4 ms·

Not enough information, no context. PayPal has terms of service and laws they have to comply with. Probably a story here but unlikely PayPal just shut him down

Not enough information, no context. PayPal has terms of service and laws they have to comply with. Probably a story here but unlikely PayPal just shut him down and kept his money for no reason.

TheCapeGreek 3y ago
You can find other examples of this with PayPal, Wise and others online. Hiding behind KYC/AML laws makes these bans completely opaque in every possible scenario. Whether or not you think Danny is innocent or not, the point is not even he could know why there's suddenly a problem. There's no recourse.
- gregjor 3y ago
  That's just speculation. We don't know if PayPal "hid" behind KYC/AML laws. More likely the account got too many chargebacks -- I've seen processors cut people off for that reason, but after multiple notices. I don't know what happened, just what the victim posted, but that's not enough to know the chain of events. Accusing PayPal of closing an account and keeping $80k with no additional information seems like a serious charge, but with no additional facts I don't know what to make of it. I suppose it plays well for people who hate PayPal. I have nothing to do with PayPal, for the record.
  - TheCapeGreek 3y ago
    Chargebacks are also speculation right now. That's kind of my point. These situations never have any usable info. How can any action by a financial/payments company be trusted in this case? We all suck it up and move on so we can make money, but that doesn't make it any better.
    - gregjor 3y ago
      > How can any action by a financial/payments company be trusted in this case? We don't know the details in this case. But we do know that millions of companies manage to work with and trust payment providers and financial institutions, because those providers are regulated and protections exist for customers and merchants. That's not to say that payment processors and banks never do anything wrong, or screw up, or freeze and close accounts arbitrarily. But that's clearly not the norm -- we're focusing on the relatively rare shark attack rather than the millions of swimmers who don't encounter sharks. I have multiple customers using Stripe and PayPal (or PayPal-owned Braintree). The only times I've seen a processor take any action against a merchant had to do with fairly clear terms of service violations: excessive chargebacks, and operating a business that appears to skirt the law or the processor's allowed merchant types (it was consumer financial "services" in my experience, basically marketing shady lenders). So if I have to guess what happened, I'd guess chargebacks, because that's the main reason things like this happen. When I've seen that the merchant was getting a lot of chargebacks, and the processor sent multiple notices about that -- they didn't just shut it down with no warning.
yieldcrv 3y ago
Very likely it was a dumb reason, an automated reason, a poor user experience of that reason, a completely optional experience, a poor corporate policy that substantially diverges from legal obligations, legal obligations being poorly thought out and misguided as well. There's literally no reason to blame the victim here when HSBC can launder money for the literal cartel under the same legal regime that deputizes financial institutions to demonize transactions instead of a government agency demonizing an actual behavior and investigating that actual behavior. The party in power made a choice they shouldn't be in a position to make or shouldn't chose to do that way, the predictability of that choice occurring is not a factor at all.

Not enough information, no context. PayPal has terms of service and laws they have to comply with. Probably a story here but unlikely PayPal just shut him down and kept his money for no reason.

TheCapeGreek 3y ago

You can find other examples of this with PayPal, Wise and others online. Hiding behind KYC/AML laws makes these bans completely opaque in every possible scenario. Whether or not you think Danny is innocent or not, the point is not even he could know why there's suddenly a problem. There's no recourse.

gregjor 3y ago
That's just speculation. We don't know if PayPal "hid" behind KYC/AML laws. More likely the account got too many chargebacks -- I've seen processors cut people off for that reason, but after multiple notices. I don't know what happened, just what the victim posted, but that's not enough to know the chain of events. Accusing PayPal of closing an account and keeping $80k with no additional information seems like a serious charge, but with no additional facts I don't know what to make of it. I suppose it plays well for people who hate PayPal. I have nothing to do with PayPal, for the record.
- TheCapeGreek 3y ago
  Chargebacks are also speculation right now. That's kind of my point. These situations never have any usable info. How can any action by a financial/payments company be trusted in this case? We all suck it up and move on so we can make money, but that doesn't make it any better.
  - gregjor 3y ago
    > How can any action by a financial/payments company be trusted in this case? We don't know the details in this case. But we do know that millions of companies manage to work with and trust payment providers and financial institutions, because those providers are regulated and protections exist for customers and merchants. That's not to say that payment processors and banks never do anything wrong, or screw up, or freeze and close accounts arbitrarily. But that's clearly not the norm -- we're focusing on the relatively rare shark attack rather than the millions of swimmers who don't encounter sharks. I have multiple customers using Stripe and PayPal (or PayPal-owned Braintree). The only times I've seen a processor take any action against a merchant had to do with fairly clear terms of service violations: excessive chargebacks, and operating a business that appears to skirt the law or the processor's allowed merchant types (it was consumer financial "services" in my experience, basically marketing shady lenders). So if I have to guess what happened, I'd guess chargebacks, because that's the main reason things like this happen. When I've seen that the merchant was getting a lot of chargebacks, and the processor sent multiple notices about that -- they didn't just shut it down with no warning.

yieldcrv 3y ago

Very likely it was a dumb reason, an automated reason, a poor user experience of that reason, a completely optional experience, a poor corporate policy that substantially diverges from legal obligations, legal obligations being poorly thought out and misguided as well. There's literally no reason to blame the victim here when HSBC can launder money for the literal cartel under the same legal regime that deputizes financial institutions to demonize transactions instead of a government agency demonizing an actual behavior and investigating that actual behavior. The party in power made a choice they shouldn't be in a position to make or shouldn't chose to do that way, the predictability of that choice occurring is not a factor at all.