Bank of America stops handling Wikileaks payments

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
BBC News Dec 18

Bank of America has stopped handling payments for whistle-blowing website Wikileaks, joining several other major financial institutions.

It said it acted because "Wikileaks may be engaged in activities that are... inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments".

In response, Wikileaks urged its supporters to stop doing business with the bank - one of the world's largest.

MasterCard, PayPal and other companies earlier cut off Wikileaks' payments.

The financial institutions acted after Wikileaks - together with several major media organisations - began publishing thousands of secret US diplomatic cables, causing tension between Washington and some of its allies.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was earlier this week freed on bail in the UK while facing extradition proceedings to Sweden over sexual assault allegations.

Mr Assange, 39, dismissed the claims as part of a "smear" campaign.

He also said he was worried about an attempt to extradite him to the United States, adding that Washington was conducting an "aggressive" and "illegal" investigation into him and the website.

In a statement, the North Carolina-based Bank of America said it would "not process transactions of any type that we have reason to believe are intended for Wikileaks".

The statement provided no further details.

Wikileaks responded in a message on Twitter, urging "all people who love freedom close out their accounts at Bank of America".

The website also called for businesses to "place your funds somewhere safer".

Wikileaks has recently said it will soon release documents that will point to "unethical" practices" at some US banks.

There has been speculation that the Bank of America could be one of the institutions mentioned in the US diplomatic cables
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Oh NO! How could they? We will certainly hear from a few of our regulars who don't believe businesses should be allowed to choose who they do business with. What nerve. What unmitigated gall. How dare they not do business with a cyber terrorist? BoA should be ashamed! Not.
 
Last edited:

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
OVM wrote:

That is good...expose yet another banks nasty business...

Nasty, unethical and or immoral does not constitue
illegal.....just "every day business" in some situations...
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Nasty, unethical and or immoral does not constitue illegal.....
No, while it doesn't necessarily constitute illegal ..... it certainly does however constitute nasty, unethical, or immoral ... :rolleyes:

Additionally, since much of law is based on prohibiting what is nasty, unethical, and immoral, it's probably a fair bet there may be some criminality involved ....

just "every day business" in some situations...
Well, the criminal element often have business that they conduct every day ... :rolleyes:
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
RLENT wrote:

No, while it doesn't necessarily constitute illegal ..... it certainly does however constitute nasty, unethical, or immoral ...

No argument there

Additionally, since much of law is based on prohibiting what is nasty, unethical, and immoral, it's probably a fair bet there may be some criminality involved ....

Again no argument, but i really don't think these leaks will change a thing...

Well, the criminal element often have business that they conduct every day ...

Yeap and its a fair bet that won't change either...
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Again no argument, but i really don't think these leaks will change a thing...
They already have ...... and the totality of change that will be ultimately wrought is far from readily apparent at this early point ....
 
Top