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

They have never been a problem for me - been using them for a long time - but recently my husband sold some stuff and they HELD his money for about a month - even after he got positive feedback, they held his money.

I didn't see them give him any interest on it either. :/

I think Amazon is the wave of the future. EBay's screwing up left and right.

My friends were telling me they had to do a 'consultation' with them and were basically told that if they did not have a 14 day total refund/no questions asked policy, their items would never get any exposure. They try to act like employers.

I've never had any issues with PayPal myself (I only use it to pay for small items and have never had anyone else pay into my account) but this isn't the first story I've heard regarding their questionable practises. Have a look at this:

PayPal does it again

I hope you get it sorted out pronto.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

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.

And the headlines the next day will show the arrests made at Western Union and report how many billions of dollars worth of assets have been seized... and that Western Union will be closed indefinitely.

Not likely.

Every time anyone deals with any form of financial or governmental agency, they are being watched. If you apply to renew a drivers license outstanding warrants, one duty of the Examiner is to hold you until the police arrive... not physically, but by stalling. They cannot tell you they are stalling; they cannot tell you there is an issue.They can tell you the computer is slow (an outright lie) or that there is a paperwork back-up (another outright lie) or anything else that will keep you standing there until the police arrive.

That is the reality of the times we live in.

As for the IRS, are you aware that any 'court' proceedings involving the IRS are not handled by the Judicial Branch? They are, by law, tried in an Executive Branch department called, conveniently, the "Tax Court". Cases are prohibited from being appealed to the Judicial Branch. You cannot sue the IRS before a US district court.

That is the reality of the times we live in.

During an official investigation, a citizen may be directed to lie. Refusal to lie will result in that citizen being prosecuted for impeding the investigation. And yes, the charge will stick.

That is the reality of the times we live in.

I completely agree with you on how things 'should' be... but I also am aware of how things are. Those inalienable rights we were all granted by our creator are disappearing, replaced by entitlements which can be removed by the stroke of a pen. And it is all 'legal', all accepted by society, all approved by those we supposedly elected to protect our rights.

Again, welcome to the 21st century.

TheRedneck

I have to use Paypal for my business. I hate it and I hate them. Given I have never had a problem but a customer can burn you for months if they so choose.

PayPal/Ebay Double dipping money grubbing scum suckers. I refuse to use EBAY at all.

OP, if you look again at the form you show us in the original post, you actually AGREE that it IS paypals business to know your income. By the use of very poor grammar you have shot yourself in the foot i think.

Lying on the form was not good.

Selling silver overseas might be a problem in the country it is going to.

Silver is a commodity. A precious metal.

Ivory can't be transported across state lines in the US. I don't think you can even bring it into the country....but I'd have to research that.

You can track bank transactions. It is hard to track commondities if they are used for purchasing power.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
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

I interpreted the question to be how much interest PayPal earned from the single $300 transaction. Interest rates are very low at this time, and six month's worth of interest on $300 is about $1.00-$1.50.

I don't care for PayPal or eBay either. I cancelled my eBay account and let the PatPal account flounder with an out-of-date credit card. There are some good deals on eBay, no question, but the hassle of doing business with either outweighs the savings.

Wow this is just horrible,

The longer Paypal has your money in their account the more money they make on the interest from your cash.

I have heard many horror stories of Paypal tho I have never had that experienced with them, but my transactions are just a few dollars here and there.

You should try submitting a complaint to the Better Business Bureau, they have resolved issues for me before with other online businesses.

Also try asking the person that bought the item of you to contact Paypal to tell them it was a legal transaction

I can see where Paypal is coming from though, many people abuse their service for credit card and other types of fraud.
But I cant see how lying about how much money you make would cause this.

Also you can find more PayPal horror stories at PayPalSucks.com

reply to post by TheRedneck

And the headlines the next day will show the arrests made at Western Union and report how many billions of dollars worth of assets have been seized... and that Western Union will be closed indefinitely.

This is no where near the truth and is just you reifying, nothing more. If you had any evidence to support this wild claim, one could reasonably assume you would have offered that evidence up, instead you just make a wild claim, nothing more.

If Western Union freezes your money, and were directed to do so by government, there is nothing at all unlawful about simply saying this is the reason the money has been frozen. Governments can try, or suggest Western Union not divulge the reason, but if that government were to do what you so wildly claimed they'd have their asses handed to them in a court of law. Dear Lord! Governments seizing assets and closing down a company indefinitely simply because they told the truth? What world do you live in?

That is the reality of the times we live in.

Oh, I see. This world. Okay. Here's the deal, many like you like to pretend that somehow law was mystically and magically overturned because suddenly "the world we live in" just got too "dangerous" to actually abide by law anymore, but this is only the times we live in for the poor ignorant saps who buy into your sycophantic praise of tyranny.

