About Banking and the Tax Office

The name of a former politician turned businessman surfaced this week in connection to banking.

A local bank refused to open a business account for his new container yard, an entertainment cluster, which opened in December.

The subject drew my attention not because of the controversial player, but in regards to Ontvanger’s ban on cash.

How will little people be able to deal with the tax office, if banks refuse the opening of bank accounts?

One of my friends on workcation bought a car, here, and couldn’t pay for his license plate with a US bank card, and couldn’t open a local account, the examples are endless.

So I asked around:

Now that the Departamento di Impuesto, DIMP, requires payment through debit card, some unresolved issues in banking need to be addressed.

The rationale for payment by debit card to avoid contagion with COVID-19 through bank notes and coins is utter nonsense, and scientifically NOT proven.

How would bank tellers otherwise deal with deposits and withdrawals?


We know from reliable sources, that this measures in reality serves to regulate all business transactions and combat money laundering.

Fine. But it makes necessary the option of a basic bank account for everybody with a valid ID.

You may find on line the mandatory guideline in the European Union for a basic bank account for all citizens.  In the “new normal” under COVID19 guidelines all citizens 18 years or older must be allowed to open a bank account with a pin card, in order to participate in an increasingly cashless society, regardless of a steady income, wages from labor or labor contract or a state or private pension.

All banking regulations valid in the European Union and implemented in the Netherlands eventually MUST be incorporated in Aruba, Curacao and St. Maarten as well.

And regulations regarding all plastic card IDs and all manner of bank cards must eventually follow suit as well.

DIMP simply set in motion an inevitable and irreversible process.

So my point is that the bank could have given the politician turned businessmen a limited, basic bank account to AVOID cash payment to employees and suppliers, because now he has cash coming in yet the tax office has no access to those funds.

Then I asked about that case:

I don’t have any official info, says my source, but in general correspondent banks and regulators force local banks to become intolerant of anyone who’s character is not beyond reproach. This includes people under investigation. Banks are scared to death of getting an “aanwijzing”, loosely translated as a bad review by the regulator with consequences, or worse, a fine from the regulators – CBA. The fine would not break the bank financially, but any bank who gets fined runs the risk of getting in trouble with the us correspondent bank, and that can lead to closing of the bank’s account at the correspondent bank, hence no more international transactions. A local bank cannot afford that. In short, international pressure and fear of an excessive regulator makes the local banks choose the safest path, and that is to say no when in the slightest doubt, even if it is unfair.

Share on:

January 16, 2021
Rona Coster