posted on October 6, 2000 09:46:45 AM
God freakin' help us. Pick, pick ,pick, pick. Of all the controversy surrounding this situation, some people have focused on a minor nit and keep pounding at it. People have come through with the policy that says it can be done. Yet, they blow right by it and keep pounding. Get a life and move on. The individual knew exactly what was going on unless they had experienced some severe head trauma early in life. The funds were effectively confiscated before they could abscond with it. Besides, ignorance of the law is no excuse otherwise....
John Chapman: Murder is illegal??? Why didn't someone tell me before I killed him???
And did PayPal take the money or is it being kept as evidence? And all the transactions?
posted on October 6, 2000 09:47:55 AM"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."
If you've got a merchant account, or any online pay service for domestic use only, and someone from Russia or Indonesia (Romania in her case) asks you to accept credit card payments on their behalf and send them money orders minus a fee for your troubles would you do it?
Would you expect the company you ran these credit cards through to say "oh... nevermind" when it comes time to pay the piper?
While I feel the woman, I can't image how anyone would be that naive (I'm being diplomatic when I call her naive). I also don't believe its right to believe any company should subsidize anyone's right to be that 'naive'.
posted on October 6, 2000 09:51:18 AM
I'm not sure about all the legal and possible illegal implications going on in this "case", but this person is obviously in the dark, so to speak, and that is not a good place to be. It serves to point out that PP needs some sort of "procedure" which it follows when investigating possible "fraud" activety which at least advises the user, why their account has been "frozen". Apparantly they do not have one. If you read the thread, she had gone to that board to post because she had gotten absolutely no info from PP DESPITE her many attempts to find out what was going on.
She has been very open with the "facts" at least as she understands them, and that is another problem. She has been left to "second guess" or "suppose" what the problem is.
When her account was frozen the 1st time, she DID talk to a CS rep and was asked IF anyone else had access to her account. She states, she AT THAT TIME told them about this person she was collecting money for. She claims, she even ask if this was OK and the rep said he saw nothing wrong with it. Then her account was "released" a few days later, SO SHE ASSUMED everything was OK and that what she was doing was OK. Under THOSE circumstances, I probably would assume the same thing.
Then when her account was frozen again, she attempted to find out why and got absolutely nowhere! This is wrong! PP should have told her WHY her account was frozen. EVEN IRS tells you WHY if they freeze your account!!!!
She was left to try and figure it out on her own. She was so sure she had not done anything wrong, that in her original/early post, she stated she wasn't really concerned about the outcome, just the fact that her MONEY had been unavailable FOR SO LONG and she had not been able to speak to anyone who might know something about the case in over 5 WEEKS!!!!
When she finally DID get to talk to a PP "investigator", and this did not happen UNTIL AFTER she had posted on a public forum and had been pointed to DAMON, she was told nothing specific. Was it stolen credit cards? Was it defrauding buyers? Had there been a complaint? Exactly what caused them to freeze the account???? Did they need anything from the account holder, like certain information???? She was told NOTHING that explained why!
One deposit she had requested had been STOPPED before it reached her bank. Apparantly another one that HAD ALREADY BEEN DEPOSITED IN HER BANK was "reversed".
When the verification process started out, I pointed out to Damon, that all that really was doing was establishing I had a bank account. Nothing more or less. So just how was that going to cut down on fraud? I even indicated that I believed it was probably more to "protect PP" (in case they needed to recapture money they had paid out that was later charged back by a customer) then it was to "prevent fraud". I WAS TOLD BY DAMON "NO, NO, NO!!!" OK, now we have an example (and there is another thread HERE about $4.60 being "withdrawn" apparantly without prior notice or permission).
So I feel the real issues HERE are:
1. Why aren't the account holders informed as to why the account is frozen and given an opportunity to present facts/information that might actually speed up the investigation? At the very least, they should be assigned an investigator whom they can contact.
