Is Cash Now a Dirty Thing to Have?

dimes on 15/05/2025 - 22:35
Last edited 15/05/2025 - 23:44 by 1 other user

‘Disgusting’: CommBank threatens to close account unless customer explains why he has cash at home

The representative demanded to know “how have I built up my wealth”, “why have I made cash withdrawals”, “if I am holding cash at home, why” and “why did I make certain transactions to third parties”, he wrote.

“They got rather personal,” Mr Christopher told news.com.au.

“I was shocked they would ask me if I’m holding cash at home and why — I regard sharing that info as a security risk. How have I generated my wealth? That’s my business, unless they’ve got more than a slight suspicion I’m doing something illegal [in which case it should require] a court order.”

Mr Christopher said the email “came out of the blue”, following an earlier email sent on April 5 that he suspects went into his junk filter."

Is having cash considered a dirty thing now? It makes sense to spend cash to avoid surcharges, yet banks and authorities seem to think if we hold cash then it must be suspicious. I have had one of those KYC calls referred to in the article and it was absolute rubbish - calling me up without any warning and asking about transactions six months ago. How am I supposed to remember? How can they expect someone to give a meaningful answer?

Financial

Related Stores

Commonwealth Bank
Commonwealth Bank

Comments

  • SBOB on 15/05/2025 - 22:39
    +89

    News.com, your guaranteed daily source of outrage/ragebait journalism.

    • AustriaBargain on 15/05/2025 - 23:24
      +3

      When Rupert dies I bet that'll be one of the first assets to be sold.

      • Protractor on 16/05/2025 - 10:22
        +1

        On ho! Tears rain down. What will happen to the hundreds of zero principle sychophant maggots who masquerade as journos, when the tax evader carks?

      • infinite on 17/05/2025 - 15:27
        -6

        Rupert only owns a small slice in the parent company of news.com.au & doesn't have any role in it's operations. Nothing changes at all if he dies.

        • AustriaBargain on 17/05/2025 - 15:53
          +1

          News.com.au is wholly owned by News Corp Australia, which is a subsidiary of the global media conglomerate News Corp. This means that News Corp owns 100% of news.com.au.

          News Corp Australia operates a vast array of media assets across the country, including major newspapers such as The Australian, The Daily Telegraph, and The Herald Sun, as well as television channels like Sky News Australia.

          The parent company, News Corp, is controlled by the Murdoch family, who hold approximately 39% of the voting shares, granting them significant influence over the company’s operations.

          In summary, News Corp owns 100% of news.com.au through its Australian subsidiary, News Corp Australia.

          • infinite on 17/05/2025 - 22:13
            -2

            @AustriaBargain: The 39% share ownership is held by Lauchlan Murdoch and his 5 siblings, not Rupert………….

            The 6 of them have a family trust and they have the 39% share.

        • Click_It on 17/05/2025 - 20:53
          +4

          Wait, what if he doesn't die?

          On a serious note, this is why I stopped consuming downstream media 10 years ago. Try it. I guarantee once you're off it, try the following test.
          Turn on the TV or radio of your choice, count to 10 and see how far you get before you hear about a murder, gang violence etc. I do it every now and then and I never get anywhere near 10. What's consuming this crap every day doing to us? I turned it off and have never looked back. I have more control of where and what I consume after that. Sure you get dodgy journalism anywhere but its a huge improvement on all the mindless crap beaming out 24/7.

          I often have no idea about local events anymore however, but I'm okay with that. Less is more.

          • infinite on 17/05/2025 - 22:14
            +4

            @Click_It:

            I often have no idea about local events anymore however

            The MSM don't really know either. They just make it up.

          • Chazzozz on 18/05/2025 - 08:29
            +1

            @Click_It: I did something similar a while back and also feel my mental health is better for it. Second-hand trauma is a real thing and you have an actual risk of self-harm by over consuming bad news. By all means, keep abreast of local events which may impact you but it’s unnecessary to be bombarded by the next major disaster that rolls along. Know your limits and switch off early.

            • Click_It on 18/05/2025 - 16:31
              -1

              @Chazzozz: 100% agree mate. That's explained much better than I could have ever done re second hand trauma. I didn't mention that but my mental health noticeably picked up once I took myself off the boob of mass media. I guess we dial in on what matters and we become an expert on that.

