksters are on the move,” warns the Economic Policy Journal.

As of last month, Chase has also instituted a new policy which, “restricts borrowers from using cash to make payments on credit cards, mortgages, equity lines, and auto loans,” writes Professor Joseph Salerno of the Mises Institute.

The news arrives on the back of comments by Citi’s Willem Buiter, who recently advocated abolishing cash altogether in order to “solve the world’s central banks’ problem with negative interest rates”.

Last month we also reported on how the Justice Department is ordering bank employees to consider calling the cops on customers who withdraw $5,000 dollars or more.

Efforts to impose restrictions on the use of cash by banks are seen by many as an attack on anonymity and an example of how financial institutions are positioning themselves to handle the fallout of the next economic crash – at the expense of customers.

According to reports which emerged last year, HSBC is now interrogating its account holders in the UK on how they earn and spend their money as well as restricting large cash withdrawals for customers from £5000 upwards.

Banks in the U.S. are also making it harder for customers to withdraw and deposit cash, with Chase imposing new capital controls that mandate identification for cash deposits and ban cash being deposited into another person’s account.

In October 2013, we also covered policy changes instituted by Chase which banned international wire transfers while restricting cash activity for business customers (both deposits and withdrawals) to a $50,000 limit per statement cycle.

Last month, French Finance Minister Michel Sapin hailed the introduction of measures set to come into force in September which will restrict French citizens from making cash payments over €1,000 euros.

[FBD]

no tax will go unpaid! :lol: ban cash! sure whatever you fuggin robbing thieving mofuggers.

they are disallowing this because they know the true value of fiat: its absolutely fkn worthless


"Gold is Money. Everything Else is Credit."
-JP Morgan himself

[Muddy]

hmmm.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Infowars :rolleyes:

[FBD]

There ya go buddy, point that finger right at the reporting entity and nevermind the details therein :tup:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

What do you have against infowars? People are getting these letters, or is that made up too

[RBP]

What do you have against infowars? People are getting these letters, or is that made up too
The issue isn't the fact of the letters, it is that the explanation from that site automatically and consistently goes to an international conspiracy. A reasonable news report would include an actual investigation into the reasoning behind the letters, not jump to the conclusion that fits the site's narrative.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Well, I guess I'm just more in FBD's boat. You have to have your head in the sand if you dont think those at the top aren't preparing for the inevitable crash and want to make sure they will have total control

[RBP]

Well, I guess I'm just more in FBD's boat. You have to have your head in the sand if you dont think those at the top aren't preparing for the inevitable crash and want to make sure they will have total control
Then get to facts. Phrases like "is seen by many as" indicate a lack of factual backing in favor of supposition.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Why would they not allow you to store cash in a lock box, what reasoning?

[FBD]

It has less to do with the death of the dollar than it does with the fact that real estate is at a premium, and JPM is not going to waste space they....*guffaw*...."pay" for....to be used to store absolutely worthless "goods." If you're that fuggin concerned, stuff yer mattress. Lock boxes are for valuables, and my above quote from da original ganagsta of the clan still rings true today.

when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro

when the going get really weird, simple weird things are bits of information for one to ascertain with regard to his understandings and worldviews.

those that are taught to shun anything "weird," simply call one pointing out weird things, weird themselves.

and god fuggin forbid you draw any conclusions from said weirdness, by golly, then, you are insane :dance:

[RBP]

Why would they not allow you to store cash in a lock box, what reasoning?
I have no idea. And the fact that the article makes conclusions without that crucial detail should tell you something about the source.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I have no idea. And the fact that the article makes conclusions without that crucial detail should tell you something about the source.

I went to the 'story' on Infowars and found their source....it's a post made on a forum :rolleyes:

[FBD]

So you are disputing the fact that some JPM customers that had bank lock boxes received letters such as this?

oh, right, we forgot that "Information" needs to have the Official® stamp on it in order to be true in your head :haha:

[Muddy]

Im gonna have to roll with the Rainbow on this one... FBD, Porky.. Im sorry. You are the biggest losers here today..

Lance, lock the thread..

*mic drop*

[FBD]

:lol:

the biggest losers will be the unprepared ones

and as always, my beliefs and conclusions dont require anyone's acceptance :razz:



I didnt even read the infowars article, because I saw it elsewhere already, but figured this was too bankey for you guys, yall believe every bit of propaganda tossed at you for stuff like that :lol:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

:smh:

[FBD]

fuggin fries the logic circuit, dont it porky :lol: ya wonder how people look at stuff like this and say....yyyeah, I will believe no aspect of this whatsoever, even the indisputable facts :lol: I will instead focus on the dumbest most insignificant part of the article, and form my basis for rejection around that :rofl:

[FBD]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-10/citi-economist-says-it-might-be-time-to-abolish-cash


“The world’s central banks have a problem. When economic conditions worsen, they react by reducing interest rates in order to stimulate the economy. But, as has happened across the world in recent years, there comes a point where those central banks run out of room to cut — they can bring interest rates to zero, but reducing them further below that is fraught with problems, the biggest of which is cash in the economy.



