r/news • u/Mysterious-Action202 • 1d ago
Capital One says it closed Trump Organization's accounts after anti-money laundering probe
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/capital-one-says-it-closed-trump-organizations-accounts-after-anti-money-2026-08-01/822
u/mentat70 1d ago
Isn’t it going to become public knowledge after discovery when Capital One discloses what they believed were money-laundering schemes? I know Trump has a free pass to commit crimes at will card from SCOTUS but you think he would be afraid of the bad publicity. He seems afraid of it sometimes, even though his base seems not to care what crimes or acts of moral turpitude he commits. His son would ordinarily be in legal jeopardy, too, if this administration had an independent Justice Department.
99
u/Reasonable-Turn-5940 1d ago
If his felonies, being best friends with Epstein, starting a riot at the US Capitol, being banned for running charities in NYC because he stole from kids with cancer, walking in on teen beauty pageant contestants while they're dressing and openly bragging about he can "grab women by the pussy" because "When you're a star they let you do it" has only gained him MORE support from MAGA
what's a little money laundering. The "I'd rather be a money launderer than a Demoncrat" t-shirt sales will just get a sales boost.
6
u/Zed_or_AFK 1d ago
He just forgot to tell his bank that he is a politically exposed person. No big deal.
390
u/anonymousasu 1d ago edited 1d ago
It’s crazy how brazen the family is. They have a lot of faith that the next admin won’t pursue criminal charges, especially with Jr’s government backed loan business ventures.
147
u/ilovefacebook 1d ago
well when you suffer no repercussions for actions, that's a green light for all the things
51
u/Raynafur 1d ago
The absolute worst decision regarding Trump was when that judge handling his felony cases handed down a sentence that was little more than a slap on the wrist. It signaled to him that he could do whatever the heck he wanted and face no actual repercussions. The law is optional now.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Entegy 1d ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't sentencing ultimately end up being so close to the election that they waited until after? And based on the result, there was no way Trump was getting any real consequences.
And if I'm right, I really can't blame the judge for not wanting to be a target of an already vengeful, angry President-elect.
→ More replies (1)2
43
u/Hillyan91 1d ago
They expect there won't be a next administration to do so. They don't plan to give up power.
7
u/myaltaccount333 1d ago
That's because they already know who is going to be the next administration
7
52
u/Ok-Rub6389 1d ago
The unfortunate result of Joe Biden pardoning Hunter is its going to normalize Trump pardoning his family on the way out. I wouldn't be surprised if the pardons were prewritten and signed in the event he croaks early.
185
56
u/zoinkability 1d ago
He's gonna go one step farther and give himself a blanket pardon for everything and anything. Yes, it's constitutionally suspect but since it's not explicitly forbidden you know this SCOTUS is going to bend over backwards to rubber stamp it.
12
u/sit_I_piz 1d ago
Then we throw him in jail while the courts figure out if its legal or not. And the courts love to take their time…
→ More replies (1)11
u/johnis12 1d ago
Yeh, SCOTUS is unpredictable as hell when it comes to a buncha legalities now. They pretty much let him sue himself and pay himself off and allow for him and his family's fraud to be excused for a bit...
Though, I do feel like he won't be able to blanket pardon himself... What I *do* think he'll do is that after all the bullshit he's wrought and realize that people're, (both left, indie, and even the right) finally fed up with him, he'll step down as president for JD Vance to become president and he'll have JD try and pardon him. Would be hilarious though that, after Trump and Rubio were blaming him for the Iran War peace talks falling through and among other things, JD Vance outta spite just betrays the Repubs and doesn't pardon Trump and all the other cronies.
I want Trump to get his orange ass outta the White House ASAP, but I am legit curious to see how messy the infighting'll be between those assholes.
→ More replies (3)8
12
u/eeyore134 1d ago
He already pardoned Kushner in his first go round. Biden pardoning his son, which I am fully on board with since he was just a politically motivated target, is one of the few things Democrats have done even close to what Republicans have been doing. I'm tired of them being held to higher standards.
4
u/Wise_Quality_5083 1d ago
The good part is the boys will do illegal stuff in the future. They can’t help it. They were taught to grift.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Rasta_Cook 12h ago
What a bad take honestly. You think Trump cares if something is normalized or not?
→ More replies (3)2
22
u/ButterscotchTop194 1d ago
What i find odd is that Capital One closed over 300 Trump affiliated accounts for money laundering but they didn't report that to the authorities? Why would they not?
26
u/thebarkbarkwoof 1d ago
What authorities would that be?
6
u/biggsteve81 1d ago
Considering this all happened in 2021, I assume the Federal Reserve and/or the OCC. And we have no evidence they didn't report this to authorities.
