New Laws That Allow The Government to Seize Savings Deposits During a Crisis

Phoenix Capital Research's picture

Behind the veneer of “all is well” being promoted by both world Governments and the Mainstream Media, the political elite have begun implementing legislation that will permit them to freeze accounts and use your savings to prop up insolvent banks.


This is not conspiracy theory or some kind of doom and gloom. It’s basic fact.


When a Cyprus bank went bust in 2013, the Government SEIZED 40% of ALL SAVINGS DEPOSITS OVER €100,000.


Here’s the timeline:


·      June 25, 2012: Cyprus formally requests a bailout from the EU.

·      November 24, 2012: Cyprus announces it has reached an agreement with the EU the bailout process once Cyprus banks are examined by EU officials (ballpark estimate of capital needed is €17.5 billion).

·      February 25, 2013: Democratic Rally candidate Nicos Anastasiades wins Cypriot election defeating his opponent, an anti-austerity Communist.


The initial stage of this took over six months to develop. But once things got hairy, the seizure took place over the course of ONE WEEKEND.


·      March 16 2013: Cyprus announces the terms of its bail-in: a 6.75% confiscation of accounts under €100,000 and 9.9% for accounts larger than €100,000… a bank holiday is announced.

·      March 17 2013: emergency session of Parliament to vote on bailout/bail-in is postponed.

·      March 18 2013: Bank holiday extended until March 21 2013.

·      March 19 2013: Cyprus parliament rejects bail-in bill.

·      March 20 2013: Bank holiday extended until March 26 2013.

·      March 24 2013: Cash limits of €100 in withdrawals begin for largest banks in Cyprus.

·      March 25 2013: Bail-in deal agreed upon. Those depositors with over €100,000 either lose 40% of their money (Bank of Cyprus) or lose 60% (Laiki).


The most important thing I want you to focus on is the speed of these events once things hit the fan. Cypriot banks formally requested a bailout back in June 2012. The bailout talks took months to perform. And then the entire system came unhinged in one weekend.


One weekend. The process was not gradual. It was sudden and it was total: once it began in earnest, the banks were closed and you couldn’t get your money out (more on this in a moment).


Cyprus is not some freak occurrence that could never happen anywhere else. The IMF has suggested to Governments around the world that they do the same (meaning STEAL deposits).


Again, this is not conspiracy theory. Germany just passed legislation that would permit PRECISELY this.


BERLIN--Germany's cabinet Wednesday approved plans to force creditors into propping up struggling banks beginning in 2015, one year earlier than required under European-wide plans that set rules for failing financial institutions.


The new bail-in rules are part of a package of German legislation on the European banking union--an ambitious project to centralize bank supervision in the euro zone and, when banks fail, to organize their rescue or winding-up at a European level.


Germany "leads the way" in Europe by implementing European rules quickly and "creates instruments that allow the winding-down of big systemically relevant institutions without putting the financial stability at risk," the country's finance ministry said in its draft bill seen by The Wall Street Journal.


So… Germany is “leading the way” in promoting plans to do a “bail-in.” What is a “bail-in”? A “bail-in” is when bank accounts are frozen and then seized in order to prop up the bank… a “bail-in” is what happened in Cyprus. It is when savings are STOLEN.


The explanation given to those with money in the bank?


In common speak, “you can either give us 40% of your savings to keep the bank afloat or the bank collapses and you’re left with NOTHING.”


We also want to point out that the above article indicates Germany moved to implement this a year early in 2015 instead of waiting until 2016.


Quick question…

Why would Germany want to rush in legislation that would allow it to freeze bank accounts and seize assets to prop up bankrupt financial institutions? Is it because everything is fine in Europe?


If you think this couldn’t happen elsewhere you are wrong. Canada, New Zealand and even the UK and US have proposed similar measures. The next time stuff hits the fan, savings will be on the hook, not the Central Banks.


This concludes this article. If you’re looking for the means of protecting your portfolio from the coming collapse, you can pick up a FREE investment report titled Protect Your Portfolio at


This report outlines a number of strategies you can implement to prepare yourself and your loved ones from the coming market carnage.


Best Regards


Phoenix Capital Research




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
PrettySkulls's picture

Most of the hoohah about bail-ins is around a fundamental misunderstanding of how the banking system works in the first place, caused by banks deliberately using words that do not mean what they seem to mean.

