No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
I opened a savings and checking account online through USAA two days ago. I just received a response back stating that my accounts would be closed and that I would not be a member. The reason was listed as due to "moral turpitude".
I have never been arrested, hit my wife, or caused any other problems. In fact, I volunteer with Special Olympics, run the Toys for Tots drive at our work, and pride myself on being a wonderful father.
The only thing I have done is have some charged off credit card accounts. That is it. How could they even remotely state moral turpitude as a reason? That is extremely insulting to me.
The only reason I can think of is due to one of the charged off credit card accounts being from PenFed. Maybe they share information. I am just perplexed by the reason stated.
Has anyone else ever received this reply from USAA when trying to open an account?
I suggest you call them and ask for clarification of their reason. Just asserting "moral terpitude" without explanation is worse, in my opinion, than giving no reason at all.
I dont consider having been in debt in the past as "moral terpitude."
Unfortunately, bank accounts are business transactions, not credit trnsctions, and thus dont give you the protection of the various credit account regulations.
I am unaware of any statutory requirements regarding reasons why a business cannot choose to terminate their business with you, unless it relates to the prohibited civil rights violations based on age, sex, national origin, etc.
@John060675 wrote:I opened a savings and checking account online through USAA two days ago. I just received a response back stating that my accounts would be closed and that I would not be a member. The reason was listed as due to "moral turpitude".
I have never been arrested, hit my wife, or caused any other problems. In fact, I volunteer with Special Olympics, run the Toys for Tots drive at our work, and pride myself on being a wonderful father.
The only thing I have done is have some charged off credit card accounts. That is it. How could they even remotely state moral turpitude as a reason? That is extremely insulting to me.
The only reason I can think of is due to one of the charged off credit card accounts being from PenFed. Maybe they share information. I am just perplexed by the reason stated.
Has anyone else ever received this reply from USAA when trying to open an account?
This is a first. I have never heard of USAA closing accounts like that much less using the actual term moral turpitude cited as reasoning.
I am fairly certain that PenFed and USAA share information, but even if they don't the charged off accounts would appear on your credit report. As far as I can remember -- and I could very well be wrong, USAA doesn't pull your credit report when you open a non-credit account.
Is it possible that you have an issue showing in ChexSystems? Or you made a mistake when you listed your military affiliation when applying?
I would definitely call them and try to get to the bottom of this. Although offhand I'd say that Robert has a valid point that a business can decide who it does or does not do business with, the term moral turpitude is singularly egregious and, if untrue, perhaps actionable. Again, I would have USAA clarify exactly what they mean and if the answer is not satisfactory, I would contact both the BBB and the federal agency that regulates USAA Bank.
If you don't mind my asking, are you active duty military or former military?
O6,
No, I have never served in the military. When I applied online I made it clear that I was not a military person. Concerning Chexsystem, I do not have anything there. I will double check on it, but I can definitely say that I should not.
I will call them to ask for a more clear explanation. I do not mind that they did not open the account too much, but the reasoning was just a little bothersome. Such is life.
@John060675 wrote:O6,
No, I have never served in the military. When I applied online I made it clear that I was not a military person. Concerning Chexsystem, I do not have anything there. I will double check on it, but I can definitely say that I should not.
I will call them to ask for a more clear explanation. I do not mind that they did not open the account too much, but the reasoning was just a little bothersome. Such is life.
I completely understand.
I would get to the bottom of this. The terminology they used is highly regrettable. They should be ashamed of using it.
Found this on the web....
"That brings us back to our question: what is moral turpitude? The case law concerning moral turpitude suggests that, like indecency laws, it will be judged region by region. With such a vague definition, what reaches the level of moral turpitude in Utah may not reach that level in Nevada. There does appear to be some consistency in the decisions though. For one, most courts have found that a felony reaches the level of moral turpitude. This is because a felony is a serious crime against society and fits well into the definition. Other than a felony, the most common action found to reach the level of moral turpitude is a wrong action that includes fraud or deceit. Generally, a misdemeanor does not reach the level of moral turpitude. However, when combined with deceit, it does. Thus, courts have found that writing a bad check while knowing there were not sufficient funds does constitute moral turpitude, while public drunkenness would not reach that level. The elements that go along with deceit of knowingly and willfully committing a wrong action seem to be most important when determining if a non-felony action reaches the level of moral turpitude."
http://www.bmebsports.com/articles/9
DH and I had quite a discussion on the original post. I am not saying USAA's choice of words was correct or incorrect. And I am not offering an opinion about the OP.
Food for thought....if the OP paid the charge offs, would USAA still deny the OP membership?
Please do not flame me or the OP.
I was just sharing some information found on the net.
@IOBA wrote:Found this on the web....
"That brings us back to our question: what is moral turpitude? The case law concerning moral turpitude suggests that, like indecency laws, it will be judged region by region. With such a vague definition, what reaches the level of moral turpitude in Utah may not reach that level in Nevada. There does appear to be some consistency in the decisions though. For one, most courts have found that a felony reaches the level of moral turpitude. This is because a felony is a serious crime against society and fits well into the definition. Other than a felony, the most common action found to reach the level of moral turpitude is a wrong action that includes fraud or deceit. Generally, a misdemeanor does not reach the level of moral turpitude. However, when combined with deceit, it does. Thus, courts have found that writing a bad check while knowing there were not sufficient funds does constitute moral turpitude, while public drunkenness would not reach that level. The elements that go along with deceit of knowingly and willfully committing a wrong action seem to be most important when determining if a non-felony action reaches the level of moral turpitude."
http://www.bmebsports.com/articles/9
DH and I had quite a discussion on the original post. I am not saying USAA's choice of words was correct or incorrect. And I am not offering an opinion about the OP.
Food for thought....if the OP paid the charge offs, would USAA still deny the OP membership?
From a legal standpoint, the concept of moral turpitude is not always easy to define, but there is rather little legal controversy over what it is not. In virtually every state not every felony reaches the level of moral turpitude and, more often than not, neither do misdemeanors.
Some examples of felonies that would not ordinarily reach the level of moral turpitude include:
Assault & battery;
DWI;
Non-sale drug offenses;
Concealed weapons;
Indecent exposure; and
Involuntarily manslaughter.
Generally courts have held that actions involving malum in se rather than malum prohibitum may qualify.
Courts routinely describe moral turpitude as an "act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man." That can be a very tough burden to prove absent a criminal conviction ... and even then.
In my opinion, USAA would be myopic and foolish to use such a term when taking adverse action since under the right conditions they would expose themselves to legal liability. Remember, in a trial it isn't what the law says or even what the judge believes, but what twelve of your neighbors ultimately feel is correct. With the media using the term moral turpitude freely against those that are the worst of the worst, a decent attorney would be able to convince them that USAA were calling you a <imagine the most terrible acts you can think of here> and get an award from that jury that would put the NY State Lottery payout to shame.
I do not take any offense or will "flame" any posters for their thoughts or opinions. That is why I write on this forum is to get an honest opinion from people. I know that I am a law abiding citizen and that I have not committed any fraudulent check transactions.
I will call USAA today or tomorrow to find out more information on why they gave that reason. I tried last night, but they close very early for a call center.
If I do not like their explanation, then my plan is to just protest them by not ever trying to become a member of their credit union. I do not plan on trying any legal actions, even though I probably could force the issue. Heck, life is too short to worry too much about such things. I just wanted to see if anyone had such an experience with them.
I will let everyone know the response I receive from them when I call.
When you call USAA, maybe ask them if you paid off all of the charged off cc's if USAA would reconsider their decision.