> And a review is expected to be more like auditing your customers entire financial history than just asking what they meant by a word In the US, which is pres

> And a review is expected to be more like auditing your customers entire financial history than just asking what they meant by a word In the US, which is presumably where the sanctions trigger originates (the company is on OFAC's list), a review of a transaction is just that. Even opening an account doesn't require a review of your customer's entire financial history, merely that, for a business account, you understand the nature of your customer's business. > In that climate there's no good reason not to massively over-filter, the risks of a false negative are way too high. There is, however, good reason to do an actual review and not outright block transactions. The advice PayPal gave its customer, "change the wording on your website to prevent this from happening," is exactly what competant regulatory training tells you not to do. Changing the wording of a transaction to obviate the need for a review is in itself a red flag. PayPal is utterly incompentant.