"Loan": most think it means a transferrance of an asset (usually currency) from one party to another with the opportunity cost of making said loan covered by the lendee (interest).
However in banking it means: creating money from nothing more than the lendees promise to repay (almost always with interest)

"Deposit": which we think means to entrust the safety of an asset to a secondary party. Think of a sperm bank, or placing gold in a storage facility as examples of this.
However in banking it actually means what we think of by "Loan" above. If anyone bothered to read the 'product disclosure' of a "term deposit" or "savings account" they would know this. They almost always include language that looks something like "The Bank will endeavour to repay..."

Thus "Depositors" of a bank are actually unsecured creditors of the bank. In the case the bank fails they would get back (on a pro rata basis) as much of their "deposits" (ie loans) as was possible after the secured creditors got their share but before the stockholders.

The basic idea of the 'bail-in' is that those unsecured creditors (depositors) should be engaged in bail-in iff (if and only if) the depositors will lose less money by doing so.

Put simply: You lend to the Bank so it can carry on its business, you are *not* placing your currency with the bank for safekeeping.

This means that you are making an investment in that bank.

No investment is totally safe, nor can it be made so by legislation. The Risk may be transferred thusly (which gives the impression of risk elimination to the investor) but it cannot be eliminated. Bail-outs are much more abhorrent than Bail-ins for this reason. Bail-outs transfer risk, Bail-ins less so.

Martian Moon's picture

Its in the 2013 Canadian budget

Nothing to see here ... these are not the drones you're looking for

Jack4952's picture

Is this REALLY news to anyone?

The possibility of future "bail-ins" (theft of deposits), coupled with the near non-existent interest rates paid on those deposits, are precisely why I removed ALL my money from all my bank accounts - with the exception of a tiny amount ($500 maximum) kept in one checking/debit card account at one small, local bank for minor emergency purchases. I consider the tiny amount in that account as "expendable" - willing to lose it, but won't be pleased about it. (The checking/debit card account also allows us to convert checks to us from others into cash at no cost.) We pay for almost everything with CASH, including our purchase of a new car about 2 years ago.

If I need to make a truly MAJOR purchase, I simply purchase a certified check from the bank which is then handed to my creditor OR deposit CASH into my checking/debit card account and pay for my purchase immediately by debit card (meaning within a few hours at most).

Why would ANYONE with any common sense keep a large amount of money in a bank???

- Jack

pitz's picture

Good lord already, a bail-in is not a seizure of someone's bank account.  It is merely the conversion of a debt obligation of the bank (ie: the money you lend them when you deposit something to a bank account) into equity.   Nothing to be worried about if one only deals with credit-worthy institutions. 

Jack4952's picture


Are you being sarcastic or serious?

Even small local banks possess credits instruments whose true value cannot be accurately calculated. Indeed, many mortgages and mortgage-based derivatives owned by even smaller banks certainly have far less value than is listed on the banks' ledgers. In short, even a bank's accountants have NO means of determing the true value of the negotiable instruments they hold! And what about daily bank-to-bank transfers? A small local bank may appear to be very solvent, but should a larger bank default on its payments to that smaller bank, then ALL the banks (large and small) go down!

I challenge ANYONE to sign a sworn affidavit in which he/she will guarantee, under full and unlimited personal commercial liability, that any specific bank is "credit worthy", that is, that bank will never seize the assets of its depositors or declare itself insolvent or bankrupt.

- Jack


pitz's picture

Serious.  Not sarcastic.  When you put money in a bank, you are lending it to them, without the benefit of even a pledge of the bank's collateral (ie: an unsecured creditor).  Just like any other commercial transaction, there is the possibility of a default.  If there is a default, typically the creditors take control of the assets of the defaulter.  Bail-ins are just an orderly and rapid way of ensuring this happens, as opposed to institutions being allowed to continue to run business as an insolvent entity. 

People who don't like the rules simply shouldn't play the game, ie: keep your money at home, invest in real assets and don't lend to the banks, etc.  People complain that banks are too large power-wise, yet line up with their wallets and lend them huge sums of money. 

Islamic finance actually deals with this in quite an elegant fashion, it simply prohibits borrowing or lending.  Requiring people to take out equity stakes in anything they want to invest in.  Is it any wonder why Islam is gaining strength while the debt-believers are on the path to destruction? 

