6 ms·

> Lena Evans, one of the plaintiffs who'd been a PayPal user for 22 years, said the website seized $26,984 from her account six months after it got frozen witho

> Lena Evans, one of the plaintiffs who'd been a PayPal user for 22 years, said the website seized $26,984 from her account six months after it got frozen without ever telling her why. Wait, what? They're actually taking the money? I thought the article was just being careless with the terms "frozen" and "seized". On what power are they doing so? It's understandable when the relevant authorities (be it a tax authority, or a financial supervisory authority, or a court, or whatever) seize money, but they are not an authority. Furthermore, if the money in question actually were illicit, then by what fantasy argument would they be allowed to keep it themselves rather than having to hand it over to the goverment? The entire point is that the money is dirty and nobody may keep it.

gruez 5y ago
>They're actually taking the money? I thought the article was just being careless with the terms "frozen" and "seized". but that's also the plaintiff's claim, so I wouldn't exactly call that reliable.
mdek 5y ago
Per the article, Paypal is seizing the money as damages: > It also said that the money was taken from her account "for its liquidated damages arising from those AUP violations pursuant to the User Agreement.
- ckastner 5y ago
  Indeed, this is an important point that I missed. So if I get this right, this isn't about actually AML activity, but a civil claim under something like ToS. So I looked up the AUP, and indeed: they claim $2,500(!) liquidated damages per violation of the AUP, which is on average a ridiculously high amount. Selling 10 individual bottles of wine without approval will incur $25,000 damages under this scheme. Given these terms, you have to be absolutely nuts to sign any agreement with Paypal.
sam0x17 5y ago
> if the money in question actually were illicit, then by what fantasy argument would they be allowed to keep it themselves rather than having to hand it over to the goverment? The entire point is that the money is dirty and nobody may keep it. I don't know what fantasy they operate under, but back in the 2010s I observed Google doing this numerous times with "seized" click fraud revenue -- one of my sites was a victim of a click fraud attack as an attempt to get my AdSense account banned, and my friend's site at the time was advertising on my domain via AdWords and he didn't see any kind of refund despite the $800 that was taken from me (which was the entirety of my revenue for that month). Google just keeps funds they seize I'm pretty sure, or at least they did back then.
kweks 5y ago
See my comment below: they just seized (not frozen, seized) 50k EU from us in a targetted attack against our company and shareholders because we took legal counsel when they froze the accounts.
- effingwewt 5y ago
  Good. I love when companies are so big they do as they please and retaliate when brought to task. Hopefully it's one more nail in their coffin. All the best, hope this is the beginning of their end.
  - shoulderfake 5y ago
    the only way this stuff will change is if the fines are SUBSTANTIAL
    - bigjimmyjohnson 5y ago
      It's theft in great amounts of money. Fines are necessary but not sufficient. There should be prison time.
      - andrepd 5y ago
        This applies to a great deal of white-collar crime. As long as there aren't serious PERSONAL consequences for wrongdoing, just a fine that the company coffers will pay as the cost of doing business, nothing will change. We need to start to put CEOs in actual prison and to forfeit their fortune.
      - effingwewt 5y ago
        Agreed, that's the only thing that will stop this garbage. Between companies and banks doing this, our own government allowing civil forfeiture, and the penalties- of there even are any, are a monetary slap on the wrist, what recourse do we have? We can't even change the laws because money lobbies and always wins. I really hope this is the tide changing.
  - 5y ago
nikanj 5y ago
On what power? ”We are big and have money. You are small and have no money”. This has been a reliable source of power for at least a century
- edoceo 5y ago
  Longer than that.
- ckastner 5y ago
  I meant on what official authority. I understand what you meant to say, but realize that this is like some random bully stopping cars on the highway and issuing speeding tickets. Victims might play along for a while, but when actual law enforcement shows up, the bully is going to have a very bad time.
  - erichocean 5y ago
    > this is like some random bully stopping cars on the highway and issuing speeding tickets LOL, I've paid that exact "fine", the "bullies" were official, uniformed Mexican police. They were literally just flagging everyone on vacation at a specific resort, along the only road from that resort into town (with a big chain across the road to collect everyone) and taking $200 to be allowed to continue on. Nice work if you can get it I guess. I've also paid bribes to bullies in Yugoslavia ("people with machine guns standing in the road") in order to pass by. I don't think they were official though.
    - anonAndOn 5y ago
      I don't know if this is still true, but years ago if you wanted to board your plane in La Paz, Bolivia everyone had to hand the police officer at the gate $20 USD cash (no substitutions) to board the plane. It didn't matter your nationality or where the plane was headed, just hand over $20 bucks or GTFO.
    - technothrasher 5y ago
      I had to pay an extra $90 when crossing the border into Zimbabwe. I was a little slow and asked all innocently why I had to pay more then the official entry tax when the guy in front of me paid the normal amount. The guy just shifted his AK-47 a bit and repeated the request. I figured it out at that point and forked it over.

