Offshore Lifestyle: Why I Don't Trust U.S. Banks with My Wealth—And Why Singapore Is the Safest Jurisdiction
- Steven Schaerer
- Jan 5
- 15 min read
Updated: Feb 6
America's Tragic Decline: How Corruption, Bureaucracy, Greed, and Ethical Failures Toppled a Once-Great Nation
"Greed is normally balanced by fear." — Peter Schiff, honorary chairman of SchiffGold, founder of Euro Pacific Asset Management, and host of The Peter Schiff Show.
America by the Numbers: In 2024, U.S. regulators issued nearly 50 fines, accounting for a staggering 95% of the $4.6 billion in global financial penalties. Of this total, over $4.3 billion came from the U.S., with $1.06 billion levied specifically against U.S.-headquartered financial institutions. (Source: Fenergo Study)
In previous articles, I’ve explained why I—as an American citizen—don't hold U.S. dollars. Why? The data speaks for itself, and I refuse to store my wealth in inflationary debt notes that consistently lose value.
Similarly, I avoid holding assets in the United States unless I absolutely have to. Why? Because I don’t trust American financial institutions. I don’t trust the American government. I don’t trust the not-so-federal Federal Reserve. I don’t trust any of it—and I certainly don’t trust that system to responsibly manage my wealth.
Again, don’t just take my word for it; the facts paint a damning picture. As highlighted above, 95% of all global financial penalties were issued by the U.S. government in 2024—nearly a quarter of which targeted its own domestic financial institutions.
That data point raises a number of intriguing questions:
Why is America the only country aggressively fining financial institutions on this scale?
Why are the rest of the world's governments only responsible for 5% of financial misconduct globally, while the U.S. accounts for the remaining 95%?
Does this disparity indicate that the U.S. government is uniquely adept at uncovering financial fraud, or does it reflect a systemic overreach driven by political or economic motives?
Why is the American government anomalously the only one seemingly capable of identifying financial fraud anywhere in the world?
Or could it be that these consistently unique American fines simply serve as a convenient revenue source for an increasingly cash-strapped government?
These figures not only raise eyebrows across the board—from the U.S. government to its financial institutions—but also reinforce my decision to avoid entrusting my wealth to a system so riddled with penalties, distrust, and financial instability.
Either way you slice it, it paints a damning picture of the utter insanity of the modern American financial ecosystem. If the validity of these fines is legitimate—and a quarter of the global penalties imposed by the U.S. government are on American financial institutions—then I want nothing to do with these disproportionately corrupt entities. Why would I entrust them with my wealth when the American government is openly flaunting their corruption, at scale, for the entire world to see?
On the other hand, if the financial institutions are indeed innocent and the U.S. government is merely desperate for money, why on earth would I want my wealth concentrated in a country where its own government engages in the rampant theft of its financial institutions?
Irrespective of what the true picture may be, this isn’t a system anyone should trust with their hard-earned money.
Sadly, fines are just the beginning of this concerning narrative. Beyond a rapidly deteriorating U.S. dollar, I haven’t even touched on American debanking, FBI raids on citizen assets, technical glitches, or the seemingly endless incidents of fraud.
When you examine the American financial ecosystem in its entirety, the only logical choice is to distance yourself as quickly as possible and seek safer global alternatives. In my opinion, this isn’t just true for financial wealth but also extends to other assets, such as real estate.
To clarify, we are not a tax advocacy group, and these arguments are not being made in relation to favorable tax jurisdictions. Furthermore, whenever you consider moving assets offshore, it is essential to consult with a licensed legal and financial professional, as we do not provide such services. Lastly, any offshore moves must strictly adhere to the law, and we strongly advocate for full compliance with all legal and reporting requirements.
SEC and OCC: Why U.S. Financial Institutions Are Paying Billions in Fines
So, what exactly have U.S. financial institutions allegedly been doing, according to the U.S. government, to rack up these massive penalties?
According to recent actions by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), major players in the banking industry face substantial fines for a variety of regulatory breaches. Here's a breakdown of the charges:
Notable SEC Enforcement Actions:
JP Morgan Affiliates:
"Washington D.C., Oct. 31, 2024 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (JPMS) and J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. (JPMIM) – both affiliates of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JP Morgan) – in five separate enforcement actions for failures including misleading disclosures to investors, breach of fiduciary duty, prohibited joint transactions and principal trades, and failures to make recommendations in the best interest of customers.
