Just reading that blog post it sounds as if Citi behaved monstrously. Big banks are an easy target; frequently, I suspect, with justification. I personally don't like big banks; I use a small one. But...
There's a lot that post didn't say. Was the block just a temporary hold? What was the source of the funds? Was it a merchant account? If so the bank may have been justified in holding deposits longer if there had been more chargebacks than anticipated or even if the nature of the business indicated a likelihood of greater chargebacks.
If the reason Citi gave, as quoted by the Fabulis founder, was because of objectionable content in a blog might that just indicate the bank had rightly or wrongly reclassified the type of business based on blog contents?
Good point about reclassification; actual "objectionable content"* could cause law enforcement to order a hold but those are disclosed to the accountholder. Another issue might be an account opened for a non-profit or some other account type problem. Yet another could be a suspected misrepresentation in account documentation but that would be more likely in case of a loan of some type.
There's a lot that post didn't say. Was the block just a temporary hold? What was the source of the funds? Was it a merchant account? If so the bank may have been justified in holding deposits longer if there had been more chargebacks than anticipated or even if the nature of the business indicated a likelihood of greater chargebacks.
If the reason Citi gave, as quoted by the Fabulis founder, was because of objectionable content in a blog might that just indicate the bank had rightly or wrongly reclassified the type of business based on blog contents?