gruez 5y ago

>They're actually taking the money? I thought the article was just being careless with the terms "frozen" and "seized". but that's also the plaintiff's claim, so I wouldn't exactly call that reliable.

mdek 5y ago

Per the article, Paypal is seizing the money as damages: > It also said that the money was taken from her account "for its liquidated damages arising from those AUP violations pursuant to the User Agreement.

ckastner 5y ago
Indeed, this is an important point that I missed. So if I get this right, this isn't about actually AML activity, but a civil claim under something like ToS. So I looked up the AUP, and indeed: they claim $2,500(!) liquidated damages per violation of the AUP, which is on average a ridiculously high amount. Selling 10 individual bottles of wine without approval will incur $25,000 damages under this scheme. Given these terms, you have to be absolutely nuts to sign any agreement with Paypal.

sam0x17 5y ago

> if the money in question actually were illicit, then by what fantasy argument would they be allowed to keep it themselves rather than having to hand it over to the goverment? The entire point is that the money is dirty and nobody may keep it. I don't know what fantasy they operate under, but back in the 2010s I observed Google doing this numerous times with "seized" click fraud revenue -- one of my sites was a victim of a click fraud attack as an attempt to get my AdSense account banned, and my friend's site at the time was advertising on my domain via AdWords and he didn't see any kind of refund despite the $800 that was taken from me (which was the entirety of my revenue for that month). Google just keeps funds they seize I'm pretty sure, or at least they did back then.

kweks 5y ago

See my comment below: they just seized (not frozen, seized) 50k EU from us in a targetted attack against our company and shareholders because we took legal counsel when they froze the accounts.

effingwewt 5y ago
Good. I love when companies are so big they do as they please and retaliate when brought to task. Hopefully it's one more nail in their coffin. All the best, hope this is the beginning of their end.
- shoulderfake 5y ago
  the only way this stuff will change is if the fines are SUBSTANTIAL
  - bigjimmyjohnson 5y ago
    It's theft in great amounts of money. Fines are necessary but not sufficient. There should be prison time.
    - andrepd 5y ago
      This applies to a great deal of white-collar crime. As long as there aren't serious PERSONAL consequences for wrongdoing, just a fine that the company coffers will pay as the cost of doing business, nothing will change. We need to start to put CEOs in actual prison and to forfeit their fortune.
    - effingwewt 5y ago
      Agreed, that's the only thing that will stop this garbage. Between companies and banks doing this, our own government allowing civil forfeiture, and the penalties- of there even are any, are a monetary slap on the wrist, what recourse do we have? We can't even change the laws because money lobbies and always wins. I really hope this is the tide changing.
- 5y ago

nikanj 5y ago

On what power? ”We are big and have money. You are small and have no money”. This has been a reliable source of power for at least a century

edoceo 5y ago
Longer than that.
ckastner 5y ago
I meant on what official authority. I understand what you meant to say, but realize that this is like some random bully stopping cars on the highway and issuing speeding tickets. Victims might play along for a while, but when actual law enforcement shows up, the bully is going to have a very bad time.
- erichocean 5y ago
  > this is like some random bully stopping cars on the highway and issuing speeding tickets LOL, I've paid that exact "fine", the "bullies" were official, uniformed Mexican police. They were literally just flagging everyone on vacation at a specific resort, along the only road from that resort into town (with a big chain across the road to collect everyone) and taking $200 to be allowed to continue on. Nice work if you can get it I guess. I've also paid bribes to bullies in Yugoslavia ("people with machine guns standing in the road") in order to pass by. I don't think they were official though.
  - anonAndOn 5y ago
    I don't know if this is still true, but years ago if you wanted to board your plane in La Paz, Bolivia everyone had to hand the police officer at the gate $20 USD cash (no substitutions) to board the plane. It didn't matter your nationality or where the plane was headed, just hand over $20 bucks or GTFO.
  - technothrasher 5y ago
    I had to pay an extra $90 when crossing the border into Zimbabwe. I was a little slow and asked all innocently why I had to pay more then the official entry tax when the guy in front of me paid the normal amount. The guy just shifted his AK-47 a bit and repeated the request. I figured it out at that point and forked it over.