Without admitting or denying the findings in the SEC’s orders, the two affiliates agreed to pay more than $151 million in combined civil penalties and voluntary payments to investors to resolve four of the actions."
Translation: The SEC charged two JP Morgan companies (JPMS and JPMIM) for several violations, including giving investors misleading information, not acting in customers' best interest, and doing trades they weren’t supposed to. Without admitting fault, the companies agreed to pay over $151 million in penalties and reimbursements to settle the charges.
Morgan Stanley:
"Washington D.C., Jan. 12, 2024 —The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged investment banking giant Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and the former head of its equity syndicate desk, Pawan Passi, with a multi-year fraud involving the disclosure of confidential information about the sale of large quantities of stock known as “block trades.” The SEC also charged Morgan Stanley with failing to enforce its policies concerning the misuse of material non-public information related to block trades.
Morgan Stanley agrees to pay more than $249 million to settle fraud charges and for failing to enforce information barriers."
Translation: The SEC charged Morgan Stanley for sharing confidential information about large stock sales (called "block trades"). They were also accused of not properly following rules to prevent misuse of sensitive information. Morgan Stanley agreed to pay over $249 million to settle the charges.
Notable OCC Enforcement Actions:
Wells Fargo:
"WASHINGTON—The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today entered into a Formal Agreement with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
The Formal Agreement identifies deficiencies relating to the bank’s financial crimes risk management practices and anti-money laundering internal controls in several areas including suspicious activity and currency transaction reporting, customer due diligence, and the bank’s customer identification and beneficial ownership programs.
The agreement requires the bank to take comprehensive corrective actions to enhance its Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering and U.S. sanctions compliance programs."
Translation: The OCC found problems with Wells Fargo's handling of financial crimes, like money laundering, and its internal controls. Issues included poor tracking of suspicious transactions, weak customer identification processes, and inadequate oversight of ownership details. Wells Fargo must now take major steps to fix these problems and improve its compliance programs.
Citibank:
"WASHINGTON—The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today issued an amendment to its October 7, 2020, Cease and Desist Order against Citibank, N.A, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, related to deficiencies in enterprise-wide risk management, compliance risk management, data governance, and internal controls (2020 Order).
The OCC also assessed a $75 million civil money penalty against Citibank based on the bank’s violations of the 2020 Order and lack of processes to monitor the impact of data quality concerns on regulatory reporting."
Translation: The OCC updated its previous 2020 enforcement order against Citibank due to ongoing problems with risk management, data quality, and internal controls. The bank was fined $75 million for not addressing these issues and failing to monitor how poor data affected its regulatory reporting.
Bank of America:
"WASHINGTON—The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today issued a cease-and-desist order (order) against Bank of America, N.A. (bank) for deficiencies related to its Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and sanctions compliance programs.
The OCC took this action based on violations and unsafe or unsound practices relating to these programs, including a failure to timely file suspicious activity reports and failure to correct a previously identified deficiency related to its Customer Due Diligence processes.
The order requires the bank to take comprehensive corrective actions to enhance its BSA/anti—money laundering (AML) and sanctions compliance programs, including the hiring of an independent consultant to assess the bank’s BSA/AML and sanctions compliance programs and conduct lookback reviews to ensure all suspicious activity was appropriately reported."
Translation: The OCC issued a cease-and-desist order to Bank of America for not following rules to stop money laundering and comply with sanctions. The bank failed to file reports on suspicious activity and didn’t fix earlier issues with customer due diligence. Bank of America must now take corrective action, hire an independent consultant, and review past activity to ensure compliance.
Yikes, and that was just 2024!
As I’ve said before, whether these issues genuinely stem from government desperation or unethical banking practices, they highlight a financial system I can neither trust nor align with. Unfortunately, these shocking practices barely scratch the surface of the deeper problems plaguing the U.S. financial ecosystem. Once you zoom further out, it becomes clear that all this alleged illegal, unethical, or questionable behavior is merely a symptom of much deeper systemic issues.
The Alarming Trend of Debanking in America: Speak Up, Lose Your Bank Account
I don't get into policy or political topics here and stay as painfully neutral as possible on these matters.
