The uproar occurred when the British bank Coutts “froze” the account of fascist-mouth Nigel Farage, without notice and without explanations. However, the practice is at least 10 years old (in England). And targets depositors without strong ties to organized populism. Such as Interpal, one of the most reliable humanitarian organizations in England, which provides humanitarian aid to Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Or the Palestinian Solidarity Foundation, a front organization for solidarity with Palestine. Or other politicized Muslims.
Banks hide behind state laws on “combating terrorism”, “combating terrorist financing”, and similar. However, they judge who is a “terrorist” and who is not, who is “antisemitic” and who is not (and other similar matters) and act accordingly without judicial decisions, without warnings, without even providing explanations afterwards. They simply “freeze” accounts indefinitely, effectively carrying out informal seizures.
This is happening since the use of bank accounts (instead of wallets…) tends to become universal or even mandatory; in many western countries this has already occurred. Building upon this, private companies (banks) that are otherwise private become part of public order mechanisms, economically trapping those deemed “incompatible” to the point of annihilation—without, however, ever being accused or/and convicted for “violating the laws.” One could speak of a shift in substantive constitutions (that is, the actual power relations) beneath the surface of formal constitutions (that is, formal legislation).
Thanks to this “relief from punishment” from formal obligations, during the February 2022 protests the Canadian government “froze” the accounts of truckers who participated in demonstrations against mandatory platforming, as well as those of accomplices it was able to identify through facial recognition algorithms—without, however, formally charging them with anything legally wrong. Similarly, during the hygiene campaign of terror, regional governments in Australia “froze” the pension accounts of elderly people who refused to be platformed…
This means that money ceases to be the property of whoever holds it; systemic factors (state mechanisms, banks) become “co-owners,” allowing its use by each individual only under conditions. Do these perhaps foreshadow what will happen when and if the use of digital currencies is imposed?