Remember when Yusuf Islam, a.k.a. Cat Stevens, an internationally famed British musician, was denied entry into the United States because he shared names with a suspected terrorist on the government’s no-fly list?

Well, the United States Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) penned a database of a similar nature for use by financial and other institutions, so that they can find out which individuals and organizations are currently prohibited from engaging in financial transactions in the United States.

Therefore, if your name happens to be Abdul Hameed, Ahmed Mohammed, or Abdullah Ahmed – three names currently on OFAC’s list – it is possible that your bank account could be closed.

According to Kareem Shora, national executive director of the Arab-American Anti-discrimination Committee (ADC) in Washington, DC, banks are supposed to verify both name and identification prior to termination of the account of a client thought to be on OFAC’s list.

“Unfortunately, they don’t always do this,” Shora told Aramica in a phone interview. He explained that in many instances, banks will shut down the account simply because their client has the same name as someone in the database.

But, even if this isn’t the case, laws enacted post 9/11 grant financial institutions the right to terminate accounts at any time, without explanation. Recently, Park Slope branch of Astoria Federal Savings Bank, located at Seventh Avenue and President Street, canceled the account of Adnan Isa, a Brooklyn resident and wholesaler, for undisclosed reasons.

Isa, orginally from Yemen, now holds a U.S. passport, and has lived in the country for nine years. Immediately upon return to the United States, after his first visit to Yemen in six years, the bank terminated his account.

“I cashed a check in Yemen for $100, and then withdrew maybe $500 or $600 for travel expenses. When I came back, I found out that both my business and personal accounts were closed,” Isa said.

“When I called the bank, Mark Sadek, an acquaintance and branch manager, said he wasn’t sure why the account was closed, but most likely it was because I was in Yemen. He was helpful, but in the end, the bank still stopped my account,” he said. Isa said it was a problem for his business because he had to cancel checks to other wholesalers, some of them for thousands of dollars.

When Aramica called Mr. Sadek to investigate, he said he was not authorized to comment, but would pass on the message. Tara Rogers, senior public relations for Astoria Federal Bank, promptly returned Aramica’s phone call, but only had this to to say: “Legally, we can’t comment.”

Another Brooklyn resident, Mr. Omar, faced the same issue. Omar said that six months ago, after 20 years of banking with Citibank, they issued a letter stating that his bank account would be terminated. When he called to inquire, the bank said it was because he transferred “excessive funds” overseas. Omar said this was not the case, and alleged he was subject to a series of questions by a Citibank representative.

“They asked me if I deposited $10,000 or more. I said no. Then they asked me if I withdrew $10,000 or more. I said, ‘I don’t even have that much money to withdraw. After all the questions, they said, ‘Well we are closing your bank account’,” Omar said.

Following the incident, Omar contacted his attorney, who wrote a letter to the bank. A few weeks later, Omar received a letter from the bank stating that it was their right to close the accounts of clients at any time. According to Shora, “there is a precedent of banks withholding information regarding these issues.”

In 2002, Fleet Bank in Boston terminated the accounts of approximately 15 Arab-American clients for “no reason.” The bank said that some account holders were employees of Ptech Inc., a Quincy-based software firm whose offices were investigated by federal authorities as part of a terror-financing operation. Yet none of the former clients were prosecuted.

Bank of America Corp. bought out Fleet Bank and recently resolved to re-open three the accounts of Arab Americans closed in 2002; Shora said that this is not normally the case.

“It is difficult to prove racial discrimination when a bank shuts down the account of an individual,” said Shora.

This leads one to ask, in what cases is discrimination provable? Also, do the Feds play a role in bank account closings?

Bill Carter, an FBI spokesperson, said the organization is not involved with the closing of bank accounts. However, they do play a role in the freezing of accounts.

“One of our main issues is that of funding terrorism. There are instances where individuals have sent funds to a so-called charity, sometimes unwittingly, and these funds have gone on to support terrorists overseas. Also, anything over $10,000 has to be reported. But, an amount close to that would raise eyebrows,” Carter said.

In this case, would a bank close the account of a client, if they know he or she was under federal investigation? And, what steps does the FBI take in order to freeze a bank account? Also, what would warrant an investigation?

In a phone interview with Benjamin Berry, a high-ranking New York City FBI official, Aramica posed a fictional situation. If Ali, a legal U.S. citizen, had bank accounts in New York, Syria and Dubai, would this be grounds for an investigation and the possible freezing of Ali’s assets? Berry said, “Of course not – it’s a global economy. Many businesses operate accounts outside of the country. The account would only be frozen if the money were linked to fraudulent activity. The FBI does not have unilateral authority to freeze bank accounts. It’s something that we can seek, but we work with the U.S. Attorney’s orders. The U.S. Attorney or magistrate must sign the order.”

However, Berry admitted that he was unsure what the process of freezing entailed.

“I know there is a legal procedure, but the bank has nothing to do with the process of freezing,” he said.

“I guess I really should know,” he said, “But that would be a question better directed to the U.S. Attorney General’s Office.”

When we called the U.S. Attorney General’s Office, Aramica was referred back to the FBI.

In light of the current political situation, it’s rather alarming that even the officials do not have the official word. Instead of enlightening our audience, perhaps, we have confused them.

Are legal procedures so frequently violated that Feds no longer remember the process? Or, are the instances of their involvement in freezing of assets limited? Perhaps, in reality, a muckraking media makes the situation on the top look bleaker than it really is. Or not.

On a lower level, that of the individual banks, why do they have the power to arbitrarily close accounts of even long-time customers? Is there more to the story? Or, it is a case of, “It is what it is?”

If nothing else, we have learned the difference between freezing accounts (somehow handled by the FBI, Department of Treasury and U.S. Attorney General) and closing of accounts (at the discretion of the bank). Is racism and discrimination the bedrock of both? The more we learn, the harder it is to say.