Why is the bank's risk control so sensitive when the transfer note mentions Dogecoin being frozen or blocked?

Recently, a news story about bank account risk control has sparked heated discussion. A user wrote “This Week Dogecoin” in the transfer remark, and the account was subsequently restricted by China Construction Bank to a “no deposit, no withdrawal” status. Behind this seemingly absurd experience reflects the domestic banks’ zero-tolerance attitude towards virtual currency transactions.

How a 250 Yuan Pocket Money Remark Triggered the Risk Control Alert

The incident started simply—a couple transferred 250 yuan of pocket money via China Construction Bank accounts, with the transfer remark saying “This Week Dogecoin.” This seemingly harmless note was automatically recognized by the bank’s risk control system as a high-risk alert. Soon after, both parties received phone calls from the bank for verification. Bank staff inquired about the transfer relationship and the meaning of the remark, explicitly stating that this remark triggered “virtual currency regulation” risk monitoring.

The Dilemma of Causal Determination Between Remarks and Virtual Currency Transactions

The bank explained that if an account involves virtual currency transactions, it will be subject to “no deposit, no withdrawal” control. If the remark explicitly mentions “Dogecoin,” proof must be provided to demonstrate that the remark is unrelated to virtual currency trading. The question then arises—how to prove this? The account holder only has bank transaction records, but the bank does not consider these sufficient proof. As a result, such frozen accounts cannot be unblocked and are ultimately forced to be closed.

China Construction Bank’s Official Response and Vague Risk Control Standards

On December 11, China News Weekly called the bank’s customer service hotline again for clarification. The bank admitted that it does not have virtual currency trading services, but if the system detects high risk, the account may be set to “no deposit, no withdrawal,” commonly known as “locked card.” However, when asked about the specific basis for such a judgment, bank staff were vague, saying they needed to consult the relevant account manager.

Subsequently, the reporter contacted the banking and insurance consumer complaint hotline 12378. The staff only said they would record the matter but had no authority to answer related regulations. This series of responses reflects that, although the bank has implemented risk control measures, there are significant issues with the explanation and transparency of the standards.

User Rights Protection and the Current Deadlock

Currently, the involved parties have submitted their husband’s bank transaction records and handwritten commitments, and are applying to lift the account restrictions. The account-opening bank staff stated that restrictions could only be lifted after the parties submit their marriage certificate. This means users must provide additional personal information and proof to clear the suspicion of “virtual currency trading.”

This incident exposes a contradiction in the current risk control system: automated risk detection based on remark content may be overly sensitive, but the unblocking process is stuck due to unclear standards. For ordinary users, just a few words in the transfer remark risking account freezing, which undoubtedly increases the uncertainty of daily transfers.