3 ms·

Square should definitely set this right ASAP she's not doing anything against. I wonder if she had named her stand Canada Beans, would this have happened? The

by sova 7y ago

Square should definitely set this right ASAP she's not doing anything against. I wonder if she had named her stand Canada Beans, would this have happened? The nerve

smnrchrds 7y ago
A couple of my friends went to a restaurant together in the US. One of them paid with card, the other friend paid the first friend back by sending him a transfer by PayPal or Venmo, I cannot remember which. The amount was around $10-$20. The description said Persian restaurant or Iranian restaurant, because that's the kind of restaurant they had gone to. The transfer was blocked and the transfer amount remained in frozen state for over a year. Ask anyone from one of the countries sanctioned by the US, like Cuba or Iran. This kind of experience is not new and it is not an exception. I no longer get surprised, just more and more disappointed.
- WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago
  OFAC lists are no joke, you will go to jail for disregarding it.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    The name of an ethnic restaurant has nothing to do with the corresponding country, legally speaking. That's just a stupid software glitch.
    - WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago
      Nah, you think the guy doing this is working that hard?
      - mirimir 7y ago
        Then he ought to be fired.
        WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago
        American workers are scared of being perceived as anything else other than a YES MAN. The guy being told he has two-three days to implement OFAC can't say NO or they'll find someone to replace him that will say YES so he'll implement the shortest answer that causes that 'feature' to be marked as 'complete'
        mirimir 7y ago
        Even a random Excel geek would know that a "name" field is not the place to go for OFAC implementation. Or at least, not for a restaurant. I'm sure that they can link to corporate and banking data.
        nullc 7y ago
        It doesn't really matter what someone knows, what matters is the payoff matrix: Apply OFAC blacklisting extremely overly aggressively ... suffer an insignificant number of pissed off customers (who probably don't even leave you because everyone else is also awful). Apply it as non-agressively as you think the law permits, or somewhat more than that... and find out that you're facing criminal charges because a prosecutor thinks the line was slightly different where you thought it was. The situation is made more complicated in part because if prosecution isn't aggressive there are enormous sums of money ready to flow through whatever loophole exists and plenty of _bankers_ happy to help guide clients in blacklisted places through them. [ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/business/standard-chartered-sanctions-violations.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/business/standard-charter... ]
stouset 7y ago
“Setting things right” would, in this case, potentially set Square afoul of federal law. Worse, not doing so may violate Canadian law. International law is wildly complicated and full of landmines. I suspect Square would strongly prefer to just disburse $14,000 and set things right. Unfortunately the cost of doing so potentially involves prison time for anyone who made that happen. Even something as innocuous-sounding as explaining to the merchant why they can’t release their funds is potentially grounds for an arrest. Whenever you see an article or blog post about Square, Stripe, Venmo, PayPal, or any other financial company having a pissed-off customer who’s owed money and can’t even get a support person to explain what’s wrong, the answer is virtually inevitably OFAC, and there is often literally no legal path forward to make the affected party whole at that point.
- sova 7y ago
  Wow. Thanks for mentioning so, I had no idea is was such a widespread problem. All due to cutting corners on implementation while still wanting it to look legit.

by sova 7y ago

Square should definitely set this right ASAP she's not doing anything against. I wonder if she had named her stand Canada Beans, would this have happened? The nerve

smnrchrds 7y ago

A couple of my friends went to a restaurant together in the US. One of them paid with card, the other friend paid the first friend back by sending him a transfer by PayPal or Venmo, I cannot remember which. The amount was around $10-$20. The description said Persian restaurant or Iranian restaurant, because that's the kind of restaurant they had gone to. The transfer was blocked and the transfer amount remained in frozen state for over a year. Ask anyone from one of the countries sanctioned by the US, like Cuba or Iran. This kind of experience is not new and it is not an exception. I no longer get surprised, just more and more disappointed.

WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago
OFAC lists are no joke, you will go to jail for disregarding it.
- mirimir 7y ago
  The name of an ethnic restaurant has nothing to do with the corresponding country, legally speaking. That's just a stupid software glitch.
  - WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago
    Nah, you think the guy doing this is working that hard?
    - mirimir 7y ago
      Then he ought to be fired.
      - WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago
        American workers are scared of being perceived as anything else other than a YES MAN. The guy being told he has two-three days to implement OFAC can't say NO or they'll find someone to replace him that will say YES so he'll implement the shortest answer that causes that 'feature' to be marked as 'complete'
        mirimir 7y ago
        Even a random Excel geek would know that a "name" field is not the place to go for OFAC implementation. Or at least, not for a restaurant. I'm sure that they can link to corporate and banking data.
        nullc 7y ago
        It doesn't really matter what someone knows, what matters is the payoff matrix: Apply OFAC blacklisting extremely overly aggressively ... suffer an insignificant number of pissed off customers (who probably don't even leave you because everyone else is also awful). Apply it as non-agressively as you think the law permits, or somewhat more than that... and find out that you're facing criminal charges because a prosecutor thinks the line was slightly different where you thought it was. The situation is made more complicated in part because if prosecution isn't aggressive there are enormous sums of money ready to flow through whatever loophole exists and plenty of _bankers_ happy to help guide clients in blacklisted places through them. [ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/business/standard-chartered-sanctions-violations.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/business/standard-charter... ]

stouset 7y ago

“Setting things right” would, in this case, potentially set Square afoul of federal law. Worse, not doing so may violate Canadian law. International law is wildly complicated and full of landmines. I suspect Square would strongly prefer to just disburse $14,000 and set things right. Unfortunately the cost of doing so potentially involves prison time for anyone who made that happen. Even something as innocuous-sounding as explaining to the merchant why they can’t release their funds is potentially grounds for an arrest. Whenever you see an article or blog post about Square, Stripe, Venmo, PayPal, or any other financial company having a pissed-off customer who’s owed money and can’t even get a support person to explain what’s wrong, the answer is virtually inevitably OFAC, and there is often literally no legal path forward to make the affected party whole at that point.

sova 7y ago
Wow. Thanks for mentioning so, I had no idea is was such a widespread problem. All due to cutting corners on implementation while still wanting it to look legit.