4 ms·

But I also don't want my government to strongarm those same companies into processing those payments. So VISA and Mastercard should be allowed to reject custom

by moe 12y ago

But I also don't want my government to strongarm those same companies into processing those payments. So VISA and Mastercard should be allowed to reject customers at will?

eli 12y ago
Yes.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
mike_hearn 12y ago
Not only are they allowed to reject customers at will, but they are required to by US law. The PATRIOT Act altered US anti money laundering rules in a subtle but important way. It deleted the "mens rea" requirement and converted money laundering into what's called a strict liability crime. In English, that means any company that routes money around is criminally liable for any crimes committed by their clients - even if they didn't know about them or believed the activity was legal. In effect, every banker and money transmitter in the world can face a 20 year jail sentence and/or crippling fines if ANY of their clients are themselves considered to be or merely suspected of being, criminals. No trial needed. This is why you keep reading about banks being involved in money laundering. It's impossible to move money and not be considered a money launderer by the US government these days. So this puts VISA/MC/PayPal in an impossible bind. They can look at Mega and say, well, this seems like a legal business. There's no law obviously being broken. But the guy is being charged over a previous business, accused of being a criminal. If they give him financial services and then years later this new Mega is also suspected of being criminal (note: suspected not proved) then VISA/MC can find headlines like "Visa found guilty of money laundering". They have lots of clients, so from their perspective, eliminating all the politically risky ones is a no brainer. Same thing for Wikileaks, CAGE (UK civil rights group), the entire nation of Somalia etc ... they all lose banking services because they are politically unpopular and therefore expose bankers to AML violations.
- ab5tract 12y ago
  How do you explain the complete lack of any consequences to HSBC, then?
  - kalleboo 12y ago
    Isn't that because the HSBC stuff happened in Europe and not the US? Or have I mixed up cases.
    - ab5tract 12y ago
      I guess I can't say that there were no consequences, since they were able to pay $2 billion to walk away scot free: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/outrageous-hsbc-se... According to this analysis, that amounts to about 5 weeks of HSBC's income, to say nothing of total reserves/worth: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/12/13/Too-Big-to-Jail-HSBCs-Fine-Didnt-Fit-the-Crime http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/12/13/Too-Big-to-... As far as I understand it, the new revelations coming out about HSBC are indeed more Europe-oriented, but are not limited to Europe in scope.
      - icebraining 12y ago
        they were able to pay $2 billion to walk away scot free Is it only me, or does that phrase make no sense?
kefka 12y ago
No. If they are allowed, how is the criteria selected? Are you(payment industry) going to stop payments for the following: Atheist groups? Islamic non-terrorist groups? Foreign countries you don't 'like'? Libertarians/Greens/Socialists/Communists? Non profits you don't like? Church of Satan donations? They have a monopoly over the bulk of commerce, as does PayPal. And they act as a cartel, de-facto banning whatever they disapprove of. In other words, having them strongarm businesses is killing their connection to the market.
- eli 12y ago
  With the exception of discriminating against certain protected classes, American companies are generally free to decide who they want as a customer and who they don't. You don't have a right to credit card processing any more than you have a right to eat at a fancy restaurant or hire a developer -- imagine if contract developers weren't allowed to turn down clients.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    On the other hand, there is a legal obligation to process dollar bills for debts. In a world where everything is increasingly digital, it would be nice if there was a government-sanctioned option that doesn't discriminate against any [legal] services.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    There is the concept of legal tender, which creditors are required to accept as payment of debts (it's printed on US currency). We need some kind of electronic payment equivalent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - icebraining 12y ago
      How would this help? Visa, Mastercard and Paypal aren't the creditors here.
patmcc 12y ago
Yes, of course. Companies shouldn't be forced to provide service if they feel it's not in their best interest. If you were a consultant (you may be), would it be reasonable to force you to accept any client? Things that serve all people without choice are utilities, and should be left to the government (either directly or through strict regulation).

by moe 12y ago

But I also don't want my government to strongarm those same companies into processing those payments. So VISA and Mastercard should be allowed to reject customers at will?

eli 12y ago

Yes.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

mike_hearn 12y ago

Not only are they allowed to reject customers at will, but they are required to by US law. The PATRIOT Act altered US anti money laundering rules in a subtle but important way. It deleted the "mens rea" requirement and converted money laundering into what's called a strict liability crime. In English, that means any company that routes money around is criminally liable for any crimes committed by their clients - even if they didn't know about them or believed the activity was legal. In effect, every banker and money transmitter in the world can face a 20 year jail sentence and/or crippling fines if ANY of their clients are themselves considered to be or merely suspected of being, criminals. No trial needed. This is why you keep reading about banks being involved in money laundering. It's impossible to move money and not be considered a money launderer by the US government these days. So this puts VISA/MC/PayPal in an impossible bind. They can look at Mega and say, well, this seems like a legal business. There's no law obviously being broken. But the guy is being charged over a previous business, accused of being a criminal. If they give him financial services and then years later this new Mega is also suspected of being criminal (note: suspected not proved) then VISA/MC can find headlines like "Visa found guilty of money laundering". They have lots of clients, so from their perspective, eliminating all the politically risky ones is a no brainer. Same thing for Wikileaks, CAGE (UK civil rights group), the entire nation of Somalia etc ... they all lose banking services because they are politically unpopular and therefore expose bankers to AML violations.

ab5tract 12y ago
How do you explain the complete lack of any consequences to HSBC, then?
- kalleboo 12y ago
  Isn't that because the HSBC stuff happened in Europe and not the US? Or have I mixed up cases.
  - ab5tract 12y ago
    I guess I can't say that there were no consequences, since they were able to pay $2 billion to walk away scot free: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/outrageous-hsbc-se... According to this analysis, that amounts to about 5 weeks of HSBC's income, to say nothing of total reserves/worth: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/12/13/Too-Big-to-Jail-HSBCs-Fine-Didnt-Fit-the-Crime http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/12/13/Too-Big-to-... As far as I understand it, the new revelations coming out about HSBC are indeed more Europe-oriented, but are not limited to Europe in scope.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      they were able to pay $2 billion to walk away scot free Is it only me, or does that phrase make no sense?

kefka 12y ago

No. If they are allowed, how is the criteria selected? Are you(payment industry) going to stop payments for the following: Atheist groups? Islamic non-terrorist groups? Foreign countries you don't 'like'? Libertarians/Greens/Socialists/Communists? Non profits you don't like? Church of Satan donations? They have a monopoly over the bulk of commerce, as does PayPal. And they act as a cartel, de-facto banning whatever they disapprove of. In other words, having them strongarm businesses is killing their connection to the market.

eli 12y ago
With the exception of discriminating against certain protected classes, American companies are generally free to decide who they want as a customer and who they don't. You don't have a right to credit card processing any more than you have a right to eat at a fancy restaurant or hire a developer -- imagine if contract developers weren't allowed to turn down clients.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  On the other hand, there is a legal obligation to process dollar bills for debts. In a world where everything is increasingly digital, it would be nice if there was a government-sanctioned option that doesn't discriminate against any [legal] services.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  There is the concept of legal tender, which creditors are required to accept as payment of debts (it's printed on US currency). We need some kind of electronic payment equivalent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - icebraining 12y ago
    How would this help? Visa, Mastercard and Paypal aren't the creditors here.

patmcc 12y ago

Yes, of course. Companies shouldn't be forced to provide service if they feel it's not in their best interest. If you were a consultant (you may be), would it be reasonable to force you to accept any client? Things that serve all people without choice are utilities, and should be left to the government (either directly or through strict regulation).