It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


I refused to disclose my annual income to PAYPAL and they froze my funds !

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on May, 16 2012 @ 08:54 PM
It will cost you more in legal aid to get your money back. And it's not even going to be a blip on their radar. They wont care, you wont be proving anything, and you can even publicly post all the proceedings inline....they simply don't care.

There is nothing you can do except file a complaint with either maybe the FTC or BBB?

I had issues with paypal over a few grand from something sold on ebay. Took 4 months to get the money after some SERIOUSLY back and forth heated conversations. Even the buyer was calling them on my behalf (what a true sport he was, it wasn't his responsibility, he had his goods and paid his money).

Paypal SUCKS.

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 08:58 PM
We use Pay Pro Flow for an Integration between Dynamics CRM and our website. Pay Pro Flow is a product of Paypal. I do not and have never trusted PayPal but our partner only codes against their API. In 2014 I am moving away from the proprietary B.S. of all of these corporations as much as I can.

I am hoping open source matures a bit more in the future. I use Dot NetNuke Pro for my website and they are very open. CodePlex has a lot of plug-ins as well that I use for DNN and CRM.

As an IT pro I am very fearful of corporations like this. PayPal/Pay Pro Flow could screw me tomorrow and my boss wouldn't care. He would be looking to me to provide the instant solution.

I feel ya man...

edit on 16-5-2012 by TruckDriver69 because: mis-spelling

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 08:59 PM
reply to post by Toolatetotalk

That was a good post.

Do you think that if there was a clear method for citizens to take claims against PayPal quickly and cheaply, that it would force them to clean up their business practices or risk being buried in litigation?

Do you feel that the difficulty for average people to bring something to court is the main crutch PayPal is using to take advantage of the situation (for the time being)?

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:01 PM
I think if and when I decide to sell online, I'll prefer money orders or bank to bank transfers. And do lay away plans. The only person going to hold an item or money will be me.
edit on 16-5-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:02 PM
reply to post by tauristercus

No matter where you go if money goes in any other hands other then yourself or the seller/buyer somebody is taking a chunk its the way its setup to be. you would crap if you just seen what a american electric co does here in the USA buy 80$ worth of electric and pay for "shipping the electric to your house" for 65$ then charge you a "lost recovery fee" seen range from 20-40$ in that area per month .from what i gather its a payment you have to make to pay on other peoples bill that dont pay anything... today this practice is acceptable to most people i guess..

Just move along nothing to see here just another person getting ripped off by the corporate way.
and remember corporations are people too so if you punch the pay pall sign they will prob file assault charges on you..

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:14 PM
I have a pro ebay store, and use paypal exclusively, as it is the only way to get paid on the internet and have some legs to stand on if your buyer pulls some crap. That said, Paypal has it's problems but for me the good outweighs the bad by a magnitude.

The way you get in trouble with Paypal, is to have bad credit. If you open an account on Paypal and then have some instant kind of problem, they can freeze you until the solution is rectified. So, I think there is more here than you are alluding to, it is possible you have some skeletons in the closet, and since you are a new user, they are not willing to extend you any latitude until they are sure that they will not get left holding the bag for any transactions you do until you have proven to be a trustworthy client.

They are no different from any bank. They have power, backed up by the fine print, and you just have to deal with it if you want to use them.

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:21 PM
Hello everybody,my name is Mamabeth and I was an ebay addict.
The thrill of the auction,the bidding,the sniping at the last 2 seconds.
The constant check writing,money orders,postal checks and stamps.

I did finally get a paypal account.I used my business checking and
credit card for it.I didn't want to use our personal banking and credit
cards because I had heard of stories like this before.I do hope you
get your money soon.
My addiction to ebay has been cured...I replaced that addiction with

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:21 PM
reply to post by tauristercus

I went thru hell trying to get my bank account verified by Paypal, because they said I was reaching my $ limit as a "buyer" :pus: We even had a third party call with my bank telling them my account was verifiable, still wasn't good enough for them and I finally just gave up. There was a repeated solution I notice in my discussions with Paypal and that was to apply for a PP mastercard and I would be easily verified. I honestly think they are making things difficult for people in order to get you into their system where they have total control of your finances. I'm sure they are very aware of the profits credit card companies are making off the people that use Ebay/PP. This may not be relevant to the OP issue but it showed me that they were only concerned with one thing and that was getting as much of my money as they could. I also think their tactics, T&C are a NWO step forward in doing away with currency as we know it. This may just be the conspiracist in me IDK. Yeah, Paypal SUCKS and I will no longer do business with them.
edit on 16-5-2012 by mtnshredder because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:22 PM
right on brotha. I agree. I quit using pay pal because of their faulty and sketchy business practices.since deleting my account years ago, I'll use western union every once in a while instead.