I have little interest in commenting on the chaotic world of the American political engine. While I have my own opinions, the space is already flooded with countless voices from all over the world claiming they have the answers to America’s many problems. I wish them well, but I have no desire to join that conversation.
Instead, my focus is simple: identify problems and provide practical solutions—nothing more, nothing less. I suppose that, at its core, is the fundamental entrepreneurial ethos.
Having personally lived in Asia, Latin America, Europe, and North America, I’ve come to appreciate that people naturally think differently and approach problems in unique ways depending on their culture and circumstances. That’s perfectly fine—there’s nothing wrong with different perspectives or solutions.
With that in mind, I believe it’s possible to disagree with someone politically while still respecting their basic rights, including access to banking services. Debanking, defined as the practice of a bank ceasing to provide services to a customer, often without clear justification, raises serious ethical concerns. It's one thing to debank someone because they’ve broken the law; it’s quite another to do so simply because you disagree with their opinions. Having a dissenting political view should not result in such drastic consequences.
The last place anyone would have historically expected to see non-criminal debanking was the United States. Yet, in the modern era, debanking has become disturbingly common in America. In fact, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has reportedly received more than 15,000 complaints of Americans being debanked since 2016. This trend raises serious questions about the ethical and systemic issues driving these decisions.
So, who exactly are American financial institutions cutting off from basic banking services because of a difference in political ideology?
Shockingly, we'll start with U.S. doctors:
Dr. Joseph Mercola: A graduate of the University of Illinois with dual degrees in chemistry and biology, he later earned his medical degree from Midwestern University and served in the United States Air Force. Despite his credentials and service, Dr. Mercola, a prominent critic of certain medical policies during the pandemic, had his business accounts shut down by JP Morgan Chase—an alarming example of how dissenting views are being targeted.
Next up? American technology founders. I'm not kidding:
Jered Kenna: Founder of TradeHill Inc.—the first cryptocurrency exchange in the U.S., which at one point handled a quarter of all global Bitcoin trades—was famously debanked. Kenna was quoted, "I had a spreadsheet of banks that denied me after I founded TradeHill, and I’m still banned at HSBC, BofA, Chase, Citi, [Wells Fargo], and others. I’d try to talk to 5-10 a day at points."
Or the wife and son of a U.S. President:
Melania Trump and Barron Trump: Following the events of January 6th, their personal bank accounts were abruptly shuttered. Melania Trump expressed her frustration, stating, "I was shocked and dismayed to learn that my long-time bank decided to terminate my account and deny my son the opportunity to open a new one. This decision appeared to be rooted in political discrimination, raising serious concerns about civil rights violations." She further added, “It is troubling to see financial services withheld based on political affiliation.”
How about American billionaires:
Tyler Winklevoss: Think money and status will protect you from the crypto banking wars? Even being a billionaire isn’t enough to stop the debanking epidemic. Tyler Winklevoss, one of the renowned Winklevoss twins and a self-made American billionaire, was reportedly debanked simply for co-founding a crypto company. “The number is probably much larger than 30—that's just in the a16z portfolio alone,” Tyler noted. His brother and fellow co-founder, Cameron Winklevoss, added, “Between myself, @tyler, @winklevosscap, and @Gemini, we lost more bank accounts than you can count on two hands.”
The list is endless.
I have little interest in the American political machine or the policies it churns out. There’s no shortage of people, both in the U.S. and around the world, shouting their opinions into that endless void. That said, whether or not I agree with someone’s political views, as long as they’re not breaking any laws, I don’t believe they should be debanked or denied access to financial services.
The truly alarming part? Beyond the countless unethical allegations we’ve already covered, debanking itself is yet another glaring reason to steer clear of the American financial system. Why? Because no matter how politically connected, wealthy, intelligent, or licensed you are, your bank account can be haphazardly shut down without warning or justification. And when that happens, you’ll have absolutely no recourse.
If they can inflict that level of harm on billionaires, tech founders, the family members of a president, children, and doctors, just imagine how much worse they can make life for the average person like you.
Does that sound like a system you’d safely trust with your wealth? Does that sound like a system worthy of your confidence?
But even beyond the lawsuits, allegations, and debanking, the picture grows darker—and arguably even worse—"technical" glitches...
