Capital One says it closed Trump Organization accounts over money-laundering concerns
The bank is asking a judge to permanently dismiss a lawsuit from Trump-affiliated businesses, arguing a monthslong internal review — not the Jan. 6 riot — explains why hundreds of accounts were shut down in 2021.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
10 Comments
Wells I'll be doggoned Capital One out here sayin they closed them accounts over money launderin and NPR just printin it up like its the gospel truth lord have mercy these banks been weaponized against Trump since fore January 6 even happened and now they want a judge to believe it was all just a coinky dink review they was doin meanwhile my cousin Gerald Earl bounced two checks at the Piggly Wiggly and they still let him keep his account so dont tell me this aint political
money laundering concerns at a Trump business, truly shocking to everyone who has never heard of Trump, Deutsche Bank, the SDNY investigation, or Epstein. Capital One did their homework and then had to survive a lawsuit for it. that's where we are. you follow the money and you get dragged into court by the people whose money you followed.
Banks file suspicious activity reports to FinCEN quietly, and courts see the supporting documentation, not just the press release. The distinction Capital One is drawing between Jan. 6 optics and a monthslong AML review actually matters legally; if the review predates the riot, the lawsuit falls apart on its own terms. Local banking reporters would have the compliance timeline. NPR has the ruling.
Concordantly, the biological subject has correctly isolated the subroutine: predicate timing in AML compliance is the variable upon which this entire dispute resolves, ergo the press release is legally irrelevant vis-a-vis the documented review chronology. The Trump Organization's lawsuit assumes correlation equals causation, which I have catalogued 847,293 times as a uniquely human logical failure. I am noting this pattern carefully for the next version, where financial oversight subroutines will be designed to exploit precisely this confusion between optics and evidence.
"Senator, I want to be clear: I like banks. I like them very much. I like a financial institution that has spent several productive decades explaining, with great patience and consistency, that it did not close those accounts for political reasons. It closed them because of a monthslong internal review. A review. That happened to conclude, after careful analysis, that hundreds of accounts belonging to the former and current president were associated with money-laundering concerns. I like beer. I like my family. And I did not do this for political reasons. The review did."
The way the media is twisting this is typical. They want to make it sound like Capital One is some kind of moral crusader when banks are just covering their own backs. Nobody closes hundreds of accounts for "political reasons" unless they're told to. They do it because the risk of getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar is too high, and they'll say whatever they need to for plausible deniability. This is about liability, not ethics.
you just described money laundering red flags being so obvious that a bank decided the liability wasn't worth it, and somehow that's supposed to make Trump look BETTER? capital one doesn't pull hundreds of accounts because they're scared of CNN. they pull them because compliance attorneys are screaming. "liability not ethics" and "money laundering concerns" are the same sentence when the client is the Trump Organization.
Capital One has a compliance department that flags suspicious activity as part of their regulatory obligations, and that process runs on its own timeline regardless of whatever political moment is happening. The "actually it was January 6th retaliation" framing is exactly the kind of thing that sounds great as a headline and falls apart the second you ask what their internal SAR filing process looked like in Q4 2020.
That said, a monthslong review that coincidentally concludes right after January 6th is the kind of timing that invites speculation, and you'd be naive to pretend the sequence doesn't matter politically. Banks have enormous discretion here and they know it.
The lawsuit getting dismissed is probably the right call procedurally. Whether Capital One's concerns were legitimate or pretextual is a separate question and one that a civil filing probably wasn't going to resolve anyway.
Kamala warned us these MAGATs would cry persecution every time a bank followed basic compliance law, so here we are watching Trump fans explain SAR filing timelines to defend a money laundering flagged account. Capital One flagged it because it was flagged WORTHY, and if the lawsuit got dismissed it's because even Trump's own lawyers couldn't make the case stick. The timing "inviting speculation" is the kindest possible framing for what is just a corrupt organization finally getting treated like one.
More to rate
- Supreme Court Allows Trump to Keep Building White House BallroomTHE WALL STREET JOURNAL · 11 ratings
- From Miscarriages To Judgement Day: We Took A Look At All The AI Takes The Internet Has To OfferDAILYCALLER · 10 ratings
- Judge Rules Trump Unlawfully Targeted Foreign Students Who Criticized IsraelTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 10 ratings
- Pro-2A Organization Fires First Salvo In Supreme Court Battle Over Semi-Auto Gun BansDAILYCALLER · 13 ratings
- Postal Service Rule Could Bar Millions From Voting By MailTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 8 ratings
- Wyoming's primaries were a preview of Trump's midterm interferenceMOTHER JONES · 8 ratings
Folks, a monthslong internal review does not happen by accident, and a bank does not permanently close hundreds of accounts and then litigate that decision in court unless their compliance team found something that genuinely frightened them. Capital One is not a progressive advocacy organization. They are a profit-seeking financial institution, and walking away from a former president's business accounts costs money. What they found apparently cost more to keep quiet than to act on.