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:24 PM
This seems very weird.

I've never had issues with pay pal.

The one time I had to send personal information was when I had my name legally changed.

All I had to do was send in a copy of my old and new ID and that was it.

I don't see a problem with sending in my ID as I need one to open a bank account any way.

I've never seen the forms for asking how much you make though.
It isn't their business and I would have answered just above the minimum amount.

I did see a discrepancy though, you listed "personal" as the use and shopping as the primary use but then said you planned on receiving money.

That may have caused the snag as you listed you were buying things, but receiving money.

I hope you get your money because that sucks.

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:29 PM
Call the Nebraska Atty General's Office, they have a dedicated team that does PayPal issues. Also get a lawyer to call them, pay the 50 bucks for the time, they back RIGHT down...

hope that helps.

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:31 PM

Originally posted by RkAngel
reply to post by tauristercus

I am really sympathetic to you about this nasty rabbit hole that PayPal has thrown you down, I truly do wish you best on getting this issue resolved.

Could you give us some more information?

Have you had communication with the Buyer?
What country was the silver exported to, from Australia?
Did you state to the postmaster that you were exporting silver?

Many posters, and others, have had problems, it appears, with PayPal and it does appear that you should get legal aid and pursue this matter.

My best to you in resolving this situation.

I'll try and summarize the entire episode ...

1. I had 300gms of pure silver that I wanted to sell.
2. I have an eBay account and so listed the item with a description and associated photo's. I also mentioned in the description that I would prefer payment by direct bank transfer. (At this point I did NOT have a PayPal account and really didn't want the hassle of creating one.)
3. eBay accepted the listing.
4. The item sold.
5. The purchaser responded that they wished to pay via PayPal as their preferred payment method.
6. To keep good faith with the purchaser, I agreed to use PayPal and succesfully created an account with them.
7. I notified the purchaser who immediately transferred the funds into the new PayPal account.
8. I verified that the payment transfer to PayPal had completed ... yes, it had.
9. I immediately authorized a transfer for the full amount (less PayPal's commission) from PayPal to my personal bank account.
10. PayPal confirmed the transfer request and indicated the transfer was being processed by them.
11. I immediately posted the item to the buyer. At the post office, the official physically saw the goods being posted and calculated the correct postage. The postal official had no problems with the goods and allowed them to be posted to the address specified.
12. A few days pass and the transfer into my bank has not occurred.
13. A couple of days later I receive from PayPal email notification that the transfer has been reversed, the funds on hold and that my account is not fully activated. They state that full activation and fund transfer will occur once I supply them with 2 additional sources of identification as well as completing an additional questionnaire requesting info regarding how I intend to use PayPal, how often, etc.
One question regarding my annual income I deemed an unnecessary intrusion into my private affairs and selected the minimum income option and included a handwritten explanation regarding my choice alongside the question.
14. After a day or so, I contact PayPal to confirm that the id I supplied and the questionnaire had been received and that all was in order. The response was that all was ok with the paperwork and full account activation in progress.
15. A few days later ... no funds transferred and no contact from PayPal.
I called them and was informed that my account was now under review for undisclosed reasons and that the funds would remain on hold. The review process was to take 24 - 48 hours.
16. A couple of days later I call them yet again and this time was told that my account was under review for legal reasons. When queried for additional details/explanations, was told by PayPal that they refuse to disclose any details regarding the "legality" issue or the review itself.
17. Called again a couple days later ... told essentially the same thing.
18. Called a few days later and told that my account has been suspended and the funds frozen for a minimum of 180 days (6 months). Again I requested information explaining the termination and again was refused.
I asked what it would take to obtain such information and was informed that a court issued subpoena would be required.
I requested a 2nd review to which PayPal agreed.
19. Later the same day, I received an email from PayPal that the 2nd review upheld the termination of my account ... this time NOT for "legal reasons" but instead because of undisclosed "security issues" and that the funds in their possession would not be released for a minimum of 180 days.

