quote:
---------------------------------------------
Person 1 is a resident in the USA and has an account on the internet where he/she can receive payments from people for auction items. Person 2 would like to use this service to help sell his auction items and increase his business, but he is not allowed because he resides outside the USA. So person 2 asks person 1 if he will accept payments from person 2's buyers and then send the money to him via Western Union. Person 1 believes person 2 is sending his buyers the merchandise (person 2 has given evidence of this), so agrees to do this service for a fee of 7% of person 2's sales.
Question: If person 1 has no reason to distrust person 2 and fully believes he is just helping person 2 out with his business, is it illegal on person 1's part to accept money from people on the internet and then turn around and send that money to person 2 outside the USA via Western Union?
---------------------------------------------
and then
quote:
---------------------------------------------
Yes, from the information he sent me, he was shipping to the US....a camera, DVD, softt (whatever that is). I just sent emails to some of the people on his list to verify them (not that that will really prove anything, but who knows.) He gave me their names and addresses too. Don't you think verifying these buyers is something that PayPal investigator should be doing?
He simply does not understand what is going on....at least that is what it appears from his emails. If this man is a fraud, he is a really good one!
---------------------------------------------
That doesn't sound like someone who was trying to create cash advances.
If her account had not been 'verified', then the amounts in question would not have been possible, and PayPal would not have access to her account. Consider that PayPal, under the new rules, will not allow transactions beyond $250 without verification, giving them access to your account.
Explain please. There is a spending limit if you're not verified.. but I wasn't aware of any "receiving money" limits that aren't imposed until 10/16/00. Could you please pull this up for me, as I can't seem to find it and have been verified for quite awhile and would have ignored it if I had seen it.
posted on October 6, 2000 07:14:10 AM
"is it illegal on person 1's part to accept money from people on the internet and then turn around and send that money to person 2 outside the USA via Western Union? "
NO, but Person ONE and their account is 100% responsible for the actions of a person in a foreign country, whom person one has never met, and over whom person one has no control or even legal clout.
Should person two be running a fraud, person ONE takes the fall, and will possible end up liable for all the money that was naively sent to person two.
posted on October 6, 2000 07:14:27 AM
OK, they are not withdrawing funds from the account, they are "reversing" previous deposits.
So, I guess Paypal does reserve the right to "reverse" all deposits they have ever made into my account. What they actually mean by saying that they will never withdraw funds from your account is that they will never remove more funds than the aggregate total of all deposits they have ever made into your account. But up to that point, it is totally at their discretion and would not be consider a withdrawl, but a "reversal."
So, if they SUSPECT that I am involved in illegal activity, the can "reverse" all of their deposits into my account, and I then have to PROVE that I am innoncent.
And this is acceptable?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All rights reserved. All wrongs reversed.
posted on October 6, 2000 07:14:50 AM
Toyranch, I read it this morning before I posted on this thread.
However, even if she is an unknowning participant, she is still a participant in something potentially fraudulent. It does not matter if she knew about it or not.. all that matters is that she is involved in it.
posted on October 6, 2000 07:21:19 AM
I would think, that if your account is not verified, then they can still reverse a deposit.. as they have a trail of where the deposit, in question, was made to. Verification is a mute point for something like that...all they have to do is follow the trail.
posted on October 6, 2000 07:27:02 AM
amalgamated2000, I think that's blowing it out of proportion a little bit. I think they would only reverse the portion of deposits that they suspect would be coming from any illegal activity.
That's the problem with the other thread. We do not have the percentages of how much money is from her own sales, vs , what was put into that account from this specific business dealing.
If her sales equaled only $200 and the rest, $2800 is from this romanian transaction stuff.......... then yes, they're going to hang onto all of it and say that a major portion of her dealings are illegal and thus everything is suspect.
However, if 2800 was legit.. and we're only talking about 200 in sales from Romania... then there's something screwy going on. But somehow, I don't think that's the case.
I agree with that. She MAY have been involved in something fraudulent. She hasn't even been told by PayPal or anyone else what she supposedly did. And apparently her account was previously frozen and investigated, and then released. She was never told THEN what it was all about either.
But the issue here is not the woman or what she did, it is PayPal. Her story, while intriguing, has no effect on any of us. It's just an interesting story.
PayPal's handling of it has an effect on anyone who does business with PayPal. When you accept a payment from a customer through PayPal, you have no way to know that the credit card they use is legit. You don't even know what credit card they DO use.
If you make a sale through PayPal and the credit card turns up bad, your entire account will be frozen. Apparently, if they have already deposited funds into your bank account, without warning they will 'reverse' the deposit back out of your bank account.
They said they won't withdraw money, but apparently they will use a different term for a withdrawal and call it a 'reversal'.
