4 ms·

Honestly that's the next step. Hoping to not have to involve lawyers. I know Patrick posts on HN a lot, so this is kind of my last hope to getting this done qui

Honestly that's the next step. Hoping to not have to involve lawyers. I know Patrick posts on HN a lot, so this is kind of my last hope to getting this done quickly.

thfuran 4y ago
Why would you hope to not involve lawyers in a situation where someone has taken $400,000 from you?
- jcollins1991 4y ago
  Because one of the most common themes on HN are Stripe complaint posts immediately getting the attention of Edwin? I recall Patrick being more active on product announcements / otherwise positive news. I appreciate their level of reactivity here, and the truth is complaining on HN really does eyeballs on problems where their internal processes seem too broken to help.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  Because resolving without lawyers is cheaper?
  - thfuran 4y ago
    And swinging round Home Depot to pick up some buckets in the event of a fire is cheaper than funding a fire department, but it's not really the right tool for the job.
    - HDThoreaun 4y ago
      I’ve seen more than a couple stripe disputes resolved here. If the problem isn’t urgent, which it somehow seems to not be, this is a fine step.
    - blairbeckwith 4y ago
      Using a fire extinguisher on a small flame before it grows in to needing the fire department seems like a reasonable approach.
      - chrisandchris 4y ago
        Still, one should still call the firefighters _before_ using the extinguisher. If the extinguisher did not work, and you tried 5min, these 5min are lost.
  - oliwarner 4y ago
    Op is juggling cash to make payroll. Crushing insolvency can be far more expensive than lawyers.
- denimnerd42 4y ago
  A lawyer will run through 400k quite quickly so yeah he should be prepared but..
  - nerdbert 4y ago
    That's like 6 months of an associate's time at a high billing rate. We are talking about sending a letter or making a phone call here.
    - heavyset_go 4y ago
      If they respond to the OP's lawyer via their legal team, is the OP going to want to continue to engage them without a lawyer? One letter can become several with a multitude of billable hours and services.
- thewataccount 4y ago
  Because lawyers cost > $0 ?
  - thfuran 4y ago
    How much does not having access to their money cost? I bet also >$0.
    - thewataccount 4y ago
      If your option is either lose $400,000 or pay for a lawyer - you're of course right that you want to get a lawyer. OP said: > Honestly that's the next step. Hoping to not have to involve lawyers. My understanding is that OP was hoping to communicate with support and get access to their accounts without paying for a lawyer - as that would be preferable with a cost of ~0$ All three of us appear to agree - If that doesn't work definitely time for a lawyer
quesera 4y ago
Yes. "Freeze funds and do not communicate to customer" is basically AML response 101. Even if you know you've done nothing wrong (but of course audit your transaction history to make sure), you'll want to have an appropriate lawyer ready.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  How are anti-money-laundering laws that require that treatment constitutional? Didn't https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_v._United_States establish innocent-until-proven-guilty? Isn't this at least as bad as civil forfeiture?
  - quesera 4y ago
    Financial restrictions are not the same as incarceration. And you can be held in jail before a trial anyway, so the comparison just isn't relevant. No argument to your larger point though: freezing funds can be devastating and applied carelessly!
  - newZWhoDis 4y ago
    They’re not, but unconstitutional law can exist and even become precedent for decades before a court with the stones comes along to overturn it. Both this and CAF violate basic constitutional pillars like not depriving you of life/liberty/assets without due process.
    - orbz 4y ago
      Note that this is a corporation not releasing funds, not the government so the constitution doesn’t apply. In this case it would be the terms of service which likely calls out this as a possibility.
      - josephcsible 4y ago
        > Note that this is a corporation not releasing funds, not the government so the constitution doesn’t apply. You'd be right if corporations decided to do that on their own, but the anti-money-laundering law says that corporations have to do that.

Honestly that's the next step. Hoping to not have to involve lawyers. I know Patrick posts on HN a lot, so this is kind of my last hope to getting this done quickly.

thfuran 4y ago

Why would you hope to not involve lawyers in a situation where someone has taken $400,000 from you?

jcollins1991 4y ago
Because one of the most common themes on HN are Stripe complaint posts immediately getting the attention of Edwin? I recall Patrick being more active on product announcements / otherwise positive news. I appreciate their level of reactivity here, and the truth is complaining on HN really does eyeballs on problems where their internal processes seem too broken to help.
HDThoreaun 4y ago
Because resolving without lawyers is cheaper?
- thfuran 4y ago
  And swinging round Home Depot to pick up some buckets in the event of a fire is cheaper than funding a fire department, but it's not really the right tool for the job.
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    I’ve seen more than a couple stripe disputes resolved here. If the problem isn’t urgent, which it somehow seems to not be, this is a fine step.
  - blairbeckwith 4y ago
    Using a fire extinguisher on a small flame before it grows in to needing the fire department seems like a reasonable approach.
    - chrisandchris 4y ago
      Still, one should still call the firefighters _before_ using the extinguisher. If the extinguisher did not work, and you tried 5min, these 5min are lost.
- oliwarner 4y ago
  Op is juggling cash to make payroll. Crushing insolvency can be far more expensive than lawyers.
denimnerd42 4y ago
A lawyer will run through 400k quite quickly so yeah he should be prepared but..
- nerdbert 4y ago
  That's like 6 months of an associate's time at a high billing rate. We are talking about sending a letter or making a phone call here.
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    If they respond to the OP's lawyer via their legal team, is the OP going to want to continue to engage them without a lawyer? One letter can become several with a multitude of billable hours and services.
thewataccount 4y ago
Because lawyers cost > $0 ?
- thfuran 4y ago
  How much does not having access to their money cost? I bet also >$0.
  - thewataccount 4y ago
    If your option is either lose $400,000 or pay for a lawyer - you're of course right that you want to get a lawyer. OP said: > Honestly that's the next step. Hoping to not have to involve lawyers. My understanding is that OP was hoping to communicate with support and get access to their accounts without paying for a lawyer - as that would be preferable with a cost of ~0$ All three of us appear to agree - If that doesn't work definitely time for a lawyer

quesera 4y ago

Yes. "Freeze funds and do not communicate to customer" is basically AML response 101. Even if you know you've done nothing wrong (but of course audit your transaction history to make sure), you'll want to have an appropriate lawyer ready.

josephcsible 4y ago
How are anti-money-laundering laws that require that treatment constitutional? Didn't https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_v._United_States establish innocent-until-proven-guilty? Isn't this at least as bad as civil forfeiture?
- quesera 4y ago
  Financial restrictions are not the same as incarceration. And you can be held in jail before a trial anyway, so the comparison just isn't relevant. No argument to your larger point though: freezing funds can be devastating and applied carelessly!
- newZWhoDis 4y ago
  They’re not, but unconstitutional law can exist and even become precedent for decades before a court with the stones comes along to overturn it. Both this and CAF violate basic constitutional pillars like not depriving you of life/liberty/assets without due process.
  - orbz 4y ago
    Note that this is a corporation not releasing funds, not the government so the constitution doesn’t apply. In this case it would be the terms of service which likely calls out this as a possibility.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      > Note that this is a corporation not releasing funds, not the government so the constitution doesn’t apply. You'd be right if corporations decided to do that on their own, but the anti-money-laundering law says that corporations have to do that.