Except for the fact that the teller marked down “No” where the OP said he (she?) might be doing those things. Not a very effective system for eliminating false positives.
It would be effective if you’d rather err on the side of caution. If someone who said “No” and makes a large transfer will raise a red flag, but someone who said “Yes” and has a reason on file will raise a lesser flag, and the person whom your interviewing answers “maybe,” the cautious thing to do would be to put “No.”
I’m going to be going through international airport security soon. Will they ask me if I have ever belonged to a terrorist organization? The Secretary of the Department of Education said that the National Education Association is a terrorist organization. I was a member for twenty years. All I wanted to do was teach English. Honest.
Bank Manager: How high of a balance do you intend to maintain in this account?
Joe al-Qaeda: At least $1 million American dollarinos.
Bank Manager: cough, choke Well your excellency, I don’t see any reason why we need to do all of this worthless federal government paperwork.
Joe al-Qaeda: Most of my deposits will arrive by wire from Saudi Arabia.
Bank Manager: No problem whatsoever your majesty. Would you possibly be interested in a home equity loan?
Y’know, we’re talking about a bank, here.
Banks.
Banks have ATMs in their drive-through windows.
These ATMs are intended to be accessed ONLY by people driving automobiles.
But for some reason, they have instructions printed in Braille.
This was not the banks’ idea. They just do it to comply with the law.
The laws are made by our elected officials, some of which were dumb enough to think mandatory signs in Braille on drive-up ATMs was a good idea.
'Nuff said.
Only drivers can own houses now?
Not sure if that was joking or not but I always thought that the real reason for braille on the drive up atms was because they all use the same basic front plate and design and it’s much easier to order one part than 2 different ones…
You’re all missing the actual stupidest thing about this type of scenario. It’s not that the questions are laughably ineffective at actually ferreting out potential problem points, it’s that they’re giving away the screening criteria. After having answered those questions, Joe Terrorist now knows that to avoid detection he should a) do all his deposits himself, b) never deposit more than $3000 at a time and c) avoid whatever other behaviours were specifically mentioned in the questionnaire.
Congratulations to your bank on making the world less safe.
You’re assuming that the questions reflect the exact screening criteria. This is likely not a correct assumption.
I don’t get why everyone is so quick to call the government stupid. There’s almost always a good reason for things–rather then try to discern that reason, some people instead instantly start assuming that a reason doesn’t exist.
This board is about fighting ignorance, right?
If you ran a bank, you would require the blind to give their PIN to the taxi driver? 
Um, no. I’ve seen many, many people use these ATMs on foot (as I have), and in fact, the bank branch I just recently opened an account with (which, BTW, did not ask me ANY of the questions in the OP–it was a typical account opening) has it’s only ATM in the drive-through lane, where both pedestrians and vehicles use it.
They’re in Braille because the seeing-eye dog can drive, but it can’t read.
Lawyer: “Ms. Teller, Mr. Hussein had been laundering money through your bank for months. He had been depositing large sums of cash. Other men deposited money into his account several times a week. Yet you never suspected he might be a terrorist?”
Teller: “Well, I thought something was fishy…”
Lawyer: “Yet you did nothing?”
Teller: “What could I do?”
Lawyer (smugly): “Well, did you ever ASK him if he was a terrorist?”
When I opened an account with my new credit union, I was asked no such questions. In fact, I just opened a savings account, and they opened a free checking account automatically.
Kinecta Federal, if you’re interested…