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

page: 3
89
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
The answer is fairly obvious to me. In the first letter screenshot it says,
    "But, just like a bank, we sometimes need to confirm some details you have given us so that we can comply with Australian Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing laws as outlined in our User Agreement..."

Then you say:

Originally posted by tauristercus
The item was completely harmless and innocuous ... it was just 300 gms of pure silver in the form of small "buttons".
eBay had NO issues with the sale whatsoever ... just PayPal.


This was an issue with the legal authorities who had concerns that money (silver) was leaving the country. Welcome to the 21st century... there is now a full investigation of you happening behind your back. PayPal, while there is no love lost between me and them, is just the messenger. Have you verified with your customer that they received the silver? It could be sitting in a shelf in an investigation room somewhere.

I hope you eventually get your money.

TheRedneck




posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 

I'm in the USA and have my account frozen as of now. It's because when I updated my info I had to report
that I no longer had a viable bank account ie: checking, credit card and/or debit card. Sooooooooooo I'm waiting
for the big moment when I can start another bank account so I can spend what little is in there..I need it.
Even tried using an EBAY gift card..no go...tried using a Green MoneyPak card..no go..now if I had clicked
on the tab saying Without Confirming then just maybe it would have gone thru to my paypal account..NOW
here is a kicker..I was reading somewhere that somebody was able to get their MoneyPak card added
to their account but THEN they wanted confirmation..wonder if the account took the money then
unpolitely FROZE THEIR ACCOUNT??????????????????????
Sure, we need protection and I had 200 dollars taken ??? but got it back but there comes a time when
it is very much NOT CONVENIENT for the buyer or seller of goods to use PayPal.

"grandma here is NOT a happy camper"



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Howdy Red,
LTNS!
I think maybe we can thank our own IRS for his problem then can't we?
ZIndo



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 





Welcome to the 21st century... there is now a full investigation of you happening behind your back. PayPal, while there is no love lost between me and them, is just the messenger.


Paypal is not a government agency and has no lawful authority to assess some persons liability for some legislative act in some country. They can certainly request forms be filled out, but they have no lawful authority to demand it. That demand becomes, just as the O.P. stated it was, extortion. Had they lawful authority to make such demands they would have been upfront with the O.P. when confronted. That they instead insisted the O.P. obtain a subpoena indicates just how lawful their act was.

The Australian government will throw Paypal under a bus, and indeed all ready have:


In June 2008, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found that, "The evidence available does not support the view that PayPal is the most secure method of payment, or offers the best service for all transactions."


Long before there was 9-11, long before there was a push to nationalize identification, there was Western Union. This company still will allow money to be wired to someone without any identification. All that is needed is a password and the money identification number supplied by Western Union. How is it Western Union has managed to escape these legislative acts I wonder? Okay, no I don't wonder, I know and so does anyone else who knows the law.








edit on 16-5-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I am sorry to hear of your mistreatment by PayPal. They should rename their Customer Service dept. to CUSTOMER DISSERVICE. I hate that whenever one has to deal on the phone with large companies, one gets the guys in India, Pakistan, Malaysia and one has a hard time trying to understand what they are saying due to the heavy accents.


One of the companies I do 3d modeling and uv mapping for requires that I use PayPal to pay me for my services, but I take my money out quickly so they do not get to earn interest on it.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
PayPal froze my account when I logged in via a proxy.

Fook em.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by TheRedneck
 





Welcome to the 21st century... there is now a full investigation of you happening behind your back. PayPal, while there is no love lost between me and them, is just the messenger.


Paypal is not a government agency and has no lawful authority to assess some persons liability for some legislative act in some country. The can certainly request forms be filled out, but they have no lawful authority to demand it. That demand becomes, just as the O.P. stated it was, extortion.





Jean Paul,,
That is true but our IRS has demanded all these entities that do business here to bow to their wishes under threat and they sure as hell have! Red has a point and I believe somehow PayPal has found a way to profit from it!

Zindo



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

As an International banking firm, PayPal is liable for adherence to laws and lawful orders from the authorities in the originating or receiving country. It is no different than a governmental agency freezing domestic bank funds in the US.