              Re my comment on local events, some additional context. I work 100% from home, my income derives from USA so if you were to ask me about macro economics, trump policies, market data, then I'll have an view on that. It's something I need to know to be good at what I do. But if you asked me for an opinion on domestic matters, I would be the wrong guy. No idea at all. I'm Australia born and bred and can't even name our politicians anymore. No idea because it doesn't impact me. Boom or bust, Australian economy has no impact on me. Things get more expensive, or cheaper, that's about it. So my need to stay on top of local events like I used to has also changed I guess. So you're absolutely right, stay on top of all things that have an impact on you, switch the rest off 👍

    • Daabido on 18/05/2025 - 07:47
      -1

      Damn CNET!

  • Wiadro on 15/05/2025 - 22:54
    -2

    i have no issues with my cba account

    • JIMB0 on 16/05/2025 - 07:47
      -1

      Me neither

    • 01011010 on 16/05/2025 - 08:01
      +13

      would you have issues if they asked you why you withdrew cash or why you transferred money to another account?

      • Wiadro on 16/05/2025 - 08:09
        +2

        i do those things already and i don't get asked

        • smartazz104 on 16/05/2025 - 08:49

          The amounts you deal with are probably of no concern to CBA…

      • gromit on 16/05/2025 - 22:02
        +4

        If you do it in a regular enough fashion to unusual addresses you are going to get asked. The majority of people will never be asked beyond the basic kyc requirements. This isnt the bank being aholes, it is the gov forcing them to ask.

        • bobbieb on 17/05/2025 - 08:30

          Acktually… unless you trip one of the other flags, if "normal" for you is that you make a lot of small transactions to random accounts, then you're unlikely to get pinged. Eg. if you're moonlighting as a online-shopping mogul and running a small dropshipping business on the side (is that still a fashionable thing to do?) worst case they my suggest you'd be better off using an small business transaction account.

        • infinite on 17/05/2025 - 15:32
          +3

          The govt regulator already publicly stated their only requirement of CBA in this matter was to confirm the customers identification.

          Nothing the CBA did beyond that was required or asked for by the govt.

          This was just a case of a rogue CBA Karen getting going on a power trip over nothing.

          • gromit on 17/05/2025 - 16:12

            @infinite: source/citation please. I can't find anything saying that, might just be my googlefoo though.

            • infinite on 17/05/2025 - 22:09

              @gromit: Both on the ABC news & Sky news nightly broadcasts, last night.

              • gromit on 18/05/2025 - 12:54

                @infinite: I see no reference on web from either of them.

  • Ellene on 15/05/2025 - 23:02
    +14

    "The representative demanded to know “how have I built up my wealth”

    Just answer, "I'm a Premium OzBargainer"

  • jv on 15/05/2025 - 23:12
    +11

    Is cash now a dirty thing to have?

    I spray it with Glen 20

    • cashless on 15/05/2025 - 23:21
      +23

      It’s always been dirty. Extremely unhygienic. Imagine how many dirty pairs of hands & scummy backs of sofas that cash has been in contact with. Pure filth.

      That’s why I like to launder mine

      • Guybrush57 on 16/05/2025 - 03:27
        +19

        Username doesn't check out

      • tenpercent on 16/05/2025 - 10:22

        I too have hypochondria…

        Oh wait I don't. I use cash and haven't got sick or infected once from it.

        Hope you're spraying the self checkout with Glen 20. Are you spraying all your groceries? You know people pick them up off the shelf and put them back all the time right? With their dirty scummy peasant hands?

        • beach bum on 17/05/2025 - 00:22
          +1

          Consider it your vaccination,
          by handling cash your building up a strong immune system,
          if you can give it a big lick before handing it over even better.

          Personally I like to take it out on a Friday night and throw it on the bed to roll around on
          Then I’ll spend any creased or wrinkled one’s over the weekend.

    • Protractor on 16/05/2025 - 10:23
      +2

      Nah. Give the $$$ to me. Another filthy habit won't kill me.

    • Clear on 16/05/2025 - 12:14
      +1

      Crap I've been taking mine to Crown Casino to have it washed. I never knew it was this easy.

  • fantombloo on 16/05/2025 - 00:28
    +9

    "What is the withdrawal for?"

    My standard response:

    "I need the cash."

    They seem to let it go after that.