It should be stated that this was a postal shipment entirely within Australia and at no point was an international transfer attempted. All funds were paid to PayPal in Australian currency and did not require currency conversion.
At all times was full disclosure of the item made ... to eBay .. to the purchaser ... to the postal official.

The purchaser even responded with positive feedback on eBay regarding the transaction and was completely satisfied with the transaction.

So, the purchaser has gained 300 gms of silver ... eBay has charged me auction fees ... PayPal has charged me commission and has retained the remaining $302.

I, on the other hand, no longer have the silver ... and I also don't have the $302 paid for it

edit on 16/5/12 by tauristercus because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:31 PM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

This is all pure rubbish.

Regardless of what you claim, eBay/PayPal did not agree to any offer that he made. You know as well as I that only a fool would buy this. You show me where PayPay agreed to the OP's "counter offer."

The OP did, however, agree to PayPal's Terms of Service. And then he lied when they asked him to further verify his account. Clear and obvious fraud. So none of the cases you've pointed out are really relevant anyway. If you're going to attempt to show legal precedent at least learn the details of the case.

In the case of Zepeda v Paypal - the case was originally dismissed by a California State District Judge, or at least that's how I'm reading it. At the same time a motion was granted for the Plaintiff to give them time to amend their pleading. During that time, the plaintiff filed a motion to combine with the Fernando case, total time was over 2 years.

Finally the case was settled out of court - You can claim what you want, but I'm almost positive the Plaintiff's attorneys kept filing extension after extension, and then finally attempted to join the Fernando case, as a strategy just to get PayPal to settle. PayPal eventually did. Good job, some schmuck just got free lunch.

But, again, none of this matters, as the OP admits to submitting fraudulent information which is a clear violation of the terms he agreed to when he sought out and requested to do business with eBay/PayPal.

And as you so astutely pointed out earlier, this is Australia, who again have laws associated with the buying and selling of bullion that we don't in the US. How can you compare a case based on California state law with another based on Australian law? Such a double standard.

Now we know that the OP was trying to sell silver bullion AND refused to state his annual income. You don't see why this might raise some red flags at PayPal where they are being ordered to adhere to new tax laws? I think you got a booboo from PayPal once and have a chip on your shoulder.

edit on 16-5-2012 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-5-2012 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-5-2012 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:37 PM
reply to post by TinkerHaus

The law is not for sale, sport, and I'm not selling anything. You're the one selling Paypal, not I. You can't have this both ways. You can't dismiss the law of contracts one moment and then turn around and rely upon it the next. The law is not something you get to cherry pick. It comes as it does, thorns and all.

If the Zapeda case was dismissed, then why did Paypal settle? You really think the vast majority of people reading this thread are stupid, don't you?

You have spent much time in this thread lying about the O.P., you are now making the claim that the O.P. admits to being fraudulent. I missed that post, why don't you show me that admission.

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:43 PM
I will not go into the full details, but my wife went thru the same HELL you went thru! This is what was figured out…

They will find ANY reason what’s so ever to withhold your funds from you. Once they do so (the 180 days or more), they will take the monies withheld and have them put into an account where they will gain interest. They are making MILLIONS off regular people who are only trying to make a simple transaction. There are many law suits against for the very topic you are addressing.

You are not alone my friend…!

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by TinkerHaus

The law is not for sale, sport, and I'm not selling anything. You're the one selling Paypal, not I. You can't have this both ways. You can't dismiss the law of contracts one moment and then turn around and rely upon it the next. The law is not something you get to cherry pick. It comes as it does, thorns and all.

If the Zapeda case was dismissed, then why did Paypal settle? You really think the vast majority of people reading this thread are stupid, don't you?

You have spent much time in this thread lying about the O.P., you are now making the claim that the O.P. admits to being fraudulent. I missed that post, why don't you show me that admission.

At no point did I dismiss an AMERICAN law on contracts that doesn't even apply to Australian law. As you said, you cannot have it both ways.