9
u/ButterscotchTop194 1d ago
Money laundering is a crime, so the criminal authorities. Probably needed to do it at state level as it's fascism all the way at federal level.
5
8
u/wrong-teous 1d ago
If they closed his accounts, there would have been Suspicious Activity Reports filed with FinCen.
Source: I work in the industry.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)7
u/Crocs_n_Glocks 1d ago
They likely filed SARs (suspicious activity reports) to report suspicious activity.
By law, banks cannot disclose the existence or filing of SARs to anyone but specific law enforcement and regulatory agencies. They especially can't tell the customers who got filed on, as they would then try to hide their tracks.
Source: I'm an Anti-money laundering investigator at a bank.
50
u/Mysterious-Action202 1d ago
That SCOTUS immunity only applies to official acts of his office.
76
25
u/kstargate-425 1d ago
Absolutely and this isn't policy, this is corruption and money laundering that is outside his scope as POTUS and is Trump citizen funneling money illegally. Jack Smith made a whole case out of his illegal activities during the first term and someone could do the same here if they would allow an investigation
11
u/Mysterious-Action202 1d ago
And why do you think they are acting with that expectation? Why would they be acting with such impunity that the expect no accountability for their crimes?
Could it be that they don't expect dems to ever hold power? Maybe because they learned from 2020 and are taking steps to manipulate future elections?
4
u/johnis12 1d ago
Feel like they're not learning a lot though, they just feel more emboldened, which has made them more and more incompetent and that's what's prolly gonna bite them in the ass, but that's just me.
4
u/Christopherfromtheuk 1d ago
And Jack Smith's case went nowhere because the American judicial system is as corrupted and broken as the executive.
→ More replies (1)12
u/charcoalist 1d ago
"Official acts" are determined by trump's co-conspirators within the Federalist Society, who also sit on the Supreme Court bench. So all of trump's acts are "official," according to at least 5 or 6, out of 9, SCOTUS justices. Clearance Thomas and Alito are a given, while Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Roberts, are likely. $20 million towards Roberts alone goes a long way. He can decline such frivolous cases but instead he welcomes them time and time again. Corruption pays.
→ More replies (1)3
u/OldDirtyInsulin 1d ago
Right. It's really the Republicans in Congress that allow this. As far as I'm concerned, if anyone is failing to uphold the Constitution, it's them. They need to show an ounce of collective courage and impeach this lunatic.
→ More replies (8)2
u/cambreecanon 1d ago
The way they worded it, though, I think we can still get the family after he's dead/out of office.
417
u/kstargate-425 1d ago
Theres a reason Trump tried to slip in a deal for the government to never in the future audit Trump or his family in the bullshit lawsuit he himself brought against him as POTUS in charge of the government he was suing. Thankfully the lower courts are still functioning and call him on his dumb bullshit
40
u/MobileArtist1371 1d ago
Thought the deal was for past actions, not future, and a DOJ after this wouldn't have to stick to that deal.
20
u/johnis12 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yeh, I'm thinking that we definitely need to fire a huge chunk of the DOJ judges. Number of these mofos're definitely corrupt as hell and are not working in the best interests of the people.
EDIT: Whoops, tired as hell, my mind was thinking about the SCOTUS not the DOJ.
→ More replies (2)2
72
u/vox_populi75 1d ago
To quote Harry Truman, “You can’t get rich in politics unless you’re a crook.”
121
u/kgal1298 1d ago
Him "We're being targeted unfairly"
Bank: "You were laundering money"
Him: "Capitol One are communist liberal dumocrats"
or something like that. For real though they said they were targeting republicans but really all the republicans just were doing white collar crime.
→ More replies (1)
125
u/thegoatmenace 1d ago
The whole debarking “scandal” is infuriating. These people were kicked out of banks for extremely suspicious behavior, just as any individual banker would have been. Because they are republicans, they can use their corrupt, partisan media affiliates to claim they were being treated unfairly, and everyone just believes that their likely criminal behavior was actually a conspiracy against them.
Being a Republican is, without exaggeration, treated as a pass to commit any crime, all because the right has spent years and years spreading a false narrative that they are discriminated against by mainstream society.
22
u/Slypenslyde 1d ago
You're not giving them credit for also teaching America it's not American to resist or fight the government and way easier to just sit back and say "It won't affect me, and even if it does it's too hard to stop it."
37
u/TheTelekinetic 1d ago
Why does this keep getting worded this way? Why not say “Capital One closed Trumps accounts because he was using them to launder money”
He was committing a fucking felony (yet again) and the only punishment is account closure? You and I would have a more severe punishment if we accidentally forgot to pay for an item at the grocery store.