    • doperst on 16/05/2025 - 14:39
      +3

      "My drug dealer doesn't accept PayID"

      • tenpercent on 16/05/2025 - 19:37
        +1

        "Mine does. And PayPal. He prefers if I make a purchase through his ebay store though. Different products are code names for different quantities of different drugs. This way the money gets laundered before he even receives it. Cash isn't involved in buying or selling drugs much nowdays."

        • beach bum on 17/05/2025 - 00:28

          But strippers don’t have an eftpos terminal hanging off their g-string .

          • snapper17 on 17/05/2025 - 08:56
            +2

            @beach bum: they have a barcode tattooed to thier ass that links to paypal ect

            • beach bum on 17/05/2025 - 09:06
              -1

              @snapper17: I suppose it’s a matter of time for the eftpos snatch and you have the barcode on yer dong.
              Just glad the girls I met in my day were quite generous

              • scottishdave on 19/05/2025 - 11:18
                +1

                @beach bum: They allow you to make a deposit and then you can make a withdrawal a few seconds later.

          • tenpercent on 18/05/2025 - 08:44

            @beach bum: Tap and go?

        • BuyoTheCat on 17/05/2025 - 14:24
          +3

          Tap and go

  • markathome on 16/05/2025 - 01:08
    +2

    YES!!! Give it to me.

  • p1 ama on 16/05/2025 - 01:21
    +45

    I used to work in customer service at one of the major banks - I know this exact type of customer. It's a common playbook.

    Gets a standard KYC email, doesn't want to answer the questions, goes in looking for an argument, makes life difficult for all involved, ends up needing to answer alternative (i.e. more difficult / invasive) questions, continues to beat around the bush, whinges about it on social media.

      • johnno07 on 16/05/2025 - 22:43
        +18

        Reads a script without thinking for themselves if these questions are necessary

        They are literally a legal requirement

        • tenpercent on 17/05/2025 - 10:06
          -4

          Cite the law and/or regulation and then explain how different banks interpret their requirements under the law and/or regulations very differently. For example some banks interpret it to mean

          Give the customer the third degree if they withdraw more than $1000 cash or if they use the teller to withdraw any cash. Don't explain why you're suddenly asking personally invasive questions. Demand a strip search and selfies. Get the customer to explain their entire financial history since they first received tooth fairy money as a child. If the customer umms or ahhs get more agressive because they're probably a terrorist drug smuggling miscreant and as a bank employee it is your duty to all but put the cuffs on them.

          while other banks interpret it more like

          If the customer is withdrawing over $10k in cash, explain to the customer that the bank is required by law to ask what it will be used for and this is just a formality, and then read out some of the reasons to the customer. Be polite and respectful to the customer at all times. There's no need to intimidate the customer since 9999 out of 10000 they are not actually doing anything wrong and besides we're just bank employees, not the police. Be understanding with customers who find the questions invasive.

        • tenpercent on 17/05/2025 - 10:10
          +1

          They are literally a legal requirement

          Where have I heard the ole "I was just doing my job" thing before?

          • Crow K on 17/05/2025 - 12:24
            -1

            @tenpercent: In a bad faith argument, probably, made by someone who didn't understand the circumstances and wanted to draw a comparison to Nazi Germany as a sort of trump card? That would be my guess.

            Tellers have rules about what they can and can't say (they can't give financial advice, and we had a gigantic Royal Commission on the banking industry that uncovered the sorts of problems that happen when these people give unvetted comments or advice)

            This isn't the gotcha moment that you think it is, you are tilting at windmills.

          • infinite on 17/05/2025 - 15:34
            +1

            @tenpercent: Nazi soldiers.

      • StalkingIbis on 17/05/2025 - 09:08

        You know those terms and conditions that you didn't read when you opened the account and agreed to do business with the bank….but then go get and get all angry even though you literally signed your name to it agreeing to it, and then when the banks comply with legislation, that does indeed have a purpose but you have no understanding of it, go and get angry. And rather than being a sensible human, you think there must be some vendetta out for you.

        • tenpercent on 17/05/2025 - 10:08

          and then when the banks comply with legislation

          All the banks comply with the legislation. Some banks go way beyond.

      • gromit on 17/05/2025 - 09:33
        +2

        I certainly hope they are reading a script rather than making it up as they go. They are fullfilling a legal requirement imposed on them to ask specifc questions. As much as I disagree with the laws here, the customer service rep should be doing nothing outside a very set script here.