PrettySkulls's picture

pitz so "gets it"

Nice one :)

Joebloinvestor's picture

Since they aren't gonna get their gold back, what choice do they have?

kchrisc's picture

"New Laws That Allow The Government to Seize Savings Deposits During a Crisis"

Those that understand the true nature of fraudulent-reserve banking know that what is really happening is that the banksters' government puppets are just officially recognizing the banksters' prior theft of those deposits.


"Guillotines make deposits in baskets."

atthelake's picture

Does a bail in affect the number of banker "suicides"?

fattail's picture

One way to protect yourself.  If you have debt, keep your deposits in the same bank that you have your unsecured debt at.  If the confiscate your deposits don't pay your unsecured debt. 

theyjustcantstop's picture

some people must not really understand, bankers aren't going to lose.

if your a big banker you have none to little cash in a bank, your the ones buying the most exspensive art, houses, cars, diamonds, anything but paper.

if your a centralbanker your betting my taxdollars on everything because the fed has me covered, they already have houses, one onshore, and one off-shore, all the exspensive toys, gold, and silver, and large investments outside casino.

they won't be able to spend it or pass it down to family members, when 7,000,000,000 people are looking for a few 100,000, it's the old saying you can run but not hide.


AdvancingTime's picture

 It might soon become apparent the economic efficiency of credit is beginning to collapse and the additional money poured into the system coupled with lower rates can no longer drive the economy forward.  When this happens we are at the end game.

At some point the return on loaning money is simply not worth the risk!  Why do you want to loan money if most likely you will never be repaid or repaid with something that is totally worthless? When this happens the only safe place to store wealth will be in "tangible assets" and the only lenders will be those who print the money that nobody wants.

The collapse of credit can pose major problems such as what we saw when many sellers were forced to demand payment up front before shipping goods in 2008. More on this subject below.

AdvancingTime's picture

A great deal of our economic system is about debt. It is important to remember not all debt is created equal. A mirage is a naturally occurring optical phenomenon in which light rays are bent to produce a displaced image of distant objects. Joining the idea of a mirage and contagion with the reality of collapsing debt forms an interesting subject.

It is important to remember all debts and obligations do not come due at the same time. Also, it must be noted when a bill is not paid or defaults it often starts a long and drawn out legal battle, this collection process that may extend years without harsh consequences. This my friends is the reality of modern life in America and much of the world. More on this subject in the article below.


Jack4952's picture

WRONG !!!!

Most of the assets held by banks are in the form of negotiable instruments, such as mortgage-backed derivatives of questionable value. Numerous financial publications have reported that the purchases of such instruments were leveraged (purchased using credit) at 30-to-1 or more. That means that should the market value of such instruments drop even 3%, those banks would be forced to sell off those derivatives and thereby made insolvent instantly! Does ANYONE out there truly believe that the $200+ Trillion in these derivatives floating around among the various banks are worth 97% of their nominal value? Or even 50% of their nominal value? If they were, why in God's name would the Federal Reserve be buying up these derivatives from the banks, along with keeping interest rates near zero? The prime example right now of the bank most loaded down with near-worthless derivatives is Deutsch Bank in Germany. It is being kept alive solely by the Federal Reserve and the ECB, since if it fails, the entire Western banking system will collapse.

Further, any creditor bank can demand IMMEDIATE PAYMENT from any other debtor bank, with NO legal intervention required. And if the payment is NOT made immediately upon demand, the creditor bank can "freeze", then seize ALL assets of the debtor bank in a matter of minutes. Indeed, the Federal Reserve is required by law to immediately seize the assets of the debtor bank on behalf of the creditor bank!

In short, should even ONE major bank fail, creditor banks would be forced to demand immediate payments in full in order to keep themselves solvent. And since NO ONE knows the TRUE market value of all those derivatives, even a small percentage drop from their nominal prices would collapse the entire Western banking system.


AdvancingTime's picture

A bad haircut, in this case means you have been robbed. That may be the case if the government reaches in over a long weekend and steals money from your bank account. This is a horrible precedent to set, and the worst part may be how some people are letting it slip out that it would be fair, or in some way justifiable if it is only on the larger accounts.