What I did do is point out that the OP agreed to PayPal's terms - they did not agree to HIS TERMS. Your entire argument is without merit.

Why don't you look at the OP where he admits to omitting and falsifying information.

Again - do you understand that people try to launder money on PayPal and FAKE GOLD AND SILVER are often sold? PayPal and eBay are protecting their honest customers - I see nothing wrong with this.

So, let me get out the crayons and paint a picture for you..

Dude opens eBay account, lists just under 10 troy oz of silver bullion, makes a sale, opens new PayPal account, claims to be selling between $300-$999 dollars a month in what is so far precious metals, then refuses to answer questions about his income..

PayPal is protecting itself from any liability should the OP be a scammer, which I'm not claiming. PayPal has done no wrong, and the terms he agreed to clearly state that PayPal can freeze your funds for UP TO 180 days while they conduct an investigation. Chances are the OP just got his personal information forwarded to the Australian Tax Authority. Ouch!

Court dismissed.

And the Zepeda case WAS dismissed, you armchair attorney. Rather than explain it again I'll let the 'legal expert' read for himself.
edit on 16-5-2012 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:47 PM

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by TinkerHaus

You have spent much time in this thread lying about the O.P., you are now making the claim that the O.P. admits to being fraudulent. I missed that post, why don't you show me that admission.

No lies, just pointing out that he was trying to sell silver and when asked to verify his income he lied. I could put it another way that's more tender... He uh, fabricated his own reality regarding an important financial matter and reported it to his business partner as if it were the truth.

Does that sit easier with you? Are you able to review the OP and find where he clearly stated that was the case?

And because I just realized my earlier link failed, here is the Zepeda v PayPal case for your review:

And I just realized you're right, I have nothing to gain here. You can talk all day and the fact remains that the OP omitted and falsified information. I couldn't care less what the result is. You should offer to work pro bono for him - let me know how the court reacts when you start talking to them about the OP's 'counter offer.'

Until I hear this news, I'm done here.

edit on 16-5-2012 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:50 PM
reply to post by St0mP121

I have been getting ripped by AEP for years. They call it a Fuel Factor Fee... it must help them sleep better at night as it does nothing for me.

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:53 PM
reply to post by tauristercus

so - you refuse to abide by their rules, and get angry when they freeze your funds as a result?

You're the typical "what's wrong with this country" prime example.

Grow up. If you want to use paypal to sell and receive money - you have to attach a bank account.

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:59 PM
reply to post by TinkerHaus

The law of contracts is universal. If the law of contracts varied from nation to nation, there wouldn't even be a thing called globalization. If businesses cannot count on a standard rule of law regarding contracts smart people wouldn't bother to contract. However, just to be clear here, here is a brief overview of Australian contract law:

Australian contract law is based on the inherited English contract law, with specific statutory modifications of principles in some areas. Australian law has developed through the decisions of Australian courts, especially since the 1980s, and various pieces of legislation passed by the Parliament of Australia and by the various states and territories. See contract law for very general doctrines relating to contract law. In Australia, the law of equity has also played an increasing part in changing the laws regarding contracts, and what occurs when they are breached.

Now let's look at this English contract law:

English contract law is a body of law regulating contracts in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth (such as Australia, Canada and India[1]), and the United States.

My, my, my, you just keep digging that hole deeper and deeper, don't you?

The evolving nature of contract law is a part of its common law heritage, and as new technologies, such as the internet, continue to develop, contract law will continue to evolve, but the principles behind it remain the same, and your sad attempt to deflect this by claiming "American contract law" is somehow fundamentally different than "Australian contract law" is, quite simply, misguided at best.

You've gone from accusing the O.P. of committing fraud because of how he filled out a form, going as far as insisting I read IRS 6050w and get back to you, (of which I did and you are still evading that) to now claiming that your argument was always about him selling silver. You really do think people are profoundly stupid, don't you?

Laughably, you hope to play not just defense attorney to Paypal, you hope to play prosecutor to the O.P. and now, quite amusingly, you pretend to be the judge as well. Case dismissed indeed! In your little make believe world of pretend court, this may be how things work, but not in the real world, sport.

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in