Bank account holders fight back after accounts are frozen! Withdrawing 100 TWD at the counter 50 times in a row paralyzes the branch

After September this year, many people in Taiwan unexpectedly found their bank accounts “restricted by risk control measures,” requiring them to visit a branch in person to unlock the account, or only being able to use counter services in the future. Recently, performing artist “Balloon Prince” stated that his CTBC Bank account was frozen due to risk control, and customer service told him he could only handle business in person at the counter. He immediately went to the branch to withdraw NT$100 each time, making 50 consecutive withdrawals, which prompted the branch manager to step in and try to dissuade him, but the customer insisted that he had the right to withdraw in installments.

Risk Control Mechanism Upgrade Causes Public Outrage: Bank Accounts Frequently Locked

Over the past two years, Taiwan’s banking industry has significantly upgraded risk control systems in response to the Financial Supervisory Commission’s strengthened anti-fraud policies. Banks must implement KYC (Know Your Customer) and AML (Anti-Money Laundering) mechanisms. Once the system detects rapid in-and-out transactions, frequent nighttime activity, or involvement with virtual currencies, it can easily trigger risk controls, resulting in account restrictions.

The original intent of such anti-fraud mechanisms is to protect people’s assets, but in practice, it has led to numerous misjudgments. Many normal business activities or personal financial behaviors are flagged as suspicious transactions by the system. For example: freelancers receiving multiple small payments, e-commerce sellers with frequent receipts, crypto investors transferring funds between exchanges and banks, or even night-shift workers conducting online banking at late hours—all may trigger risk control alerts.

Even more frustrating, the process to unlock a frozen account is extremely cumbersome. People must personally visit a branch, provide transaction evidence, proof of income, and sometimes explain every suspicious transaction in detail. For office workers who need to take time off work, going to the bank is already a huge time cost. Some people, even after unlocking their accounts, are still restricted to counter services only, unable to use online banking or ATMs, effectively rolling back financial services to what they were 20 years ago.

In his post, “Balloon Prince” stated: “Big data misjudgment is not my problem, it’s the bank’s problem, causing me inconvenience. So, I’ll just throw the problem back to the bank.” This sentiment resonates with many affected individuals. When the bank restricts account usage under the guise of “protecting your assets,” it actually shifts the burden of proof and inconvenience entirely onto innocent customers.

50 Consecutive Withdrawals: Silent Protest or Malicious Disruption?

(Source: Balloon Prince’s Facebook)

Balloon Prince’s method of protest is highly symbolic. He chose to withdraw only NT$100 each time, making 50 consecutive withdrawals. Legally, this is entirely legitimate, as customers have the right to decide the amount and frequency of their withdrawals. However, this practice does significantly increase the workload of bank staff and may affect other customers’ waiting times.

The branch manager stepped in to ask him to “withdraw it all at once,” but the customer insisted on his right to withdraw in installments. This standoff highlights the delicate balance between customer rights and banking efficiency. Legally, customers do have the right to choose their withdrawal method, and banks cannot force them to withdraw all at once. In practice, however, 50 consecutive withdrawals can indeed disrupt bank operations.

This protest method has sparked heated debate online, with opinions polarized. Supporters argue that banks’ risk controls have gone overboard in recent years, locking accounts at the slightest provocation: “People have the right to speak up for themselves,” “Banks are the ones making things difficult first, serves them right,” “Banks nowadays really treat account holders like criminals,” “Support giving banks a lesson.” These comments reflect widespread public dissatisfaction with excessive bank risk controls.

Opponents believe this only overworks frontline staff: “Bank staff are exhausted while headquarters people sip coffee,” “Wasting time for those in line behind,” “This behavior itself will trigger risk control.” These comments point out the misdirected target of the protest: it’s the frontline employees who suffer, while the policymakers feel no direct pressure.

Some netizens in the financial industry note that consecutive counter withdrawals are not as time-consuming as people think, since modern banking systems are fast and each transaction may take only about 30 seconds. However, if multiple people start queuing for consecutive withdrawals, it could indeed crowd out other customers. This “chain effect” is the biggest issue.

The Dilemma of Anti-Fraud and Convenience: New Challenges in Bank Account Management

Bank industry insiders privately reveal that as the Financial Supervisory Commission strengthens anti-fraud policies, banks must enforce strict KYC and AML mechanisms. These regulatory requirements are not voluntarily adopted by banks, but are mandatory government regulations. If banks fail to effectively prevent scam groups from using their platforms for money laundering or transferring illicit funds, they face hefty fines and regulatory penalties.

Common Behaviors That Trigger Bank Account Risk Controls

Abnormal Transaction Patterns: Rapid in-and-out, frequent nighttime transactions, a large number of small transfers in a short time

Involvement in High-Risk Areas: Transactions with cryptocurrency exchanges, payments to/from gambling websites, remittances from unknown overseas sources

Sudden Changes in Account Usage: Dormant accounts suddenly seeing large volumes of transactions, sudden spikes in transaction amounts

Third-Party Alerts: Reports from other banks or the 165 anti-fraud hotline indicating the account may be involved in fraud

However, these criteria clearly have a problem of over-capture. Many normal business activities are misjudged as suspicious, while true scam groups may use more covert means to bypass risk controls. Ironically, when ordinary people are mistakenly locked out of their accounts, they often must spend significant time and effort to prove their innocence—this “presumption of guilt” approach runs counter to the spirit of modern rule of law.

While banks understand public dissatisfaction, they also emphasize that anti-fraud work is indeed necessary. According to police statistics, in 2024, financial losses from fraud cases in Taiwan exceeded NT$7 billion, with many cases involving mule accounts and money laundering. If bank risk controls are too lax, they could become accomplices to scam groups. This dilemma is hard to resolve in the short term.

Some banks have begun adjusting their strategies, using more precise AI models to reduce misjudgment rates. For example, combining customer occupation, income, and transaction history, instead of relying solely on single transaction patterns. Additionally, some banks have simplified the unlocking process, allowing customers to verify their identity and transaction purpose via video call instead of visiting a branch in person.

Financial Supervisory Commission Chairman Lee Tsan-cheng has expressed a more moderate official attitude. He stated he can “understand” the desire of Taiwanese traders to seek returns. This suggests regulators are also aware of the negative impact of excessive risk controls and may adjust policy direction in the future.

From Individual Cases to Institutional Reform: Bank Account Management Needs Reform

Although Balloon Prince’s protest was dramatic, it’s just the tip of the iceberg. There are millions of bank accounts in Taiwan, and every day people are troubled by risk control issues. This widespread public discontent has caught the attention of legislators, some of whom are calling on the Financial Supervisory Commission to review current risk control policies to better balance anti-fraud and convenience.

Banks urge people facing risk control issues to file complaints through proper channels and avoid taking radical actions that may break the law or result in the bank terminating their accounts. However, the efficiency and effectiveness of these complaint channels also need improvement. Many people report that when complaining to banks, they often receive perfunctory responses like “the system decided, there’s nothing we can do,” and the problem remains unresolved.

The fundamental solution may require a multi-pronged approach. First, banks should invest in more accurate risk control technology to reduce misjudgments. Second, establish faster and more convenient complaint and unlocking mechanisms to lower customers’ time costs. Third, enhance communication with customers, providing warnings and explanations before locking accounts. Fourth, regulators should set more detailed risk control guidelines to prevent banks from adopting overly defensive measures just to avoid responsibility.

While Balloon Prince’s protest was radical, it has objectively promoted public discussion of this issue. In the era of digital finance, the usability of bank accounts is directly tied to people’s daily lives and economic activity. How to balance security and convenience is a challenge that the entire financial system must address.