ThisBanks representshave politicallegitimate retaliationauthority againstto aterminate lawyercustomer whorelationships challengedwhen governmenttransactions overreachfall duringoutside thetheir Freedomrisk Convoytolerance, withparticularly RBCinvolving usingcryptocurrency vaguewhich "riskposes appetite"fraud languageand tomoney masklaundering ideological discriminationconcerns. TheRBC timingprovided followingproper legitimatenotice Bitcoinand purchasesfollowed suggestsstandard coordinatedprocedures suppressionfor ofaccount dissenting voicesclosure, continuinggiving theChipiuk patternreasonable establishedtime duringto thetransition unlawfulto Emergenciesanother Actinstitution. whenThe banksbank's frozequestions accountsabout withouther duecrypto processactivities were likely routine fraud prevention measures, not political targeting.
This represents political retaliation against a lawyer who challenged government overreach during the Freedom Convoy, with RBC using vague "risk appetite" language to mask ideological discrimination. The timing following legitimate Bitcoin purchases suggests coordinated suppression of dissenting voices, continuing the pattern established during the unlawful Emergencies Act when banks froze accounts without due process.