Somehow this point keeps getting lost in the rest of it. The rest of it is interesting, but this point is what is of concern to anyone who uses PayPal and has believed that they won't ever go into your bank account and take money out of it.
posted on October 6, 2000 07:44:46 AM
It seems to me it depends on who is calling the withdrawal 'a reversal'.
Is it just PayPal, or is the bank handling the account. Did PayPal need that 'permission' that they keep pushing for to do that month later 'reversal'?
If so, it sounds like being verified does not protect the consumer - it leaves him or her at the mercy of whatever PayPal decides.
Sounds like it's time to call in a lawyer and find out what the legalities are here. What does Federal law allow an entity to do in it's own protection when it comes to electronic fund transfer?
Whether this lady was right or wrong, did PayPal overstep those bounds in reclaiming it's funds?
posted on October 6, 2000 07:48:23 AM
OOPs, turned off my email notification.
Toyranch, I agree with parts of your post, however with I disagree with, is when you say:
But the issue here is not the woman or what she did, it is PayPal.
The issue is what she did or may have done, even if unknowningly. The issue is that her account was frozen approximately 1 month ago. Did she push to find out exactly why it was frozen? Does PP even disclose that information when pushed? If my account were frozen, you can bet that I'm going to find out exactly why it was frozen and I did not have access to my funds.
The issue is that she continued in doing whatever she was doing (no matter if she did mention it to a customer service rep a month ago). The issue is that she did not read PP's TOS. The issue is that she did not read much of PP's site, otherwise she would have seen this:
3) do not ship internationally until X.com releases international payments (coming soon) and a list of approved countries.
While not incredibly thrilling .. that would raise a red flag for someone who sending $ to Romania.. And since she had stated in the other thread, that she wasn't aware of approved countries. If she had read that, she might have questioned what an "approved country" was and why.
All of this IS the issue. The entire story IS the issue.
The actions that PP took is simply part of the story, but it's not the whole story....... unless that's all you're looking for.
edited because I'm having a serious UBB dead day.
[ edited by rosiebud on Oct 6, 2000 07:49 AM ]
posted on October 6, 2000 07:49:51 AMI think they would only reverse the portion of deposits that they suspect would be coming from any illegal activity.
Actually, I believe that it is (or was) Paypal's policy to freeze the entire Paypal account of anyone suspected of being involved of illegal activity, regardless of the amount in the account and the amount of the suspect transaction. I don't see any reason to believe they would handle a situation like this any differently.
If Paypal can reverse deposits at any time, their assurance that they will NEVER withdraw money from your account is absolutely meaningless.
If you wake up in the morning and your bank account is wiped out because you are SUSPECTED of breaking the rules, will you be comforted by the fact that it was a "reversal" and not a withdrawl?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All rights reserved. All wrongs reversed.
[ edited by amalgamated2000 on Oct 6, 2000 07:51 AM ]
posted on October 6, 2000 08:02:18 AM
So, if someone posts any message that can be used to discredit a company you oppose it becomes fact. At least as far as the title of this thread states it would seem so. Excellent work ToyRanch you've played this message board like a fiddle.
The woman says she asked why her account was frozen a month ago and nobody would tell her. She posted a thread about it in that forum a month ago, and never got an answer from PayPal, according to her.
Yes, the story is the story, but my point is that I don't think a replication of all the events in this case would be necessary for PayPal to 'reverse' money out of another account.
This thing about shipping to another country keeps coming up, but the only 'shipping' that supposedly went on was FROM Romania to other countries, or the US. The only thing she 'shipped' to another country was money via Western Union.
It's been suggested in this thread that she knowingly committed a criminal act.
Criminals don't usually call the FBI on themselves.
They don't usually call the Attorney General on themselves.
And they don't usually detail their activity on a public forum.
posted on October 6, 2000 08:12:09 AM
amalgamated2000,
[i]If you wake up in the morning and your bank account is wiped out because you are SUSPECTED of breaking the rules, will you be
comforted by the fact that it was a reversal" and not a withdrawl?[/i]
Nope, I'll be comforted by the fact that I'm verified and:
Beginning August 23, 2000, X.com agrees to indemnify sellers for charge back liability resulting from buyer's fraudulent use of a stolen credit card and/or false claims of non-shipment of goods for purchases made through the Service for up to $5,000 per year when the following conditions are met...
edited to add: having a very bad UBB day.. and to say.
I'm also protected because I'm not about to commit a fraudulent act..
[ edited by rosiebud on Oct 6, 2000 08:34 AM ]
quote:
---------------------------------------------
posted on October 6, 2000 04:42:20 AM edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to a thread over on OTWA in the PP forum, that can be dangerous business. PP apparently removed $1000 from a user's account without any authorization
---------------------------------------------
posted on October 6, 2000 08:19:07 AM
Oh yes.. we agree never to reposess your car or your money, even if you lied, cheated and stole it from us or were engaged in an illegal scheme to obtain it or paid for it with stolen money.
posted on October 6, 2000 08:22:59 AM
I think that some of you folks are overgeneralizing a bit here. Unless you are engaged in fraudulent activity you have nothing to worry about. This woman was extremely foolish to do what she did! I do not understand how anyone could be that stupid!
Again, PayPal has only said they have the right to reversal in this instance:
"No Cash Advances. You agree not to engage in behavior that could reasonably be construed as providing yourself a cash advance from your credit card, and agree not to assist users who engage in behavior that could reasonably be construed as providing themselves a cash advance from their credit cards. Such behavior includes, but is not limited to, a User paying someone by charging a credit card, then receiving the funds back from the original Recipient and attempting to withdraw the funds from an account. X.com reserves the right to reverse all such transactions and to terminate any accounts that are associated with such behavior."
As Rosie pointed out, if you are a Verified Seller, you are protected against chargebacks due to fraudulent use of credit cards by the buyer.
Please find the thread that she posted in over a month ago, or at least let me know the handle, because according to the records, she registered the same day she started the thread on "PayPal Freezing Account" which is 9/26/00.
I don't believe that I ever said she knowningly committed a fraudulent act.. if I did indicate such, that was not my intention. However, I have indicated that I believe she is involved in a fraudulent act, being the middle man so to speak. Even if she has gone to the FBI, etc, that does not negate the fact that she was involved in it.
About the shipping to romania.. yes, she did not ship anything. (including any of the property that was bought/sold/etc.. she never saw or touched the merchandise). But the issue is, there's a large amount of FRAUD from these countries. That's why there's the warning about them. Maybe my mind is more willing to put 2+2=4 than other people's.. idunno.. but I would have said "hmmm, maybe there's a chance that my dealings with this guy from Romania isn't such a good idea, since sites such as PP are saying I shouldn't accept credit card payments from them.. because of the large percentage of fraudulent CC dealings". Idunno, it makes perfect sense to me, or at least it sends up a red flag, inwhich I would have investigated more.
Look, I'm not a PP cheerleader. I'm saying that you have to take into account the entire story, not just bits and peices of it. You can't pick and choose what facts you want to present when there's alot more involoved, especially in something such as this.
The fact is that she did something incredibly stupid. In my opinion, everyone falls for some scam, at least one time in their life. It's too bad it happened, but I'm not going to cry about it, because I have to assume that the people who are making such deals are concenting adults... capable of doing research and making informed decisions. This person did neither. The fact of the matter is, until this situation is straightened out, she has no right to any of the money that is in question. It does not matter if that money is in her PP account, or anyplace else. If it was illegally obtained, it is stolen money... and it was stolen from PP.
posted on October 6, 2000 08:30:53 AM"It was certainly not presented as fact. The thread title is a TITLE and only serves to reflect the subject content of the posts within it.
ah... I think I see. Sort of like this?
-----------
The Sky is Falling!
According to another message board Mr. Chicken Little apparently had something hit him on the head out of a clear blue sky.....
-----------
Yeah, I guess you're right, the title only serves to reflect the subject content.
posted on October 6, 2000 08:35:58 AM
If it is stolen money, Paypal has a right to get it back. But that right is SECONDARY to the individual's right to due process.
And unless Paypal has proven in a court of law that the customer violated the law, I don't think the user has received due process.
If Paypal wants to reserve the right to "reverse" all transactions (and apparently they do), that's fine by me. As long as they state it clearly, I have no problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is Paypal saying that they will NEVER withdraw funds from your account without your permission. They are playing with semantics in what appears to be an intentional attempt to mislead their customers about the risks that they are taking when they "verify" their bank account.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All rights reserved. All wrongs reversed.
You are hereby appointed my official title writer so as to make sure I don't possibly mislead anyone in the writing of a title. Since I'm not a professionally trained writer and have had no formal training in headline writing, your assistance will be most appreciated.
Of course your assistance could also be used by my local newspaper as I look at a headline that reads "Chiefs dig out, bury Seahawks" I get the impression that:
1. there was some kind of excavation going on
or
2. the game was a route and the Chiefs came from behind to surge far ahead.
But when I read the story, I learn that there was no digging involved and the Chiefs came from behind to win by a touchdown.
Please contact the Austin American Statesman to correct their headlines. They can use your help also.
Send your email and I'll make sure to run all AW titles through you for approval and editing.
Just out of curiosity, did you select your AW ID uaru from the tropical fish species? I used to have a tropical fish called uaru. It was very personable and almost affectionate. It would come to be pet and eat from my hand.
Edited to add....
Rosiebud~ Sorry I wasn't clear. The part of my previous post about accusations of known criminality was not directed at you, but at those who made the accusations.
posted on October 6, 2000 08:51:40 AM
amalgamated2000, if you really want to get technical .. let's look at this a different way.
Those funds were deposited into a bank. I am assuming that the bank is FDIC insured. If those funds were withdrawn through 'illegally' (for lack of a better word for whatever y'all think PP did) than her gripe is also with her bank.. as they can NOT do that, because they have to take reasonable care to protect her funds.
I can only assume, that there is something in the eletronic transfer that allows for a company/institution to reverse the deposit of said funds... that does not go against FDIC. It does not matter that PP is not FDIC insured, because her bank is and they have to abide by those regulations.
According to the fdic.gov.. her bank is FDIC insured. So that really leads me to believe that there's a clause somewhere that allows companies to instantly recover any funds which are suspected as being illegally obtained, or allows the bank to freeze those funds.
edited for correction: I rechecked and can not find a specific mention of her bank on fdic.gov. Perhaps insufficient info given to find the true bank name ..?
[ edited by rosiebud on Oct 6, 2000 10:36 AM ]
posted on October 6, 2000 08:55:29 AM
Suppose a PP user had withdrawn funds only by having checks mailed to them, could this "reversal" be done from the account the checks had been deposited into? Would PP account verification make any difference?
Suppose the account had been closed and one new PP check deposited into a new account, is that new account subject to this "reversal" process? And if it's a new account at a different bank?
At what point does your bank have to cooperate and agree?
Is this stuff in a legal grey zone in which it might well be PP's responsibility to file a civil lawsuit to recover such funds, but are instead in effect throwing the "so sue us" back onto the user?
posted on October 6, 2000 09:02:33 AM
Also, when you authorize your employer or another entity to make direct deposits into your bank account, the authorization form that you sign usually has a clause in there that gives the entity making the deposit the right to "reverse" any transaction that was wrongly deposited into your account. Next time you sign up for direct deposit read the agreement carefully. I do not believe the bank has to protect you in this case because you have a signed agreement with a third party. (In the case of PayPal, using their service means you have agreed to their terms.)
posted on October 6, 2000 09:25:41 AM
Excuse my ignorance on this matter.
Many people here say that the person commited a criminal act. I didn't know that accepting payments for another party was illegal. I thought that it was a common practice.
What exactly is money laundering? I've never had a reason to research this topic until now.
[ edited by outoftheblue on Oct 6, 2000 09:26 AM ]
posted on October 6, 2000 09:27:07 AM
I think that you are probably right that Paypal has the legal ability to make "reversals" of deposits because we agree to it in the user agreement.
But if that is the case, why does Paypal claim that they will never withdraw money from your account without your permission?
It seems to me that claim was made in order to soothe people's fears about giving Payapal access to their accounts. It appears that those concerns may have been well-founded, and Paypal's reassurance may have been nothing more than a smoke screen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All rights reserved. All wrongs reversed.
posted on October 6, 2000 09:37:29 AM
Ok, let's see we have a woman here who decided to accept a foreigner's money and then turn that into a money order sent to him and keep a 7% fee. That is money laundering. You are trying to tell me that she did not know it was wrong.
She had never met this man from a country riddled with fraud - any kind of research would have told her that. She allowed monies to be deposited into her account, hoping he sent the items and then took her sweet 7% and sent his money without 1st verifying that the items were sent?
Come on - this has nothing to do with PayPal but all to do with fraud and money laundering. She can play naive all she wants - so do all the drivers when their pals rob banks. She is just as guilty as he is. PayPal, according to their TOS, that all users agreed upon had every right to reverse the deposit.
They did NOT take funds directly out of her account.
The best part of this story that keeps getting lost is she was warned two months ago and her account frozen then. So I guess the 7% was still worth the risk in getting caught - which she did.
I am sorry. I see that PayPal in this instance did no wrong and I have no sympathy for this woman. I think she saw what she thought was an easy way to make some money without realizing what she was getting involved in.
posted on October 6, 2000 09:45:02 AM
The woman received funds from persons she believed were customers of a person in Romania. She accepted their credit card payments in return for a 7% handling fee and forwarded the funds to the person in Romania via Western Union.
That isn't money laundering, that's what BidPay does! Accepting credit card payment on behalf of someone else and turning it into cash for them is what PayPal does!
There are several GOOD sellers with EXCELLENT feedback from Romania on ebaY. I've personally bought from one of them.
Yes, the woman did something foolish, but she claims to be a net newbie. I know others who have been propositioned to accept schemes like this and they've laughed at the idea, because it's ridiculous to anyone who is savvy about such matters. But being naive is not a crime and if doing what she did is 'money laundering' then PayPal and BidPay are guilty of the same crime.