        • tenpercent on 17/05/2025 - 09:58

          They are fullfilling a legal requirement imposed on them to ask specifc questions.

          Cite the law and/or regulation requiring specific questions.

          In my experience some banks do it exactly how they did it 10 years ago, which is usually if its over $10k they first tell you they are required by law to ask what it's for and then they list some of the answers they can choose from in in the form. That they still do it the same way after a decade is unsurprising given the anti money laundering laws under which they supposedly do this were passed under Howard several decades ago. Some other banks (e.g. CBA) seem to train their staff to be deliberately intimidating (or they have a knack at hiring people who let the power go to their heads) and they go way further than legally necessary and ask for even small amounts, others demand selfies.

          • S2 on 18/05/2025 - 12:00

            @tenpercent:

            Cite the law and/or regulation requiring specific questions.

            This is a good point and I didn't find a list of questions when searching.

            My online search has revealed the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 which would be relevant.
            In particular, Part 3—Reporting obligations which details the types of transactions that must be reported and by when. It states that the reports must be sent to the CEO of AUSTRAC.

            I found content provided by AUSTRAC to be pretty interesting. Here is the link to requirements on reporting transactions over $10,000 that many people are familiar with. Then there's another interesting resource about how to detect people trying to get around the report rules via multiple transactions.

            There are also guidelines and requirements for Suspicious Matter Reporting.

            Whilst I did not see any list of specific questions, I think there is very good reason for banks to ask questions that aren't explicitly written to fulfill their legal obligations.
            * asking further questions would help them form their suspicion.
            * there are key points that AUSTRAC is seeking which may not be available without asking the questions.
            * a desire to avoid incorrectly reporting someone who has a valid reason for their seemingly suspicious actions.
            * most importantly, no official list of questions is publicly available because that would alert a criminal that they are being assessed for AUSTRAC.

            • marshmall0w2 on 18/05/2025 - 21:08
              +1

              @S2: Aside from the 10k transactions, which, to be honest and frank, would trigger a lot of alarms since a lot of people do business in excess of that, that these points are essentially blanket powers you can just throw at anyone whenever. It's like Bunnings just randomly checking my bag if I stole anything, which obviously I never have, but it is annoying as fck.

      • Crow K on 17/05/2025 - 12:17
        +2

        Those brainless robotic NPCs didn't stand a chance, especially when you used your expert diagnosis and psychoanalysis skills!

        It's a pity you didn't call them out for it on the spot, if you had I think everyone would have stood up and clapped.

      • Mad Max on 20/05/2025 - 09:32
        +1

        @Tenpercent. Australia is sheeps country. Confirmed by all the negs on your comment.
        They like to be part of the herd. In all circumstances, not only this.

    • Nebargains on 17/05/2025 - 06:12
      +3

      This customer would probably also be the first one to jump up and down and demand the bank refund them when they get scammed through their own stupidity.

  • Muppet Detector on 16/05/2025 - 03:55

    Cash will always have a place.

    In the short term where banks $ ATM. Can't keep
    Up with supply in the short term.

    To honouring the collector of legal currency who wishes to cash in.

    It is a long help system of bartering

    And most
    Importantly, if cash becomes irrelevant, how will it be laundered and what will
    Happen to those entities that doo?

    • tenpercent on 16/05/2025 - 10:18
      +5

      I agree / hope cash always has a place.

      However I don't think money laundering is one of them. I would expect money laundering is not one of them even now.

      Ever seen something being listed for 10 times it's RRP on Amazon or ebay or another site? That's money laundering. Real Estate selling for $500k over or $500k under what the market was expecting? Probably some money laundering (or tax dodging) happening. A big canvas gets scribbled all over it and sold for $1mil+ … also money laundering. Cash doesn't need to be involved for money laundering. It's too cumbersome and there are better options available.

  • holdenmg on 16/05/2025 - 07:37
    -1

    It is probably time to fess up that you are running a Private Bank (or Casino?) and intend to apply to APRA for a Banking License to compete head to head with the Bank of Burnt Toast.

  • ihbh on 16/05/2025 - 09:25
    +4

    Is Cash Now a Dirty Thing to Have?

    Not on Marketplace… unless you want to be scammed.