The big tip-off for me was when they refused to supply relevant information and then suggested a subpoena as a solution. That is a sign of governmental authority calling the shots, but of course PayPal is under legal order to not divulge that information.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

As an International banking firm, PayPal is liable for adherence to laws and lawful orders from the authorities in the originating or receiving country. It is no different than a governmental agency freezing domestic bank funds in the US.

The big tip-off for me was when they refused to supply relevant information and then suggested a subpoena as a solution. That is a sign of governmental authority calling the shots, but of course PayPal is under legal order to not divulge that information.

TheRedneck


Which means they were lying about the reasons they held the account?



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone

Howdy back at'cha Zindo!

You know, I just realized the OP never mentioned the location of the buyer... if it was in the US, that would explain an awful lot!

TheRedneck



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I'm going to resist an urge to post my personal experience with them here, as I've gone into it at length in the past.

Suffice to say I know how you feel and you have my sympathies.

PayPal is NOT a bank and therefore is not bound by any law that you would think normally applies here.

This could easily turn into a tirade on my part so I'll just leave everyone with this:

If PayPal can do this to one person, they can do it to everyone. Just google PayPal sucks and see how many testimonials on other websites there are about their behaviour.

They took OP's $300 and "froze" it for 6 months. How much money in interest do you think they are making per quarter with all these "frozen accounts" ? because you know damn well they sure are not frozen ON THEIR END.

That is called THEFT and FRAUD but it's also CONVENIENT to just enough people that the whole things just gets swept under a rug.

We can all look forward to this kind of abusive behaviour on a global/massive scale should we be dumb enough to ever allow any form of electronic currency to become the standard main form of consumer payment... it's already happening now...
My advice is to use cash or other hard forms of payment whenever and wherever possible. Don't let this kind of thing gain any more traction.

If you choose not to because it's just too darn inconvenient to do otherwise - don't complain later when you get bent over like this guy did.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho

It means if they do not do as they are told, the employees and their supervisors face jail time for impeding an investigation, PayPal risks having their assets frozen or outright seized, and they also face the risk of being unable to operate in the country that is directing them.

Lying? No. Withholding information? Likely. With reason? DEFINITELY.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 



I SELECTED THE MINIMUM AMOUNT BECAUSE I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT MY ANNUAL INCOME IS NONE OF PAYPAL'S CONCERN!!


Which means you do believe it is of their concern.

Seriously, you went off-script. If you're supposed to check a box and you do something else, someone has to handle it "specially". Given the twits doing the work are (a) underpaid and (b) not native English speakers, nothing good can come from that.

Don't confuse the nitwits, don't do anything causing them to have to pull your stuff out to be addressed in a unique way, check the highest box and move on. Or, make your point to "show them" and deal with the consequences. There's the way things should be, and the way things are. You can bang your head against that wall if you want, but it'll cost ya. Pick your battles, and do it in a way where you minimize your risk exposure, which isn't when you have funds floating around somewhere out of your direct control. Lesson learned.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I actually went back and edited my initial post to you I guess at the same time you were posting this one. I will restate what I said there because we clearly have reached different determinations.

Because Paypal is demanding a subpoena, this is not evidence that government is calling the shots, this is evidence of stonewalling, and that is all. If government was calling the shots and that was all, then this is all Paypal had to say about it and that would be that. That was not that, however.

Further, I made the point that Western Union makes no such demands for wire transfers. Anyone can have money wired to them via Western Union (the link I provided is for Australia) without any identification. All that is needed is a password and money verification number.

Paypal is using legislation to extort people. This will bite them in the ass sooner or later.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 





That is true but our IRS has demanded all these entities that do business here to bow to their wishes under threat and they sure as hell have! Red has a point and I believe somehow PayPal has found a way to profit from it!