Western Union was not deputized into the super secret spy world of government because "this is the reality of the times we live in" and law was not overturned. Certainly in the United States, Congress cannot just willy nilly shrug their collective shoulders as smugly as you are doing now and declare: "Oh well, that law that gave us authority to exist to begin with no longer counts because...well, it is "the reality of the world we live in". Lord knows Congresspeople attempt to claim this, and perhaps you don't pay much attention to the many acts of legislation and other unlawful acts the executive branch have engaged in that have been declared unlawful by the Supreme Court.

The law remains the law and your wild ass claim is just your little fantasy of "the reality of the world we live in".

As for the IRS, are you aware that any 'court' proceedings involving the IRS are not handled by the Judicial Branch? They are, by law, tried in an Executive Branch department called, conveniently, the "Tax Court".

Wesley Snipes was not convicted in a "tax court" and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Cases are prohibited from being appealed to the Judicial Branch. You cannot sue the IRS before a US district court.

First of all, I don't know why you brought up suing the IRS, because I certainly never did, however, any IRS agent or any other tax collector who acts unlawfully, acting under color of law, simulating legal process, and generally misapplying the law can not only be sued, but can be also tried for criminal charges. Your imaginary government official that can act with impunity is non existent, and only the ignorant buy into your claims.

That is the reality of the times we live in.

That's right, sport. Keep repeating the propaganda loud enough and long enough, I'm sure some people will believe it.

During an official investigation, a citizen may be directed to lie. Refusal to lie will result in that citizen being prosecuted for impeding the investigation. And yes, the charge will stick.

That right there is a lie. Here is the difference between your lie and the "lie" you claim a "citizen" can be directed to tell. You have the right to lie in this site without fear of repercussion. If an "official" directs someone - a private person - to lie and that private person refuses to do so the prosecution can attempt to claim obstruction of justice, but it will not stick. In fact, if a prosecutor actually pushes this, and once the judge wisely dismisses it, that dismissal becomes prima facie evidence as to the prosecutor and whichever "investigator" who made the accusation to begin with criminality, and the private person falsely accused of obstruction of justice simply because he refused to lie has the lawful authority to file a verified complaint and have those thugs prosecuted, and no judge can dismiss that!

Again, welcome to the 21st century.

No, you clearly do not agree with me, and I never presented this as "how things should be", I presented facts of law. You, on the other hand, have resorted to repeated propaganda, as if it were your personal mantra.

Welcome to the law.

They did it to me, but because I received too much money, even with the 100% positive feedback I was receiving on Ebay. They froze £960 for nearly 6 months (dunno where the 45 days in the picture came from).

They did let me withdraw the money after 6 months, but my account is limited until I supply them similar info to what they wanted from you. I just stopped using their service, after sending them a scan of the crack of my arse.

Nosey buggers is what they are, and rip off merchants.

Originally posted by tauristercus

Did you actually write this on the form before sending it?

If so then thats why your money got frozen.
If you draw attention to yourself then attention is what you will get

reply to post by Kr0nZ

Did you actually write this on the form before sending it? If so then thats why your money got frozen. If you draw attention to yourself then attention is what you will get

It would have been more prudent for the O.P. to simply leave that portion blank. Either way it would have drawn attention so your point is largely moot. In terms of the legality, that form is part of a contract, and under the law of contracts those making the contract have the right to amend or alter the initial contract to something more amenable, or to their liking. This is what the O.P. did. Paypal then activated the account long enough for a transaction to be made. Under the law of contracts this means Paypal accepted the O.P.'s terms on that contract, and breached it - assuming they froze the account for this reason - once they froze the account, and particularly after a transaction was made.

reply to post by tauristercus


Sorry to read of your bad experience, tauristercus. I learned a while ago to lie selectively, with Internet requests for personal info like this, when buying or selling, or any other transaction, for that matter.

reply to post by tauristercus


I've been doing business through PayPal for 7 or so years, and never had a problem.

What you fail to understand is that PayPal has a huge potential to launder money. PayPal is required to gather information from you because if you are selling as a BUSINESS you SHOULD BE PAYING TAXES.

When you refused to answer their questions honestly they tagged your account for possible fraud. Your attempts at subversion got you into this mess. PayPal is a good company and does provide a valuable service to honest sellers and buyers.. By being dishonest you screwed yourself.

I can't say I feel bad for you. You wanted to use a service and refused to abide by their rules.. You also LIED on a document that is available for federal agencies to review.

Next time, think before you act. Lying will always come back to bite you in the ass.

And to the poster above me, read PayPal's terms of use - they acted within their contractual rights that the OP agreed to when he opened an account.

And to PayPal, thanks for helping me make a few extra hundred bucks each month. I still think you're a great thing, don't listen to these noobs.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


Which department of Paypal do you work in again?

As someone has previously mentioned, Paypal is now owned by Ebay, yet they still charge twice for their services.