In a new piece, Citi’s Willem Buiter looks at this problem, which is known as the effective lower bound (ELB) on nominal interest rates. Fundamentally, the ELB problem comes down to cash. According to Buiter, the ELB only exists at all due to the existence of cash, which is a bearer instrument that pays zero nominal rates. Why have your money on deposit at a negative rate that reduces your wealth when you can have it in cash and suffer no reduction? Cash therefore gives people an easy and effective way of avoiding negative nominal rates. Buiter’s note suggests three ways to address this problem:

1 Abolish currency.
2 Tax currency.
3 Remove the fixed exchange rate between currency and central bank reserves/deposits.

Yes, Buiter’s solution to cash’s ability to allow people to avoid negative deposit rates is to abolish cash altogether. (Note that he’s far from being the first to float this idea. Ken Rogoff has given his endorsement to the idea as well, as have others.)



Before looking at the practicalities of abolishing currency, we should first look at whether it could ever be necessary. Due to the costs of holding large amounts of cash, Buiter puts the actual nominal rate at which the move to cash makes sense as closer to -100bp. So, in order for a cash abolition to become necessary, central banks would need to be in a position where they wished to set nominal rates much lower than that.



Buiter does not have to go far to find an example of where a central bank may have wanted to set interest rates much lower to -100bp. He uses (a fairly aggressive) Taylor Rule to show that Federal Reserve rates should have been as low as -6 percent during the financial crisis.”








The war against cash has, up to now, been waged almost exclusively by national governments and official international organizations, although there are exceptions. Now the war has acquired a powerful new ally in Chase, the largest bank in the U.S. and a subsidiary of JP Morgan Chase and Co., according to Forbes, the world's third largest public company.



Of course , it is hardly surprising that a crony capitalist fractional-reserve bank, which received $25 billion in bailout loans from the U.S. Treasury, should want to curry favor with its regulators and political masters and, in the process, ensure its own stability by helping to stamp out the use of cash. For the very existence of cash places the power over fractional-reserve banks squarely in the hands of their depositors who may withdraw their cash in any amount and at any time, bringing even the mightiest bank to its knees literally overnight (e.g., Washington Mutual).



What is a surprise is how little notice the rollout of Chase's new policy has received.

As of March, Chase began restricting the use of cash in selected markets, including Greater Cleveland.
The new policy restricts borrowers from using cash to make payments on credit cards, mortgages, equity lines, and auto loans.
Chase even goes as far as to prohibit the storage of cash in its safe deposit boxes . In a letter to its customers dated April 1, 2015 pertaining to its "Updated Safe Deposit Box Lease Agreement," one of the highlighted items reads: "You agree not to store any cash or coins other than those found to have a collectible value." Whether or not this pertains to gold and silver coins with no numismatic value is not explained.

As one observer commented:



This policy is unusual but, since Chase is the nation's largest bank, I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing more of this in this era of sensitivity about funding terrorists and other illegal causes.



Bet on it.



Official enough for yall? :lol: Right out of the mouth of Bloomberg. And its not just JPM, Citi also...how many banks are FR banks again? 5?





Chase will also not allow anyone but the signed account holder to deposit cash into an account of any amount....



and see red text for the WHY - they can only make people with "regular money" subject to negative interest rates when its electronic.

[FBD]

...and why, may you ask?


as one commenter stated,


This isn't new or orginal. I worked at a super-regional and this was discussed as part of their BSA/AML program. The powers that be want to know who pays your mortgage, your car note, your credit card. Why? Taxes. There is a underground society surviving on cash. Don't believe me? One-third of Americans are not working. How do you think they live? Don't shoot the messenger.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Bloomberg :hand: please, thats some dude in his basement

[FBD]

:lol: hahaha....yeah, when the Bloomberg system went down last week, or was that earlier this week? they halted trading and nullified fuggin orders. dudes in basements, indeed :lol: the traders couldnt even chat with each other and collude, it had to be stopped!

[FBD]

:tup:


https://www.scribd.com/doc/262947753/262792039-Fuck-This-Court





From the 14th Amendment (and onward), having been given a legal definition by the same, when used in the U.S. Constitution, the term "citizen of the United States" specifically refers to the second class of citizenship created thereby. But due to deception on the part ofthe U.S. Federal Government and ignorance on the part of the American People, the latter, by general consensus, now accepts the unconstitutional application of said amendment upon itself.



As a result, the general population is now regarded and treated as a federal citizenry; and state citizens, within the meaning of the original Constitution, do not presently exist. Amendments to the Federal Constitution following the 14th have been directed at citizens o f the United States. The 14th Amendment marked the beginning o f the end of the constitutional U.S. Republic and the beginning of what has, overtime, through neglect ofcivic duty, become an unconstitutional U.S. Democracy.