It is fine if it only impacts the savings of someone else, the savings of what they see as "the wealthy", the problem is someday they may come for you. I shudder to think what kind of world our children will live in.More about what happened in Cyprus in the article below.\


Jack4952's picture

"Haircut" ?????

I think "scalping" in a much more appropriate term.  ;-)    ;-)


The Most Interesting Frog in the World's picture

I, for one, am all for confiscation of bank accounts, brokerage accounts, land, whatever. US "wealth" accumulation the last 50+ years equals borrowed money that future generations will need to pay. Nothing but a big ponzi scheme... Bring it down! Let's get it started! Baby boomers = The Deadbeat Generation Pay your fucking debts before you die losers!

Jack4952's picture

I've got sone NEWS for you.

Since the Bankruptcy of the United States in 1933, the people of the U.S. own NOTHING - all land and everything on it was pledged by the U.S. government to its creditor banks. Any by filling out and signing the application for your Birth Certificate, your parents pledged you to the U.S. government as "surety" to the bankers for the national debt. When you "buy" a house, land, a car or whatever, you get "equity title" ONLY - which means that you are granted the PRIVILEGE of using that house or car. You do NOT own it. Each car comes with a "Manufacturer's Statement of Origin" and ONLY the "holder in due course" of that document is the true owner of the car. And WHO gets possession of all "Manufacturer's Statements of Origin"? Why your corporate STATE GOVERNMENT, which is (of course) a subsidiary corporation of the private United States corporation.

That is why your state government and the federal government can require you to register the car, have it inspected, obtain a driver's license and issue you fines for violating any of their rules -- it is THEIR car !!!!  You only have the right of use. In fact, unless you purchased the car by paying in gold or silver (i.e, REAL MONEY) AND obtainied permanent possession of the "Manufacturer's Statement of Origin", you never legally bought the car at all. If you used Fedral Reserve Notes (aka, U.S. dollars or credit in the form of U.S. dollars), you merely exchanged credits with the car dealer. He gave you a "bill" and you gave him a "bill" (dollar bills), thereby exchanging "bills" of equal value and discharging the mutual debt between you.

And to depress you even more, you do NOT own even your own body. WHY can the government require you to use seat belts while driving, obey traffic regukations, and now even buy health insurance (Obamacare) that you may not want or need? Once again, because they OWN your body. And since they own you and you have been pledged to the banks as surety for the national debt, the government wants to keep you alive and working and paying taxes so those taxes can be forwarded to the banks as interest on the national debt. (You REALLY didn't think that the government actually cared about you as a person, did you?)


The Most Interesting Frog in the World's picture

And take their fucking pensions and Social Security and Medicare too.  

p00k1e's picture

Bankrupt is bankrupt unless you are in a Detroit union.  Then, even after running the citiy into the ground, you still get your due....  GM too....  And Chrylser..... 

papa_lazarou's picture

I wonder if there is an Earth in a parallell universe where banks serve communities rather than prey on them, pay interest instead of profiting from it and offer solutions to life's financial problems rather than causing them? Because we are definitely on the Earth in the "bad" universe here.

Dreamwalker420's picture

Depositors are loaning their money to the bank.  That makes them the banks creditors.  If I choose to loan money to a corrupt financial institution that then goes bankrupt, what should the consequences be?

Bankrupt banks go bankrupt.

And the idiots who put their money in these banks should loose all the fiat currency they have amassed and chosen to loan to a bad company.

Banks are private corporations that are NOT government entities.  Depositors make a CHOICE to loan the bank (by making a deposit).  Socializing the losses when bank management tanks the company essentially tries to make your neighbor responsible for your choices.

Trillions of newly printed money later ... to save the wealthiest 1% of the population by further enslaving the bottom.

You can't take what I don't have.  But you can certainly tax anything I might acquire.  And all the while, the wealthiest get more and more wealth from exploting the government and the idiots who fund this sham.

End the Federal Reserve System.

End the Fed.

Any currency is only worth the likelyhood I can get a gallon of milk or a gallon of gas right now.  Future value is a myth.


El Vaquero's picture

This is not new.  There was a paper authored by the FDIC, BoE, and, IIRC, the Fed back in 2012 that outlined bail-ins in the US and the UK.  They can and they will do it here, though in the US, the bureaucracy of the court system may slow things down enough that banks collapse anyway, even if said bail-ins are ultimately approved.

p00k1e's picture

Anyone recall the GM bondholders? 