Paypal is not a good company, but sadly, if you want to use Ebay it seems you have very few choices to make payments.

reply to post by TinkerHaus

PayPal is required to gather information from you because if you are selling as a BUSINESS you SHOULD BE PAYING TAXES.

Paypal is not a tax collection agency, has no lawful authority to assess any persons liability, let alone assume that tax evasion is going on, and frankly, you don't have this lawful authority to assess the O.P.'s tax liability, let alone tax fraud is happening, either.

When you refused to answer their questions honestly they tagged your account for possible fraud. Your attempts at subversion got you into this mess. PayPal is a good company and does provide a valuable service to honest sellers and buyers.. By being dishonest you screwed yourself.

The marking of the $6,000 or less, as annual income notwithstanding, the O.P. did answer honestly and so much so the O.P. clarified that marking with a "none of your business" clarification. That claim was not in anyway dishonest, and far more honest than the claims your are making now.

I have all ready linked a Wikipedia article on Paypal that lists some of the many criticisms regarding Paypal. Here is another site speaking to those criticisms:

PayPal handles 200,000 transactions per day. The vast majority of transctions flow through the system instantly. Only 1% of those indicate some problem. But 1% of 200,000 is 2,000 transactions per day that PayPal flags for some reason, and potentially 2,000 unhappy sellers or buyers.

This site actually attempts to be "fair and balanced" given Paypal some benefit of the doubt, but even then cannot help but report:

Recently, PayPal has been sued for not thawing frozen PayPal accounts. (See Lisa Napoli, "PayPal sued over frozen funds," MSNBC, February 21, 2002. www.msnbc.com...) I ask Vince Sollitto about the cases. "We feel they are completely without merit," he replies. Time will tell.

In PayPal's defense, however, Sollitto notes that many novice merchants are coming at PayPal accounts with a "consumer mindset" rather than a "merchant mindset." Experienced Internet merchants know that the alternative to PayPal's seemingly arbitrary actions are merchant credit card processors that are more expensive and no less arbitrary. I've had to deal with that first-hand.

No less expensive and no less arbitrary than credit card companies? If that is their best defense, Paypal is screwed in court.

I can't say I feel bad for you. You wanted to use a service and refused to abide by their rules.. You also LIED on a document that is available for federal agencies to review.

This is the second time you've called the O.P. a liar in spite of evidence to the contrary. Declaring an annual income is not any of Paypals business does not make the O.P. a liar. Further, Paypal activated the O.P.'s account after this amendment to the contract made. This makes Paypal in breach of contract, not the O.P.

Learn the law of contracts before you go lecturing people on terms of a contract. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and while anecdotal evidence may be quaint, it is just that anecdotal, nothing more.

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

Which department of Paypal do you work in again?

As someone has previously mentioned, Paypal is now owned by Ebay, yet they still charge twice for their services.

Paypal is not a good company, but sadly, if you want to use Ebay it seems you have very few choices to make payments.

I don't work for PayPal, lol.

eBay has owned PayPal for a loooong time. They aren't charging twice, really. Do you know how much money bank transfers cost?

PayPal is also a great way to transfer money to friends and family who are in a crunch. You guys need to learn about the service before you complain about it. Running a business isn't cheap, and running a publicly traded business has an emphasis on profits.

PayPal's terms of use and consequences for not following policies are clearly outlined. Before you put your money somewhere you should research what you are doing. Any loss of money due to failure to research policy and procedure is on the shoulders of the individual, and not PayPal.

I love ATS... "YOU SPEAK THE TRUTH IN FAVOR OF THAT WHICH I DISAGREE WITH! YOU ARE A PAID SHILL!

lol, hilarious.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Refer to IRS code 6050W and get back to me.

kthx.

reply to post by TinkerHaus

PayPal's terms of use and consequences for not following policies are clearly outlined. Before you put your money somewhere you should research what you are doing. Any loss of money due to failure to research policy and procedure is on the shoulders of the individual, and not PayPal.

Your attempt at framing the contract Paypal makes with its clients as being something similar to the terms and conditions of joining an internet site are, at best misguided, at worst fraudulent. Paypal should not have activated the O.P.'s account if the reason for freezing the money was due to how he answered on that contract. It was a contract, in a court of law it will be viewed as a contract, and Paypal activating the O.P.'s account after this amendment was made to that contract indicates Paypal accepted that term. This is why Paypal is refusing to state why the account was frozen, not because of some super secret spy program initiated by government as The Redneck would have people believe, but because if they admit to freezing the account because of what you are claiming, this will screw them in court.

Like any other financial organization, you need to provide credit information to use the service.

Of course, if you refuse to disclose credit info, financial organization reserve the right to refuse you service.

They probably shouldn't have frozen the funds, they should have just notified you that the funds needed to be xferred back to whatever service u used to deposit them.