
Inactive bank accounts to be seized in Australia - fuck_you
http://www.news.com.au/money/banking/cash-grab-inactive-bank-accounts-to-be-seized/story-e6frfmcr-1226585867131
======
femto
This story is sensationalism at its best.

The full story is that inactive money is currently held by the banks and
transferred to ASIC after 7 years of inactivity. The owner of the account
doesn't lose their money, as ASIC advertises the details of all inactive
accounts in an effort to locate the owners and return the money to them [1].

The new law changes the period to 3 years. As you can imagine, the banks are
spitting chips, since they get 4 years less use out of the money.

One can argue that the change is good for people who have genuinely lost their
account, as the inactive account gets visability sooner and is more likely to
be reunited with its owner. It will be a nuisance for people who do want to
leave an account untouched for a long time, as they will have to interact with
the account every three years.

[1] [https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/tools-and-resources/find-
uncla...](https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/tools-and-resources/find-unclaimed-
money)

\---

edit: spelling

~~~
Maxious
This is even better for consumers and even worse for banks - no monthly
account fees and automatically adjusting interest rates once the money is sent
to ASIC.

Reactivating the account and getting your money back isn't hard either - you
just find the unique identifier online [https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/tools-
and-resources/find-uncla...](https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/tools-and-
resources/find-unclaimed-money#claim) and take it to the bank.

~~~
incompatible
If you shop around a little, you'll find banks in Australia that don't charge
account fees. And I'm not convinced that ASIC will pay decent interest rates,
since the government cash rate is lower than typical bank rates for deposits
(again if you shop around a little).

~~~
jacques_chester
I have a personal account with a credit union that is fee-free.

It's not that difficult to arrange. Here's my complete, step-by-step guide to
getting cheap basic banking services:

    
    
        1. Avoid the Big 4 Banks.

------
brc
Not 'to be seized' - 'have been seized'

I had an account confiscated -stolen -emptied - whatever you want to call it.

This was an e-trade linked account. They sent me a warning so I wet in and
checked that it was active -login, checked the account, regular interest
deposits, all good,there.

Wrong.

I had to make a personal withdrawal or deposit in order to 'activate' the
account or it was deemed inactive. All because I haven't bought/sold anything
for 3 years in that particular account ( though I have in other accounts in
the same e-trade account)

Now I have to apply to a govnemrnt agency to get my money back, the wait time
is 6 weeks plus.

It's absurd, shocking, disgusting.

In the news is a pensioner who had been saving up for medical bills. Goes into
hospital for major surgery, comes out afterwards and finds all his saving gone
$22k.

The inactive period is 3 years. In other words, since the LOST finale aired.
It's not _that_ long.

Most countries have a provision to seize unclaimed monies. But three years?
What on earth is the justification? Because they can't balance a budget?

If the government came into your house and took any jewelry that you hadn't
worn in three years, most people would revolt. But apparently. Only in the
bank is use it or lose it. So much for savings being the necessary per-
requisite for capital formation.

/rant

For what? The current treasurer and government disgust me.

~~~
incompatible
I didn't realise that it applied to every account individually at a single
bank. I'd have thought transactions through any particular account would be
enough to show that none of the accounts are "lost". Any other activity such
as logging in and checking the balance should be sufficient too. Otherwise, it
seems that it's just a government cash grab.

~~~
brc
Yes, any reasonable test of an active account for an online account should be
a recent login. But that's not the test- you have to withdraw or deposit
money. I suppose we could call it 'banking theatre'.

'dance, taxpayer, dance! Jump through these arbitrary hoops or we'll take your
cash!'

~~~
jacques_chester
When the original legislation was drafted, online banking didn't exist. People
still visited bank offices to deposit paycheques and to withdraw cash.

------
tfm
To clarify, seizing of "inactive" funds already occurs -- the change next week
shortens the timeframe from 7 years inactivity to 3 years. The money can be
subsequently reclaimed through tedious paperwork. This is pretty standard
stuff internationally speaking (U.S. seems to have a timeframe of 3-5 years
depending on the state, U.K. is 15 years, Canada has a more generous timeframe
of 30 years, or 100 years for amounts over a grand!).

The responsible thing for your bank to do would be to notify you at the
35-month period. Not much good if you don't keep your contact details up to
date, but if it's something like a investment or trust account then that might
be the one address you'd like to try to keep accurate. THIS DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE SOUND FINANCIAL ADVICE, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO KEEP YOUR BANK
STATEMENTS FORWARDING TO THAT EXPIRED P.O. BOX AT YOUR ALMA MATER

------
kintamanimatt
Seizing money out of a customer's bank account is really quite reprehensible.
It's quite easy to imagine a situation in which someone has a savings account
for a specific purpose that they have the discipline to not touch (e.g. an "oh
shit" fund), and then suddenly find that money has been stolen one morning by
the government. Indeed, I've had a number of savings accounts that have been
for specific purposes that have neither grown nor shrunk, untouched for years
because there has been no necessity.

The only situation I can think of in which it's somewhat ok for the government
to raid a citizen's bank account is if the customer has been uncontactable for
a number of years and cannot be found after a diligent search. Bar this, it's
just theft.

~~~
Maxious
> The only situation I can think of in which it's somewhat ok for the
> government to raid a citizen's bank account is if the customer has been
> uncontactable for a number of years and cannot be found after a diligent
> search.

"ASIC's Unclaimed Monies Unit regularly sends letters to people and companies
whose names match our records." There are also private companies (Dun and
Bradstreet etc.) who scrape the records and try to contact owners for a
finders fee.

~~~
brc
I had money seized under this change. I did _not_ receive a letter from ASIC.
All I got was an email, which I skim-read and filed as being ok. There was two
months from announcement to seizure. It is NOT ok.

------
kondro
The worst part of the legislation is that interest and fees are not considered
"using" the account.

*You must physically deposit or withdraw funds from the account.

------
jonemo
What happens when you are in prison or a coma for over three years? Once you
are back, do you have to go through the several-month-long process recovery
process? How do you pay the bills during that time? Do they pay you interest
if you successfully reclaim the money?

What's the point of this legislation anyway?

~~~
gregsq
There's no point but to utilise any reserves laying idle. There's essentially
negative interest rates on a lot of these accounts. I don't have an Australian
bank account, but someone I know who does discovered that her account pays no
interest unless some transaction worth at least a dollar takes place once a
month. With charges, this is negative.

Better on the governments balance sheet rather than the banks. What are the
savers doing with it anyway it seems.

~~~
brc
Surely you aren't serious? Better on the governments balance sheet than a
private citizen? Really?

------
josephagoss
Lets see them try to seize inactive Bitcoins.....

~~~
hippich
if 51% of network agree with that, this can happen too. agree = download and
use client with this "feature"

~~~
dmix
Yes, that's the whole point, 51% percent of the network would never have an
incentive to do that.

If they did, it would destroy the value of the currency. Self-destruction with
no benefit. If people lost trust in BTC there are competing crypto-
currencies/state currencies. Destroying liquidity.

------
jser
Money now has an expiration date, like air miles?

------
sjtrny
Is this a karma grab? This was doing the rounds online shortly after it was
announced in February. Anyway it seems likely to only affect people who are
wealthy enough to have large reserves of cash with nothing happening to it.
When you think about it, most people only have 1 or 2 accounts. And these
accounts usually have fairly regular activity occurring.