MassDecep's picture

Does that effect Brokerage accounts also?

Raging Debate's picture

Prefer hedging in low-income real estate that generates income and also other tangible commodities.

I had mentioned NH did this to me in 2011 when it went bankrupt by sending me a bill for past UI recipients of $7,000. When I told them I demanded a hearing and would bring all UI payments since 2007 and an attorney they wire tapped the funds right out of my account.

The reality is government will find methods to tax in lots of ways so they stay in power at your expense. The problem with the US is the pensions/entitlement system. To make such sustainable would have required hard changes by the 1990's.

At this point taxes and cuts will come in draconian fashion before government restructures. While I am not sure on specifics, I think we'll see America 2.0 a new brand name by 2020. Buckle up and look after one another. This dark season will pass.

Welder's picture

"Prefer hedging in low-income real estate that generates income and also other tangible commodities."


It works only if owning properties is still legal. My grandparents were expropriated, their farms, tools and animals taken away and they were forced to work in a state-owned farm, like a kibutz. City folks saw their houses demolished and moved to soviet style apartment buildings where they paid rent to the State. Leaving the country was illegal and many people were shot trying to cross the western border. That was Communism 1.0. Their creators pulled it's plug because it drifted from internationalism and fell in the hands of nationalists like Stalin, Enver Hodza, Tito and Ceausescu. Communism 2.0 is much more insidious and they've refined their techniques.

Australian Economist's picture

Maybe if bad banks were left to fail people would be more careful where they kept their money, and the surviving banks would not be so reckless if they knew they would pay the cost of failure.


Criminally prosecuting those who willfully gambled with other peoples money for personal gain would also be a good start.

Pee Wee's picture

Bingo.  Creative destruction was funneled right into those that created the crisis - they got paid twice, soon to be thrice.  That means two generations were deprived of every opportunity to participate, whatsoever.  The crisis and recovery were planned, orchestrated events to institutionalize Fascism.

Regulators (Fascist Fad included) are only a feel-good distraction from wealth confiscation in a totally broken system.

It all comes down to "which" banks are the "chosen" winners and losers.


Australian Economist's picture

Why should a government make it legal for a private company to steal your money?


It doesn't make sense.



pitz's picture

Its not stealing.  Its a conversion from debt to equity in an orderly and rapid fashion.  Instead of the alternative, which is that an insolvent institution keeps running and is mismanaged for years until there's nothing left. 

Buck Johnson's picture

Because they don't have anymore money.


Buck Johnson's picture

Because they don't have the money anymore.

Bunga Bunga's picture

It makes sense when the money is already gone and the criminals want to get away with that. Just legalize the robbery after it took place but before the depositors notice it.

Raging Debate's picture

Australian Economist - I explained why they do it above. It may damage confidence for a long, long time but the thinking is short-term survivalism. ZH and other sites that advocate hedging are a reaction to that. What is right or fair is not how our world works very often. Better perhaps than thousands of years ago but still challenging to preserve and grow wealth if not highly connected.

crazybob369's picture

There's no such thing as a private bank.

BobPaulson's picture

Huh? The Banks _are_ the government.

RaceToTheBottom's picture

Bank issues solved!!!!

Bank Bonuses for everyone!!!!!

taketheredpill's picture



Canada has NVCC (Non-Viability Contingent Capital) bank debt.  Regulators (OSFI) ring a bell if they think bank is on verge of collapse, and the NVCC debt turns into Equity.  Investors get a pick in yield to own the bonds.


Regulators are trying to avoid the 2008 debacle when one of the big Canadian banks (fuck you BMO) came close to having to cut its dividend.  Not halt the dividend, just reduce the size. Gasp.

pitz's picture

BMO was never at any meaningful risk.  The CMHC, Canada's largest subprime mortgage guarantor, however.... 

Longarm's picture

When it happens here everyone will say "But I didn't know they could do that."

ArkansasAngie's picture

Then it needs to include a immediate ownership in the bank for said capital and a firing of upper management and the board and  ... while I'm at it ... a clawback of all compensation for the previous 3 years.


Long live moral hazard!

Colonel Klink's picture

You'll get nothing, and like it.

-signed teh government

Its_the_economy_stupid's picture

+1 for the Caddy Shack rerference