I am a little reluctant to talk about this, but it's relevant to us on SN for a few reasons. I'm a retired lawyer, but I still represent old clients and friends once in a while.

I occasionally help out an out of state friend who owns a manufacturing company. One morning last week he discovered that his bank accounts had been frozen, which was very upsetting. He called his bank, but the manager refused to reveal the nature of the freeze nor any details. It was Bank of America. The amount of money that was frozen was approximately $60,000.

A day or two later I was contacted by the government, who knew I represented the corporation in the past. I was told that my client's funds had been seized as the result of a civil asset forfeiture. One of my friend's customers was being investigated for unrelated criminal activity, and the funds my friend had received in payment for manufactured product were supposedly the "fruits"of a crime.

I'm sure many of you have heard of these asset forfeiture proceedings, whereby innocent people can have their funds taken by the government. There was no suspicion that my client had done anything wrong, but the government intended to formally have my friend's money confiscated at the conclusion of the criminal case. I argued that this was unfair, and they explained the appellate process to me, which I already knew.

This of course angered my friend. He was still doing business with this customer, and he wondered whether this was the end of the matter or not. The government assured me that the only money subject to forfeiture was the $60,000 that was already frozen.

I'm sure everyone read about the Bank Of America glitch the other day? My friend is in his early sixties with a heart condition. He has suffered a number of strokes in the past. The day he and I learned about this forfeiture action, he logged into his Bank Of America business account and saw a zero balance in an account that had held over $500,000 earlier in the day. These funds were used for daily transactions with his suppliers and customers. He naturally assumed the government had taken the money. This would spell the end of his business, since payments would bounce to suppliers and he couldn't meet payroll.

He began sweating and his face turned completely white. His wife was afraid he would die. She drove him to the emergency room. He got checked out, and happily he was okay. Later in the afternoon I called him to tell him about the glitch. He was relieved to see the correct balance once he logged in again.

I don't know if it's my imagination, but I find myself noticing more and more the actual ramifications of not having custody over your assets. This was a dramatic, coincidental example which I will use to talk to my friend about bitcoin again. He understands it in principle, but doesn't see how he can make it work in his business. It would be complicated. At a minimum, he could hold his company treasury in bitcoin.

Maybe the fiat system has always been this bad and I just notice it more now, or maybe things really are beginning to unravel quickly. Whatever the case, self custody is everything. It's not just a nice sounding ideal.