6 ms·
The problem is that usually anti-money laundering laws give the operator and the compliance officer an infinite protection even on a suspected money laundering.
by miohtama 5y ago
The problem is that usually anti-money laundering laws give the operator and the compliance officer an infinite protection even on a suspected money laundering. As long as the compliance process is followed, no matter how stupid the process is, there is no legal basis to go after account freezer and the company is protected. Thus, the company has no incentive to be reasonable with account freezes.
- perlpimp 5y agoAm at paypal this is every year in compliance videos, there must be terrible and inept bureaucracy - not sure what is that side of the story. but i can see them no wanting to invite ire of regulatory punishments. go to small claims court if its a small sum. you should not keep large sums at any online outfit, paypal, coinbase or others. Even bank account is a suspect space, better stow money in money market funds for quick liquidity, its super easy to defraud it.
- manbart 5y agoFreezing the account or booting the user from the service is one thing, but seizing the money as a result without any due process seems pretty messed up IMO
- johnebgd 5y agoPayPal has worked hard to not be a “bank” so they are long overdue for being sued about this. I know countless vendors who have had their funds stolen.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- winter_blue 5y agoIt's really and outrageous that this open stealing of customers' hard-earned cash for minor perceived user agreement violations is so freaking rampant, with PayPal. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that this literally was a strategy cooked up by the higher-ups at PayPal to buff up the company's gross profits.
- rdtsc 5y agoI was thinking of that too. It’s gotta be quite profitable for them. It’s probably one of those things which is never explicitly written down. Like, the CEO says ‘we have to double down on our “fraud” account seizures’ and they smile when they say “fraud”. Or simply those that understand and play along get promoted and those that start asking questions are pushed out due to “restructuring”.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- notch656a 5y agoAML/KYC laws are a travesty to a free society. Wealth transfer shouldn't be illegal. Prosecute the underlying crimes and let the judicial process seize proceeds of crime after due process. In the meantime, various electronic systems continue to provide adequate avenues for those seeking minimized exposure to KYC/AML.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoI agree, which means electronic money transfer should be a utility offered by the federal government.
- notch656a 5y agoThat reminds me on how ironically the shipping company with lowest exposure to having your package snooped on is probably USPS. Since they are bound to 4th amendment, generally probable cause is necessary to open your package.
- mistrial9 5y agoagree with the overall conclusion, have to ask for some reason in the expression of it. That is, there are legitimate reasons to Know Your Customer, yet, those the least in control are unendingly required to jump through ever more hoops. It is easier to exert control on the defenseless, and they do it. Meanwhile, professional money handlers are seriously considering negative interest rates, since there is just that much money being moved around. A requirement for cell phone numbers closes the connection graph, and a reporting requirement of "every transaction USD$600 or greater" (less than one month rent in most places), to my mind, is the straw that breaks the camels back.