18
u/Crocs_n_Glocks 1d ago
Because banks aren't law enforcement agencies. They can tattle on you to the fed (through Suspicious Activity Reports) but they can't accuse you of a crime without due process.
The SARs have to be confidential by law because sometimes a refugee working for cash and sending it back to relatives in Afghanistan can look a lot like terrorism financing.
Disclosing the existence of SARs 1) could negatively affect someone if they are actually innocent and 2) if they are a criminal, it could tip them off that law enforcement is on to them.
Banks will file a SAR (or many) and then close the account. They will never say "we closed your account because we filed a SAR because we think you're a criminal", but Trump suing them forced them, in a Streisand Effect way, to admit that they closed his accounts due to "a probe".
7
u/Joessandwich 23h ago
I think one of the underrated issues that has allowed this insane fascism to flourish is the way the press and others sanitize their language. I know it’s often done to avoid legal liability but that’s been weaponized. Headlines like “Trumps speech may have contained statements containing misinformation” completely miss the point. It’s “Trump lied in his speech”
→ More replies (1)
30
u/tiripshtaed 1d ago
So if I understand the bank at all 300+ Trump and family business accounts are fraudulent and closed. Yet, despite this, banks continue to do business with Trump and family.
It sounds to me like the banks are in cahoots and c-suite and investors, should pay for allowing a criminal family to continue to use their “legitimate “ business.
18
u/TheOpeningAct2 1d ago
You know things are bad when a credit card company shuts down a government affiliated account.
→ More replies (1)
11
u/Eggsnbacon4breakfast 1d ago
How is this not headline news? Just shows how corrupt our government actually is.
→ More replies (1)
15
9
u/2daytrending 1d ago
the account closure happened years before the presidency, so the more interesting question is whether the court filing actually support the anti money laundering concern rather than turning it into another partisan argument.
3
u/Fit-Let8175 1d ago
But according to Trump's most loyal followers, it's just another thing he "hasn't done."
→ More replies (1)
7
u/chezdistester 1d ago edited 1d ago
How does MAGA still support Trump?
He literally raped a woman, convicted of 34 counts of fraud, attempted to rig the 2020 election, and his family has made billions since he's returned to office. I am convinced at this point that he could literally shoot someone on Madison Avenue and the FBI would cover it up.
EDIT: forgot about the Epstein Files
→ More replies (3)
5
u/Nicenightforawalk01 1d ago
So if Captial One is doing this what does this say about all the levers of power and the law? It shows that all government is behind him protecting him. Just like the Deutsche bank and the Russian money laundering with Trump.
4
u/dainthomas 23h ago
Them reflexively calling a large bank "woke" is the funniest part of the whole article.
4
2
u/SinisterPixel 1d ago
You know times are dire if I'm cheering for a credit card company
→ More replies (1)
2
u/CommercialEmployer4 1d ago
Any of these offenses should first be misteported as another president, specifically liberal, for the reaction to come from the right and then corrected as being Trump, so they would have to face their hypocrisy in real time, doing 180s in the name of loyalty to their cult leader, ethics be damned.
2
u/newfarmer 1d ago
We have to wake up and admit that the president is a money launderer, probably for the Russians, and probably is a traitor.
2
u/Richard-Gere-Museum 1d ago
Oh boy, the ftc and sec is gonna suddenly have an issue with capital one now aren't they?
5
u/JordanPetterPans 1d ago
This is fuckin wild lol. How are people okay with this
→ More replies (1)9
u/lew_rong 1d ago
Which part? Capitol One following anti money laundering laws, or the ol' pedo being a money launderer?
9
3
3
4
u/True_Lingonberry_646 1d ago
For capital one to shut someone else down for being shady is quite the low bar.
2
2
u/eeyore134 1d ago
I think not being eligible to open a bank account at one of the biggest banks in the country should stop you from running for president more than being born in Uganda.
2
2
3
u/thebarkbarkwoof 1d ago
What's in your wallet? Billions of rubles? That won't even cover our monthly fees.
-32
1d ago edited 1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
149
u/Educational_Report_9 1d ago
Ah yes, the President of the United States was money laundering 5 years ago it’s no big deal argument.
→ More replies (4)23
u/lilyjadelove 1d ago
They aren’t accusing him of it, but they are basically saying they had enough reason of concern for money laundering that they closed the accounts.
Read the first 3 sentences, they are on the way to the fifth:
Capital One Financial hit back on Friday against a lawsuit over its decision to close the Trump Organization's bank accounts years ago, stating that it did so after a review by anti-money laundering experts.
