you really need to ask the government about this and tell us the results of your inqueries. This sounds totally absurd, unnecessary, and pointless.
I agree…and without saying so appears the bank personnel agree also.
If I contact government will relay the results.
Yeah, considering you’ve done nothing wrong or even unusual, it’s ridiculous for them to make you jump through these hoops. I’d definitely complain to the “competent” authorities.
If I was asked to open an account for the express purpose of transferring money I didn’t want to transfer, I’d use that opportunity to change banks since I’m opening a new account anyway 
Years ago HSBC got hit with money laundering accusations, after that they started questioning every customer who made a transfer, even small amounts as per complaints from customers I read online . It doesn’t catch anything but they can show the regulators they are trying. Just a shell game
Meanwhile I’m sure the heavy rollers of fraud pass through at these Various banks as they did before. Look at Canada, millions being transfered in from China to people that buy million dollar homes with it no questions asked all the while the wife is listed as a zero income homemaker and son a student both collecting low income benefits.
Glad you got it worked out
After all the trouble I had with the U.S. FATCA related issues this case was just a small one day inconvenience. I was planning to apply for internet banking and a credit card later…if I did not comply with FSC request I could not apply. I do not blame ChinaTrust Bank so did not want to move my funds to another bank.
Overall, I guess that someone in FSC was assigned to do implement some system to check on foreigners banking transactions…the result is the creation of this useless busy work for banks and foreigners just to show that FSC is doing something. Of course, that is only my guess.
One of the motivations behind China’s One belt, one road (OBOR) initiative is to end U.S. extraterritorial reach over foreign banks and customers by replacing international U.S. dollar transactions with renminbi transactions.
[quote]One Belt, One Road Would Alter Global Trade and Curb the Global Reach of U.S. Law
The OBOR, even if partially successful, would, as many analysts and commentators have noted, alter the global trade landscape, if not “shake up” the global economic order in place since the end of World War II. Less discussed is one likely secondary effect of the OBOR and other trade and finance initiatives that are not centered on the U.S. dollar or the Bretton Woods system: the likely curtailment of the global reach of U.S. law.
U.S. Dollar and Financial System Strength Facilitates Extraterritorial Reach of U.S. Law
American economic and financial heft facilitates the extraterritorial reach of U.S. law. For example, global transactions that on their face appear disconnected from the United States but are denominated in U.S. dollars and processed through the U.S. financial system “touch” the United States, and therefore come within its jurisdiction and create a jurisdictional nexus between the United States and foreign parties, property and events associated with those transactions.
Global Reach of U.S. Economic Sanctions Laws and Regulations: European Banks Cases
Between 2009 and 2015, eight European banks—including HSBC, BNP Paribas, Standard Chartered, and Credit Suisse—were assessed combined U.S. imposed penalties of over $14 billion for, among other offenses, violating various U.S. sanctions programs, including against Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Myanmar and certain “blocked” parties associated with sanctioned countries, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction proliferation, and narcotics trafficking.
Many of the transactions that led to U.S. sanctions liability involved U.S. dollar payments on behalf of foreign parties in relation to foreign business– the nexus to the United States was not apparent in many cases. For example, according to U.S. authorities, a BNP Paribas branch in Paris maintained an account for UAE company that was part of an energy group ultimately owned by an Iranian citizen and resident. The same Iranian individual beneficially owned the Paris bank account, through which the UAE company received payments from its sales of “Turkmen liquefied petroleum gas to Iraq.” Related to those sales, BNP Paribas processed, through U.S. banks, about 114 transactions worth $415 million. To evade U.S. sanctions, the bank concealed in its payment messages to U.S. banks the links between the UAE company and Iran. The transactions violated U.S. sanctions because the benefits of the U.S. dollar transactions processed through U.S. banks were received in Iran.
For these and numerous other violations, BNP Paribas paid an unprecedented $8.9 billion penalty, pled guilty to sanctions-related criminal charges, and had certain of its U.S. dollar clearing privileges suspended for one year. The UK’s Standard Chartered Bank and HSBC paid, respectively, $977 million[2] and $1.9 billion for sanctions, anti-money laundering, and related violations. Germany’s Commerzbank admitted U.S. sanctions and anti-money laundering breaches and agreed to a $1.45 billion penalty.
One Belt, One Road Could Put Significant Trade and Transaction Volumes Beyond the Reach of U.S. Law
Trade and investment between and among emerging and developing jurisdictions have gained in recent years. Such trade and investment flows will likely be reinforced by concerted efforts to develop new commerce channels that, given their pedigree, are detached from the U.S. dollar and financial system. The OBOR, as a significant non-U.S. dollar- and financial system-anchored trade and finance framework, if it materializes, would be the premier facilitator of such trade, finance and investment flows.[/quote]
Well, the next 20 years will be interesting to see how much progress China makes in decreasing the prominence of US dollar for international business.