  • burningrage on 16/05/2025 - 10:02
    -1

    It would trigger the KYC question if you transact about $10k. The questions, "Why have I made cash withdrawals" and "If I am holding cash at home, why?" were never asked to me when I did transaction of this amount. This is not to defend CBA, which I would never put my wealth into but I think there may be more to this.

  • samfisher5986 on 16/05/2025 - 10:20
    -7

    While I'm not sure if I agree with the bank being that over the top with questioning, the genuine "I'm using cash to avoid surcharges" crowd is very small compared to the amount of people who might be doing that, but are also using cash to dodge tax or for illegal purposes. There is a reason why you find most people who pay cash over the age of 60, its the generation of tax dodgers.

    The reality is that surcharges are 0.5%-1.5% and represent a lower cost of handling your payment then handling the cash you want to pay with. Its just not considered normal to charge surcharges for cash, businesses generally just stop accepting it instead.

    So based on that if I was a bank I would be very curious as to why someone was doing a lot of cash based transactions.

    • tenpercent on 16/05/2025 - 10:40
      +8

      the genuine "I'm using cash to avoid surcharges" crowd is very small compared to the amount of people who might be doing that, but are also using cash to dodge tax or for illegal purposes.

      Source?

      There's another group you left out as well. The group who don't want their spending habbits in an advertising profile to be used by algorithms and advanced AI to expertly target and manipulate them.

      • samfisher5986 on 16/05/2025 - 10:48
        -7

        No source.

        The group who don't want their spending habbits in an advertising profile to be used by algorithms and advanced AI to expertly target and manipulate them.

        The general population isn't even smart enough to understand how that could happen (besides the paranoid ones who think everything is tracking them)

        Most people who do that also use Facebook and a bunch of other things that allow real tracking, not the very rough nearly useless tracking of bank cards.

        There is nobody who actually understands privacy concerns and also refuses to use bank cards because they would realise how stupid that is.

        • tenpercent on 16/05/2025 - 10:51
          +5

          Lot's of "no source" vibey generalisations.

          • samfisher5986 on 16/05/2025 - 10:52
            -3

            @tenpercent: There isn't really going to be a good source about my age generalisation, even if there was a source, its just going to be a bunch of surveys of boomers who are not going to be answering the questions correctly.

            Do you really need a source? Who do you see using ATM's? The exact age group I mentioned.

            Regardless of that you failed to address the rest of what I said.

            • tenpercent on 16/05/2025 - 10:55
              +2

              @samfisher5986:

              Regardless of that you failed to address the rest of what I said.

              Okay. The cost of handling cash is built into the price of the things you buy. Any direct passing on of card surcharges (apart from the ridiculous Amex ones) is double dipping from the stores.

              • samfisher5986 on 16/05/2025 - 10:56

                @tenpercent: I agree. Card surcharges should just be banned (excluding AMEX etc)

                I still profit from it though as I have 2% cashback and surcharge is never above 1.5%.

      • p1 ama on 16/05/2025 - 11:43

        The group who don't want their spending habbits in an advertising profile to be used by algorithms and advanced AI to expertly target and manipulate them.

        Then don't look at ads and don't let yourself get manipulated.

        • tenpercent on 16/05/2025 - 11:53
          -3

          And don't look at news feeds. Don't look at your youtube, or twitter or your choice of social media feeds. Don't look at the 'suggested videos' or sidebars. Close your eyes when the ads come on and poke your fingers in your ears.
          Don't play online video games where it is harder to block in-game ads, and don't have interactions with NPCs (which can be AI controlled to say and do different things for different players depending on their analytics profiles).

          • p1 ama on 16/05/2025 - 13:20
            +4

            @tenpercent:

            And don't look at news feeds.

            Yes, subscribe to a newspaper and get your news from reputable sources with journalistic integrity instead of getting force-fed brain-rot from social media news feeds.

            Don't look at your youtube, or twitter or your choice of social media feeds.

            Yes, stay off the cancer that is social media.

            Don't look at the 'suggested videos' or sidebars.

            Yes, subscribe to channels that produce high quality content you are interested in, go to the cinemas, curate your own content. Stop watching toxic trash.

            Close your eyes when the ads come on and poke your fingers in your ears.

            Yes, easy enough to just mute the ads and do something else when they're on. Not like people have been doing this for decades when ads came on the TV.