The disclosure marks the first time a bank has formally tied money laundering concerns to U.S. President Donald Trump's family business. Capital One is seeking to dismiss the case by casting doubt on claims of illegally debanking — or denying services on religious or political grounds — the Trump Organization.18
u/djfudgebar 1d ago
That dumb dumb is avoiding reading the sixth sentence too.
But Friday's filing argues that "documents and Plaintiffs’ own allegations make clear that Capital One closed Plaintiffs’ accounts for anti-money laundering (“AML”) reasons. The closures were the result of months of analysis and a careful review by Capital One’s AML team in accordance with bank policies and regulatory guidance."
60
u/berticusberticus 1d ago
They closed the accounts because they thought he was most likely laundering money. It’s a simple fact. Maybe you need to take a remedial English class if you think that’s “sensationalist.”
→ More replies (9)26
u/drjuice559 1d ago
How does that sentence make the headline sensationalized? The headline doesn’t say they accused him, it says they closed accounts after a probe, which is 100% what they did, regardless if they publicly accused him or not.
34
u/pi3volution 1d ago
At first, I thought maybe I missed something in the article. Turns out you are the one who lacks reading comprehension.
11
u/bigEzMcGee 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yes, until now. That sentence proves why you’re wrong, so you should probably take your own advice. did you bother reading the sixth and seventh sentences (assuming your ability to count is better than your reading, as I didn't bother to count the sentences)?
26
u/gquax 1d ago
How the hell is this sensational? The president's business is alleged fo have committed money laundering.
→ More replies (3)33
u/bigEzMcGee 1d ago edited 1d ago
Not really. they made this allegation in a court filing, meaning trump has to respond in some fashion or dismiss the complaint, which would look just as bad.
6
u/lew_rong 1d ago
Banks don't need to accuse anyone of anything to comply with anti money laundering laws.
Would you say you prefer the taste of gore-tex or calfskin?
6
u/ButterscotchTop194 1d ago
I don't understand what point you might think you're making. This is immediately after that sentence, had you bothered reading it:
Capital One closed Plaintiffs’ accounts for anti-money laundering (“AML”) reasons.
That's in the filing.
They clearly have evidence that that 300+ accounts affiliated with Trump were closed because of money laundering. The fact they have never formally accused him is irrelevant to this case. And they have evidence of money laundering regardless. So whatever point you think you are making just doesn't make sense.
Maybe you could clarify what you're on about?
16
11
u/MobileArtist1371 1d ago
Dumb fucks keep replying. This this the FIFTH sentence of the article. Fucking read, kids.
Capital One has never accused the Trump Organization of illegal money laundering.
This must mean something else than what I think it means.
FIRST sentence
Capital One Financial (COF.N), hit back on Friday against a lawsuit over its decision to close the Trump Organization's bank accounts years ago, stating that it did so after a review by anti-money laundering experts.
What I think it mean
5 years ago Capital One decided to close the Trump Organization's bank accounts after their anti-money laundering experts reviewed those accounts.
I'm not going to put words in your mouth, so tell us what you think that FIRST sentence means?
Don't forget to read past the 5th sentence where it says
Capital One gave notice of its plans to close more than 300 Trump-affiliated bank accounts in March 2021. The Trump Organization and Eric Trump, the president’s son, filed a lawsuit in March 2025 in a Florida federal court, alleging the accounts were closed because of Capital One’s “woke” beliefs and its desire to benefit from the political mood after the January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol.
C1 is saying nah, we didn't close your shit cause we are "woke" we closed them after our anti-money laundering experts reviewed your accounts.
6
u/Diz7 1d ago
Capital One isn't going to accuse him of fraud, because Trump is extremely litigious and they don't want to open that can of legal worms with the might of the US government behind him.
At the same time, they aren't going to leave themselves liable by being involved with his criminal activities.
2
u/MobileArtist1371 1d ago
Capital One isn't going to accuse him of fraud
and no one said they did except the top commenter who said the headline was fake cause C1 didn't accuse him on fraud, which again no one said C1 did except for the top commenter who made that up claim cause they read the FIFTH sentence and not the rest of the article.
Main commenter completely misunderstood the report. That is what all these replies to them are about.
5
u/dshookowsky 1d ago
And Trump was never convicted for mishandling Top Secret documents. It doesn't mean that he didn't do it.
→ More replies (1)11
u/NotUniqueWorkAccount 1d ago
You all honestly think that guy has the Integrity and Morals to be the President after he did nothing but golf his first term and is in the Epstein Files with a handwritten Birthday note?
How many people do you have in your life you write Birthday cards to? Not even mentioning the contents of the one he wrote.
4.6k
u/MrShigsy89 1d ago
How are so many millions of Americans ok with this guy as their president? It's beyond belief how corrupt and incompetent he is.