A month ago Starnieuws published a very interesting and revealing article showing how banks are being used by the financial elite to implement their agenda globally. This is information that complements my previous post on the topic titled “The Financial Elite are behind Deplatforming and Censorship on the Internet”. In that post I discussed how the financial elite were targeting specific people for demonetization and censorship, with examples involving Mastercard, Patreon, Stripe and PayPal among others.
In the Starnieuws article we can see how banks are also getting involved now around the world, and in this specific case in Suriname.
A bank employee details how specific people and organizations are being identified and put on a watchlist inside their system and shared internationally. The original article on Starnieuws is in Dutch, but I’ve translated some of the important parts below:
Prominent Surinamese citizens in a political and influential position can prepare themselves. Among the forty recommendations from Financial Action Task Force (FATF), there are explicit measures such as determining the source of assets and resources that apply to them. Suriname will be assessed on the recommendations next year. This category of people is called Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs), or politically vulnerable people. Their transfers, deposits and loans must be placed under a large magnifying glass. Corruption is linked worldwide to money laundering of illegally obtained money. Prominent political, administrative and influential persons are susceptible to corruption and bribery in their roles, according to the FATF designation as understood by the National Anti-Money Laundering Commission in Suriname. “This has been confirmed by analysis and case studies,” writes the FATF.
With the changing circumstances in the world, the FATF regularly tightens the rules. One of the changes is to include national PEPs in local legislation. For Suriname, this means an amendment to the Unusual Transactions Reporting Act. Although many people can reason “this is not the case in Suriname”, but the international reasoning is: “what is not here today, can come tomorrow”.
A PEP is a person who holds a prominent public position locally (president, ministers, parliamentarian, director of state-owned company, judge, political party or NGO, diplomat, etc.) or abroad. And whoever thinks of quitting that position in order to save their ass: bad news. The recommendation also applies to PEPs that have fulfilled their roles! And … the financial transactions of immediate family members, friends and close employees of PEPs are also put in the spotlight.
PEPs from NGOs and social institutions
The FATF extends the PEP directive to NGOs and social institutions with charities. They must also explain the origin of the funds. Internationally, they are also considered vulnerable for channeling suspicious money or for suspicious activities such as terrorist financing. Countries must develop legislation so that the financial activities of these organizations and their board members are also subject to stricter customer due diligence according to the PEP model.
There are various methods for determining whether someone is a PEP, a bank employee, who does not want to be named, tells Starnieuws. Such as consulting public sources, for example news sources, internet search engines and paid sources, such as World-Check, owned by media company Thomson-Reuters. “Banks also work with (inter)national sanction and watch lists.”
PEP lists: who is active
Banks must at the same time, based on their guidelines, also have their own questions and periodically ‘make a refresh’ of who is politically active in Suriname. According to the know-your-customer policy, we make a customer profile, the bank employee says, “the higher the risk profile, the more precautionary measures. You put all the data in the system and the moment the PEP commits an unusual financial transaction, you can get a red flag.”
In this way the financial institution can prevent the PEP from abusing the services. For example, by transferring money to a terrorist group. Or a dubious transfer — sponsorship — from a criminal or organization that launders money.
Cash-culture of Suriname
Banks are actually gatekeepers; they see all cash flows and therefore have to report suspicious transactions to the Reporting Center for Unusual Transactions. They analyze the transaction, which can result in investigation and prosecution. But Suriname has a cash-culture, which makes tracking the PEPs a lot more complicated.
Cashless and not cash
Breeveld is also a strong proponent of the fact that certain amounts should be settled electronically and no longer in cash. “Then you can no longer give the money to your wife, but you have to transfer it. And then we know exactly what happens.”
To discourage the cash culture, the FATF therefore recommends financial inclusion. Countries must make provisions to ensure that banking is easily accessible, so that as many citizens as possible have access to banking services. For example via bank cards and mobile banking — in all parts of the country. This contributes to significantly reducing the need for a cash economy.
Reading the above there are some very important things that we can learn from this:
- The financial elite are pushing their financial policies around the world by using organizations such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and getting governments in various countries to implement their demands in local legislation. This is similar to how other working arms of the financial elite, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank operate and are frequently used. People in such countries who think that they are “free” and “independent” should take note of how the financial elite — the slave masters and plantation owners — dictate their will from abroad. When those in government — the overseers — fail to implement what the financial elite demand they get in big trouble.
- Money laundering and financing terrorists are often reasons being given to fool people into accepting certain policies. They’re fallacies. They never actually stop money laundering and the financing of terrorists by the establishment and the financial elite themselves when it serves their agenda. Examples include the financing of terrorists in Syria by the Dutch government among others, and the financing of opposition groups in Venezuela by the USA (through USAID and other CIA backed organizations) to destabilize the country (currently ongoing).
- The article mainly mentions politicians and their family who will be targeted as “PEPs” and whose financial transactions will receive scrutiny. But this is largely a tactic to get the general public on board with the financial policies that the elite want to implement. Another fallacy to fool the public. Most people don’t like politicians (most of whom are indeed corrupt) and will welcome these policies to make the lives of politicians more difficult — or so they think. Because they don’t realize that once these policies are implemented, they can and will be used against anyone in the future. And in this case, anyone the financial elite deem to be a “politically active” or “influential” person or organization, as stated in the article. So you can easily imagine how people like Alex Jones, Carl Benjamin, Jordan Peterson and others, who are politically active and often a thorn in the eyes of the elite, would fall in the PEP category as explained in the article.
- Banks will now also be in the business of identifying such people who are a threat to the establishment and will maintain a list of these people and share it with others around the world. You can imagine how easy it’ll become for the financial elite to track and identify a dissenter worldwide and deny them financial services in order to starve them to death. It’ll also become easier for them to identify the sources of income of dissenters making it easy to attack those sources and put dissenters in financial trouble.
- The criteria being used to put people on a watchlist aren’t fixed and you can imagine how, for example, anyone holding a view that’s not popular with the financial elite (and conveniently labeled “hate speech”), can end up on a watchlist.
- A cashless society is now a priority worldwide for the financial elite. Electronic transactions are not only easier to track for them, but also easier to deny and block. If a dissenter uses a bank card, it can be blocked and they lose access to their funds. However, if they use cash instead, that’s not possible due to the inherent privacy and anonymity that comes with using cash money.
I recommend also reading my post “The Financial Elite are behind Deplatforming and Censorship on the Internet” and putting the above information next to it in order to understand where this is ultimately heading.