The IRS can do no such thing lawfully and it is an urban legend that the IRS acts unlawfully. They act in accordance with the law and if that means that ignoramuses fall prey to their legal chicanery then so be it. The provision you are presumably referring to, regarding the IRS and banks is 31 CFR 103.34(a)(1). Here is, in part, what that provision states:


...a bank shall, within 30 days from the date such a transaction occurs or an account is opened, secure and maintain a record of the taxpayer identification number of the customer involved; or where the account or certificate is in the names of two or more persons, the bank shall secure the taxpayer identification number of a person having a financial interest in the certificate or account. In the event that a bank has been unable to secure, within the 30-day period specified, the required identification, it shall nevertheless not be deemed to be in violation of this section if (i) it has made a reasonable effort to secure such identification, and (ii) it maintains a list containing the names, addresses, and account numbers of those persons from whom it has been unable to secure such identification, and makes the names, addresses, and account numbers of those persons available to the Secretary as directed by him.


In other words, the bank is required to request you surrender your "taxpayer identification number", which is a Social Security Number, but you are under no obligation to surrender this information to the bank and the bank has no lawful authority to refuse service for this reason. If they did, they would be necessarily assessing your liability as a "taxpayer" and banks have no lawful authority to do so.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Actually, Western Union will freeze funds if directed to do so by authorities. The difference is that it is both difficult to get the paperwork ready for the freeze before the money is transferred, and there is no way (usually, unless the sender is stupid) to verify why the money is being wired. With PayPal, their buyer protection logs the item being sold, the description, and the amount being transferred.

All financial records, at least in the US, are available to Federal authorities for review. With electronic funds transfer, funds can be transferred across the globe in seconds... but they are actually transferred in days to allow for review of records. Western Union, because they make the transfers intra-company, do not have this waiting period for potential review.

As to the subpoena, it would require a subpoena in order for PayPal to be allowed to divulge any details of the investigation. At that point, it is still unlikely the details would be released to anyone except the court, but they could be released. Without a subpoena, PayPal is legally prohibited from saying or releasing anything.

The people who answer the phone probably have no idea what is actually happening; in all likelihood, there is a message on their screen to the effect of "Federal investigation. No explanations to customer allowed." Only the corporate managers would be directly involved, and I don't think any of them are that stupid. Greedy, merciless, Godless thieves, maybe, but not stupid.

I'm not saying this is fact; it is my reasoned conclusion. But the facts of the case do indicate that something is seriously amiss. Without legal recourse in the form of a higher authority, PayPal could stand to lose an awful lot if a subpoena were to be issued over this, so why suggest it? I realize very few would take a $300 case that far, but why tempt fate?

I stand by my conclusion: either there is a high-level investigation occurring or PayPal is committing corporate suicide.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


If Western Union freezes funds because they were directed to do so by some governing agency, then Western Union will state this and not play the games Paypal has been playing. Paypal is not, in anyway, "legally" required to withhold information as to precisely why an account has been frozen. Paypal would not be the first company to "commit corporate suicide". Arrogance runs rampant with these legally chartered entities.

People, regardless of where they live, have rights. Since Paypal is a company chartered in the United States, this means that whoever they screw over, regardless of where they live, have the right to a redress of grievances. This is an unalienable right, not a "civil right". Paypal is not counting on legality here, they are counting on ignorance of the law.









edit on 16-5-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by HIWATT
They took OP's $300 and "froze" it for 6 months. How much money in interest do you think they are making per quarter with all these "frozen accounts" ? because you know damn well they sure are not frozen ON THEIR END.


About $1.00 to $1.50.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
I had my account locked over a year ago for refusing to name the suppliers of my merchandise,paypal and ebay make such huge profits yet offer the worst customer service i've ever experienced.I have no idea how they can get away it,they both make me sick.
edit on 16-5-2012 by gibbajabba because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


It has all ready been established that Paypal holds 30% of all vendor transactions for 90 days. Paypal reports a revenue of 4.4 billion a year. Let us, however, simply assume that 30% of all vendor transactions amounts to $1 million, which is a conservative estimate. If Paypal is only using this money to accrue interest from their bank account and all they've managed to negotiate is a 4% interest compounded monthly, then this is what they would be making:

One Day – $109.59

One Month – $3,333.33

90 Days -- $9,999,99

That is a far cry from $1 to $1.50





top topics
 
89
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join