Technical Banking Glitches: When Americans Wake Up to Financial Nightmares
So far, we’ve covered some shocking revelations. American banks are being fined by U.S. regulators for a range of offenses, from outright illegal activity to deeply unethical practices. These issues affect everyone—from family members of a U.S. president to billionaires, tech and crypto founders, and even doctors. At this point, you might be wondering: can American financial institutions sink any lower?
Yup, they sure can: "technical glitches."
Technical Glitch 1: Zero Balance Accounts (Bank of America)
Imagine depositing money into your bank account—whether it’s from government assistance, a paycheck, or a gift from a relative—seeing the funds safely credited, and going to sleep feeling secure. Then, the next morning, you check your account only to find your balance completely wiped out, showing zero.
Sadly, this isn’t just a hypothetical scenario—welcome to the world of American bank "glitches." On Wednesday, October 2, 2024, Bank of America customers across the United States woke up to this terrifying reality.
Not only did many report being unable to log into their accounts, but countless others saw their balances inexplicably drop to zero. That’s right—the money they had just safely deposited was suddenly showing as a zeroed-out balance in their personal Bank of America accounts.
According to a Bank of America customer on the social media platform X: "The Bank of America outage is real. Just logged into all my accounts with them. Showing zero balances. LOL. FLAT BROKE."
Technical Glitch 2: Missing Deposits (Wells Fargo Bank)
Here’s another scenario: imagine you deposit a check or expect a direct deposit from your employer—maybe it’s your paycheck, a tax refund, or even a payment you’ve been waiting weeks for. You see the deposit pending in your account and breathe a sigh of relief, knowing the funds are on their way.
Then, without warning, the deposit vanishes.
This isn’t a hypothetical. Just ask customers of Wells Fargo, who experienced this firsthand. In August 2023, the bank faced a "technical glitch" that caused deposits to disappear from customer accounts. Paychecks, payments, and other deposits simply vanished into thin air, leaving account holders panicked and scrambling.
For many, the consequences were severe. Missed rent payments, late fees, and bounced checks became all too common as customers were left in the dark about when—or if—their deposits would be restored.
Technical Glitch 3: System-Wide Outage (Capital One)
Here’s our third and final scenario: the entire bank just stops working. Imagine needing to transfer money, pay bills, or access your account in an emergency—only to discover that the bank’s system has completely shut down. No mobile app, no online banking, no ATMs, and no customer service lines. You’re locked out of your own money, with no indication of when—or if—things will be fixed.
This is exactly what happened to Capital One customers in January 2025. A widespread service outage left millions of customers unable to access their accounts or perform even basic transactions. The outage spanned multiple hours, causing chaos for anyone relying on the bank’s services during that critical time.
For businesses and individuals alike, the impact was immediate and far-reaching. Missed payrolls, delayed payments, and interrupted business operations left customers frustrated and demanding answers. While Capital One eventually restored service, the incident exposed the vulnerabilities of centralized banking systems—and just how fragile access to your money can be in the digital age.
American Bank Failures: When Banks Cease to Function
Lawsuits, technical "glitches," regulatory fines, and debanking—sounds like a nightmare, right? Sadly, this is the new reality Americans using U.S. banks are shockingly becoming accustomed to. On their own, each of these issues is enough to make anyone question whether they want any of their money tied to the American financial system in any capacity. But wait, you’re wondering, "Can it possibly get worse?"
Yup, it sure can: bank failures!
It's crazy to say, but American banks are starting to fail.
Silicon Valley Bank (March 10, 2023):
One of the most significant U.S. bank collapses in recent years was Silicon Valley Bank (SVB). The failure of this once-prominent institution shocked the financial world, as depositors, investors, and regulators scrambled to contain the fallout.
SVB’s collapse was driven by risky investment strategies and poor risk management. The bank’s heavy reliance on tech-sector deposits and exposure to long-term bonds made it vulnerable when interest rates spiked. A wave of panic led to a massive bank run, with $42 billion withdrawn in a single day, leaving SVB unable to meet its obligations.
This marked the second-largest bank failure in U.S. history, shaking confidence in the banking system. The federal government stepped in to guarantee deposits beyond the FDIC’s limit, but the incident exposed the fragility of financial institutions reliant on niche markets and raised concerns about regulatory oversight.
Signature Bank (March 12, 2023):
If Silicon Valley Bank wasn’t shocking enough, the next domino to fall was Signature Bank. This collapse, occurring just days later, became the third-largest bank failure in U.S. history, adding to fears of a systemic banking crisis.
