Do banks still have the freedom to access and deposit? A man went to the bank to withdraw money and was interrogated, but the money could not be withdrawn. The man was annoyed and angry, it was so difficult to withdraw money, so he asked for a write-off. Unexpectedly, the staff said: "Cancellation requires a good reason." This means that there is no right to cancel your consumer without a good reason.
Isn't that outrageous? Obviously, you need a reason to withdraw your own money, and you also need a reason to cancel it yourself. Is the bank out of money, and the money can only be deposited but not withdrawn?
I finally understand why the rich have the capital to become American, Japanese, and Singaporean. No matter how much money you make, you can't take it, won't it become a pile of waste paper? It is implied that banks can use users' money to pay salaries and manage money to do business.
This phenomenon is ostensibly because there are too many wire frauds, out of the protection of user funds. Is that really the case? I once saw a **, a man went to the counter to find a staff because he forgot the password and wanted to change the withdrawal password. I was told that I needed a real estate deed to change the password to withdraw money.
So, is our money still our money? If we have deposited, does it mean that the money is not ours? Can banks still be trusted?
Hotspot Engine Program