-1

The government of a European Union country forces the private banks in that country to block transfers/deposits into bank accounts that the owners have not signed their 2-yearly privacy?/confidentiality agreement?, legal ?

  • Obviously bounced transfers incur a penalty fee to the sender
  • What about people due to all sorts of reasons that have not been able to access their bank accounts when their 2-yearly privacy?/confidentiality agreement? needed to be resigned, many would just assume that their bank account would just keep functioning as normal to receive payments
  • It seems the 2-yearly privacy?/confidentiality agreement? is to prevent bank accounts being used for disallowed activities

I intend this to be a separate and different question from If a bank intentionally causes a 'valid' bank transfer to be bounced back to the sender (maybe also charges a fee) has some law been broken? , even though some will point out otherwise.

phoog
  • 37,212
  • 5
  • 79
  • 127
980980
  • 19
  • 2
  • 1
    Without a country and what the law looks like, this is unanswerable. VTC. – Trish Dec 21 '23 at 21:50
  • 2
    Are you trying to argue against this law? Then you would be on the wrong board. Or are you trying to get advice on launching a lawsuit against this law, to get it found unconstitutional? Procedures for that differ from one EU country to the next, and going to European courts usually comes after that. – o.m. Dec 22 '23 at 15:56

1 Answers1

3

There is no obvious reason why this law wouldn't be legal and valid.

Governments have broad authority to impose reasonable business regulations for valid governmental purposes, without abridging domestic or international treaty protections of individual rights. But, perhaps Luxembourg, or some other country trying to operate as a tax haven, has its own special entrenched privacy protections that most countries don't.

The fact that the law or regulation imposes some modest burden on bank customers to sign a form every couple of years doesn't change that. Bank customers don't have a right to passively ignore their accounts to the point of not complying of legal regulations for multiple years on end. In most cases, if you ignore your bank account long enough, it will be turned over to an unclaimed property fund anyway.

You've presented reasons why a legislator might decide that as a matter of public policy, they would not support this law. But the fact that there are policy arguments against enacting a law doesn't mean that it is invalid.

ohwilleke
  • 211,353
  • 14
  • 403
  • 716