In revisiting the 16th Article of Amendment, it now becomes apparent that it does not inherently apply to citizens of one of the United States (e.g. constitutionally-recognized state citizens); as it neither repealed nor superseded the organic Constitution’s limitations on congressional taxation authority.



from "Why Most Americans Do Not Inherently Owe Federal Income Taxes"


she's correct, and the amusing thing is, yall will call both of us crazy because the owners have simply consistently told you otherwise, and for zero other reason :lol: (and dont try to give me any bullshit garbage about SCOTUS somehow "affirming" or "reaffirming" it, because faaaaact of the matter is, the authority for the 16th amendment was never there in the first place. It has already been stated however many times in the founding documents that any subsequent law cannot invent new laws that are undesignated in the bill of rights - it is already plainly clear in the verbiage that any power not designated here is retained by the people and the states. So State income tax - legal; Federal Income tax: Illegal. Unconstitutional. No authority, just as there was no authority to make weed illegal, no authority for Obamacare, no authority for any of the treaties signed that undermine us as sovereign citizens. )

but since most you all believe in the illusion, it propagates.

[RBP]

So wait. Now all you're saying is it's an attempts to avoid tax evasion by the underground economy that owes those taxes anyway? How did we get there from international banking conspiracy to protect themselves from the inevitable collapse of the fiat currency?

[FBD]

No, its a little more nuanced than that. Basically I am saying, the government (and by extension, banksters) feels that it is entitled to a certain amount of citizens' wealth, and when their charted predictions come in horribly wrong, they have to do things to try and mitigate their error and make their numbers look remotely believable.


Let's start off with a concept or two: The Black Market is the Free Market. "The Market" is a fkn casino where the house always wins. The Black Market is more expensive for certain items, because there is an actual price discovery mechanism. The "Free Market" is such in name only, and has a price dictat mechanism as opposed to a price discovery mechanism. (see things like healthcare, college costs....or just about anything the government gets its grubby mitts on. ) (or, there is double fuckery, like the existence of the "paper" gold market, which is merely a suppression mechanism for the price of physical, and with the idiots in the paper market not truly realizing (or not caring since they are chasing any yield to be had at all) that there's at least a hundred other dudes with a claim on that same chunk of shiny that the paper represents.... wait until that correction happens! :lol: )


As in, every time you enter into an "official" economic interaction (i.e. contract) you are paying the banksters. Every time a bank "makes a loan," the loan-ee is paying the banksters. Every interaction, it is set up this way on purpose.


People go on about antitrust and all that - so if one purports to be anti-trust, and at the same time in any way shape or form supports the fraudulent Federal Reserve system - their position is hypocritical.

All the FR is, is a fascist guarantee of the government selling its people out so that the owners of the banks can make a guaranteed preposterous revenue stream, for doing absolutely nothing, forever. This was exactly the intent with which the FR was set up, people were lied to about it and what it really was, and at this point people just take it as a historical unmovable entity that is an integral part of the country's existence. But all it truly is, is a massive siphon.

As governments spend themselves into oblivion (the siphon breaks charts) - as more and more people are out of work because of the financial fuckery they have wrought...the government realizes wait, it could be, SHOULD be, getting more of people's money - our charts say we're due this amount, and if we're not getting it then that puts our vastly overextended financial planning into turmoil.


Those charts of course do not forecast the impacts of the fuckery - so the charts, like AGW models, may do a decent hindcast but their forecast lacks some very weighty inputs to the equation, and that's why their prediction is always always wrong. We make fun of government stats enough, yes?


Why do you think localities like ferguson have been shown to have a level of involvement that borders on extorting money from the citizenry via petty fines? As townships hurt for cash, they seek other ways to fill those gaps.






All we are seeing here is a downstream result of one of Ron Paul's major points he kept hitting the podium on - sound money. If I make a buck and it really only has the spending power of....75 cents 15, 20 years ago....or 6 cents, 100 years ago...hey wait where'd my purchasing power go? It was stolen.


Like Mayer Rapeschild said, give me control of a nation's money and its issuance, and I care not who makes the laws.


Are you understanding why he said this?




I do realize that this is a rather complex matrix of circumstances and events, and at times it can be hard to follow - noone truly can except for the ones at the root of the fraud itself, and even their purportedly omnipotent hand is not omniscient or omnipotent.




Do you realize quite where we are along the slope of events?

[Pony]

ya wonder how people look at stuff like this and say....yyyeah, I will believe no aspect of this whatsoever, even the indisputable facts. I will instead focus on the dumbest most insignificant part of the article, and form my basis for rejection around that

:-k

[FBD]

what, are you realizing your error, Pony? :lol: