The bank becomes the legal guardian

Imagine you want to transfer your money. Perhaps for a major purchase, an investment or simply because it's your money. And suddenly your bank says:

“Only 2,000 euros per day, please.”

Do you want more? No problem! You can “adjust the limit in good time”. And then wait... A whole four hours before your transfer is finally executed. Welcome to the new daily routine at ING, one of Germany's largest online financial service providers.

The official reason? “Protection” against fraud. Phishing, grandchildren scams, online fraud... we know the risks. Of course, that sounds reasonable at first. Safety first, right?

But it's worth pausing for a moment and asking: what does it actually say about our system if you have to ask your own bank for permission to move your own money?

The fine line between care and paternalism

In the family, this is called guardianship and only for minors or people who are considered legally incompetent. In banking, it is now called a “security measure”.

Of course, there are exceptions: If the money goes into your own reference account, you are generously allowed to transfer it immediately. Really nice, isn't it? But woe betide you if you want to send it to another account. Then the security marathon begins!

What is gradually happening here is more than just a limit. It is a cultural change in the relationship between citizens and institutions. The bank is no longer just a service provider, but a regulator and supervisory authority.

Lockers: temporary ownership only?

Another point that is often overlooked in this discussion is safe deposit boxes. Many believe that they are a safe place for valuables and documents, a kind of neutral space between the citizen and the state. However, the decisive legal fact is that the safe deposit box does not belong to the customer, but is the property of the bank. The bank merely grants a right of use.

In cases of doubt, such as insolvency, confiscation or a government order, access can be denied or the contents sealed. The idea of being “safe” there is at best naive, at worst deceptive.

Capital controls: The invisible shackles

The issue of capital controls is also still a marginal topic in Germany, unlike in countries such as Greece, where at times during the financial crisis it was no longer possible to withdraw 60 euros in cash per day. Spain is now regarded as a silent pioneer of new financial restrictions. There, cash transactions of €3,000 or more must be approved in person at the branch and documented with a receipt and proof of use, accompanied by an automatic report to the tax authorities. Even for completely legal and everyday transactions, citizens become potential suspects who have to justify themselves, not because they have done anything wrong, but because they want to move their money.

However, dependence on the banking system is also growing in this country:

• Less and less use of cash.

• Restrictions on transfer limits.

• Reporting obligations for foreign transfers.

• And a de facto monopoly of the banks on payment processing.

What happens when banks become a bottleneck for our financial freedom? Those who control access control freedom. A sudden stop to account access and everyday life comes to a standstill: rent, shopping, mobility and everything is on a digital drip as a matter of course.

One suspicion is enough for the state to intervene

The public perception is often that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. But the reality is different. In many cases, the mere suspicion of a criminal offense is enough to freeze accounts and seize assets, often without a prior court decision.

One example:

Someone sells a few high-priced electronic items online. A buyer reports fraud, whether justified or not is initially irrelevant. The result: investigations, account seizure, confiscation of the account balance, often for months. This person's life can be paralyzed in one fell swoop, without any charges or judgment.

It becomes even more critical when you consider that in certain cases the burden of proof is reversed: the person concerned must prove that the money did not come from criminal sources. It is not the state that proves guilt, but the citizen who must prove their innocence. A dangerous paradigm shift.

Ownership ≠ Possession

In the end, there is an uncomfortable truth: what you think is yours is only yours as long as others allow you to have it.

• Your account? Right of use.

• Your cash? Always suspicious

• Your safe deposit box? Bank property.

• Your freedom to transfer? Daily limit.

Ownership is no longer the same as possession. In a system that increasingly relies on control, suspicion and prevention, self-determination is falling by the wayside - all in the name of security, of course.

Conclusion:

We have to ask ourselves: how much freedom are we willing to give up in the name of a security that is often only predetermined? At via bonum, we believe that critical thinking is the first step towards self-determination. Nothing happens without a reason, but this reason is often hidden, veiled or only recognizable at second glance.

Because those who remain silent agree and get used to it. And those who get used to it lose. Not with a big bang, but quietly. Step by step. If you feel that something needs to change, if you want to start consciously questioning your situation, then feel free to write to us or give us a call.

Also take a look at our other articles, perhaps you will find exactly the impulse there that will set something in motion.

via bonum - because freedom is not a by-product.