Signature Bank’s downfall was tied to its significant exposure to the volatile cryptocurrency sector. As confidence in the sector eroded, the bank faced a surge of withdrawals it could not cover. Like SVB, Signature’s reliance on niche markets left it vulnerable when market conditions shifted, and panic spread among depositors.
The collapse of Signature Bank further underscored the fragility of the U.S. banking system and the risks of overconcentration in speculative sectors. Regulators were forced to intervene once again, guaranteeing deposits to prevent further financial contagion and stabilize market confidence.
First Republic Bank (May 1st, 2023):
If the collapses of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank weren’t alarming enough, the failure of First Republic Bank, added yet another chapter to the unfolding crisis. This marked the second-largest bank failure in U.S. history by assets, further eroding confidence in the banking sector.
First Republic’s collapse stemmed from a combination of factors, including a loss of depositor trust and poor risk management. The bank’s significant holdings of long-term, low-interest loans became a liability as interest rates rose, leading to massive unrealized losses. As news spread, depositors withdrew billions of dollars, leaving the bank unable to sustain operations.
The failure of First Republic underscored the ongoing vulnerabilities in the U.S. banking system and the broader consequences of rising interest rates. Regulators stepped in to orchestrate the sale of its assets, attempting to stabilize the market and restore trust in the financial sector.
But beyond the fines, lawsuits, unethical behavior, and debanking, the concept of bank failures raises a critical question: what regulatory mechanisms are in place to protect the average, unassuming bank customer when a bank collapses?
Let's talk about FDIC insurance.
The Final Nail in the Coffin: The Fragile Reality of FDIC Insurance
What’s the regulatory backstop designed by America’s brightest financial minds to protect innocent bank customers in the event of a financial crisis or a bank collapse? FDIC Insurance.
But let’s be clear: FDIC Insurance doesn’t protect all of your deposits. It only covers up to $250,000 per insured account. That means if your bank fails and you have $300,000 in your account, you could lose $50,000 immediately.
So, how many dollars’ worth of deposits fall under this $250,000 FDIC limit? As of June 30, 2024, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured approximately $10 trillion in deposits across U.S. banks.
Sounds reassuring, right? "At least my money is protected! I don’t have more than $250k in my account, and if I do, that’s still a substantial amount covered," you might think. But hold on—it’s not that simple.
Here’s the catch: the FDIC doesn’t actually have enough funds to cover all of those insured deposits in the event of a systemic U.S. banking collapse. How much does it have available to pay out if things go haywire?
As of today, the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF), the pool of money meant to back those deposits, holds just $129.2 billion. That equates to a reserve ratio of 1.21%.
Yes, you read that correctly: only 1.21% of all "insured" deposits are actually covered by the FDIC’s funds.
Let that sink in.
From fines to debanking, FDIC insurance shortfalls to outright bank failures—does any of this sound like the America you grew up in? Is it just me, or does the modern era of U.S. banking feel fundamentally and irreparably broken?
And let’s set aside the fact that I’ve exhaustively reported on why I don’t even want to hold dollars in the first place. This is just yet another reason why I refuse to keep any of my money in the American financial system unless it’s absolutely unavoidable.
With so many issues in the American financial ecosystem, is there anyone I can trust to securely store my wealth offshore?
Over the past decade, Singapore has risen as a global leader in wealth management and precious metals storage. Its reputation for political stability, strong legal frameworks, and business-friendly policies has attracted investors worldwide. For example, Singapore was recently recognized in 2024 as having the most effective government globally, further cementing its appeal as a reliable destination.
For me, the answer is clear: BullionStar—a proud, homegrown Singaporean company.
With a seamless online platform, ultra-secure vaulting facilities in Singapore, and direct ownership of allocated gold, BullionStar makes offshore gold ownership simple and transparent. Unlike the convoluted mechanisms of the financial industry—riddled with hidden fees, counterparty risks, and unnecessary complexity—BullionStar operates with integrity, ensuring that what I buy is what I own. Whether I need to purchase, store, or ship my holdings internationally, BullionStar offers the ideal solution for those who see gold as a safeguard against financial uncertainty.
Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, tax, or legal advice. Always do your own research and consult a professional before making decisions.