            Don't play online video games where it is harder to block in-game ads

            Yes, pay for your games and don't support developers who shoehorn garbage ads into their games.

            and don't have interactions with NPCs (which can be AI controlled to say and do different things for different players depending on their analytics profiles).

            You really think your bank transactions are informing NPC interactions in games?

          • tetra on 17/05/2025 - 07:42

            @tenpercent: Also don't go outside because the 5g AI will beam ads directly into your brain.

            • tenpercent on 18/05/2025 - 08:06
              -1

              @tetra: Make sure you wear your preferred brand of aluminium foil fashioned into a fancy hat too.

  • Yummy on 16/05/2025 - 10:23

    Yes.

    1. 3 sea shells
    2. Cash
    3. TP
    4. Used newspapers
    5. …
  • tenpercent on 16/05/2025 - 10:36
    +7

    Is having cash considered a dirty thing now?

    No, but they want to give you that impression so that you adopt that position. See bandwagon effect. Cash use isn't declining as fast as they want so they need to nudge. Other nudge tactics include removing bank branches, and removing big 4 bank ATMs (leaving only high fee ATMs in your area).

    It makes sense to spend cash to avoid surcharges, yet banks and authorities seem to think if we hold cash then it must be suspicious. I have had one of those KYC calls referred to in the article and it was absolute rubbish - calling me up without any warning and asking about transactions six months ago. How am I supposed to remember? How can they expect someone to give a meaningful answer?

    Just be honest. "That was 6 months ago. I don't recall." or "What I did with my money is none of your business. What are you wearing right now?"
    Then find another bank who doesn't instruct its employees to intimidate customers.

    The intimidating experience of the individual in the article is designed to discourage him from using cash in the future. The reason the article has been published is to discourage readers from using cash in the future ('I don't want to get intimidated like that guy did'). So the readers get some of the effect of the intimidation without having to target each and every one of them.

    • Protractor on 16/05/2025 - 11:11
      -1

      Then find another bank who doesn't instruct its employees to intimidate customers.

      Or get the phone out and film the intimidation.

      the readers get some of the effect of the intimidation without having to target each and every one of them.

      This the MSM model, and the pus lined Murdoch rags' bread & butter (& cream) [& koolaid]

    • StalkingIbis on 17/05/2025 - 09:11

      Are you ok with people paying large sums of cash for goods and services in an attempt to dodge tax implications?

      If yes, pay your share like the rest of us have to.

      If not, you should be glad there is at least some sort of follow-up about this happening.

      • tenpercent on 18/05/2025 - 08:09
        +1

        You're confused. The banks don't even claim that is what this is about. They allege it is to comply with anti money laundering and terrorist financing laws (passed way back under John Howard so makes you wonder why they have only started giving customers the third degree in recent years).

  • valuer on 16/05/2025 - 12:24
    +3

    CBA are heavy on fee. They want people to be tied to services that they can make more money out of.

  • mrdean on 16/05/2025 - 12:32
    +1

    Just another sight along the road of "You Will Own Nothing & You Will Be Happy."

  • gbinitt on 16/05/2025 - 13:28

    BSB cuz

  • SpicyStew on 16/05/2025 - 19:30
    +1

    bitcoin will fix it.
    quote me in 10 years time.

    • Protractor on 16/05/2025 - 19:33
      +2

      The only winners in bitcoin are the pimps

    • smartazz104 on 19/05/2025 - 08:34

      I'm sure someone said that 10 years ago.

  • Dreamcast on 16/05/2025 - 20:19
    +1

    "What's with wogs and cash?"

    ~The Castle

  • mrvaluepack on 16/05/2025 - 21:02
    +4

    Honestly, i have filled out so many of these forms with one liners and haven't gotten into any issues.

    Eg:
    Source of income: work at xxx company
    Source of wealth: work plus savings

    Whats so hard? No need to rant about it like an ape on X.

  • wozz on 16/05/2025 - 21:04

    They have legal obligations to report to austrac if more than 10k, or if multiple smaller transactions are made that may exceed 10k.

  • CandyMan on 16/05/2025 - 21:10
    +1

    Probably the people at the bank never used money the old fashioned way.

  • Baghern on 16/05/2025 - 21:29

    From what I saw from other responses, that is not a normal person.

    He was in situations where it raises suspicion.

    CBA was required to ask those type of question as required by law

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join