> or the classic: 'going to spend it on prostitutes'.
So you would infer, from OPs questions, that they have been entering dodgy, snarky, or perhaps even too honest reasons in their transaction forms?
Not judging here, but what if OP did in fact spend a few hundred on an escort service and was 100% sincere about that, to their bank. And then the bank did not believe it, because of the behavioral statu quo of other bank clients. And now the bank is all "You are not funny at all, tell us the truth". Now, the laws allow banks to thoroughly pursue their investigation until they conclude "This client actually spend a few hundred in prostitutes". And because of the statu quo (and the laws that originated it) everyone up the investigative chain gets to know about it.
So you would infer, from OPs questions, that they have been entering dodgy, snarky, or perhaps even too honest reasons in their transaction forms?
Not judging here, but what if OP did in fact spend a few hundred on an escort service and was 100% sincere about that, to their bank. And then the bank did not believe it, because of the behavioral statu quo of other bank clients. And now the bank is all "You are not funny at all, tell us the truth". Now, the laws allow banks to thoroughly pursue their investigation until they conclude "This client actually spend a few hundred in prostitutes". And because of the statu quo (and the laws that originated it) everyone up the investigative chain gets to know about it.