2. Under what conditions will PP "reverse" payments FROM YOUR BANK ACCOUNT with OR without prior permission? Shouldn't that be clearly outlined in the TOU?
posted on October 6, 2000 09:51:48 AM
To my knowledge when you give an entity permission to transfer funds to your account you are also giving it tacit permission to withdraw funds from your account as well. Access is access. The fact that PayPal states that it would never withdraw funds from an account without express permission doesn't mean that it can't.
If the TOS state that you are giving PayPal permission to "reverse" transactions then you are giving PayPal express permission to withdraw funds it suspects to be fraudulent. As far as I can tell it doesn't state a limit on the number of transactions so in theory it looks like it could "reverse" any and all transactions made to an account. I didn't find anything in the TOS that state that the owner of the account has any recourse or if PayPal is required to give notification of its actions before it "reverses" transactions. So it seems to me that Paypal can, at will, "reverse" transactions.
I have a few automatic transfers set up with my account and I have affirmatively instructed the bank that these entities do not have my tacit permission to withdraw funds. My permission is limited to transfers into my account only. Any attempt to withdraw funds puts a lock on the request and I am notified of the attempt and asked for my expression written permission per transaction.
I don't know if all banks will do this, but I suspect that PayPal would deny verifying an account if it was expressly limited to transfers into the account only. It does have to protect itself from fraudulent activity, but it should state what it can or can't do better than "we won't withdraw funds from you account without your permission". Semantics and to me misleading.
posted on October 6, 2000 09:56:13 AM
There is a big difference between a company with the proper authority to accept such payments and this situation.
A woman without any type of agreements moving monies for someone she does not know and accepting a fee is money laundering any way you look at it.
Again, why would anyone continue along the merry way when they were warned two months ago that there was a problem here. She staked her entire on line reputation on someone in a foreign land that she had never met.
Come on - no one is buying it. She wanted the cash - naive is not the word. She knew exactly what she was doing. Being a 'net newbie' does not explain why she continued her actions after being warned fraud may be happening. Everyone agrees she was warned.
Kudos to PayPal for stopping it. They stopped a fraudulent seller and did not do what you said. You hate PayPal so much you are sticking up for fraudulent sellers?
Plus - everyone keeps saying PayPal needs to do xxx. How do you know what e-mails she did receive. You are only hearing her side. What is the position of the seller or PayPal's? Would love to hear the entire story and what truly happened. Only then should judgement be made on PayPal.
[ edited by boysmommy3 on Oct 6, 2000 10:00 AM ]
posted on October 6, 2000 09:56:15 AM
Ohhhhh, I see!
She was only doing "what BidPay" does. So she declared herself to be an independent finance company to make some money on the side...
What has become clear here is that a "withdrawal" is NOT the same thing as a "reversal". The net effect is the same to the person involved, but it looks like legitimate users have nothing to fear unless they are doing something such as the woman in this case which clearly violates PayPal's Terms of Use (not to mention the fact that it violates the basic principles of common sense!).
posted on October 6, 2000 10:07:15 AM
Just to clarify something, after doing a little bit of research:
The user in question is verified at PP... or at least under one email address.. *not sure if there's another one that they use as well or anything like that*
This leads to many questions, especially since she could have been verified when her account was frozen the first time.
Let's assume, for a moment, that there's nothing wrong with the CC#'s that she's being paid with. So she's accepting payment for items, and then sending the payment off to the seller in Romania.. minus her 7%.
Now, as a verified member, she's protected against chargebacks.. up to 5000 per year... but she has to do her part. She has to provide proof that the items have been shipped. That's part of the terms if verified users need 'protection'. She can not provide that proof, because the items are being shipped from Romania.
There's already been, at least 1 complaint.. otherwise her account would not have been frozen a month ago. Now is there a second? Or perhaps this whole thing has escalated to the point that this verified PP user is over that $5000 protection limit?
One complaint, a company, such as PP will take and probably side with you.. but a second and within such a short amount of time? Verified or not, you don't have a chance.
posted on October 6, 2000 10:13:29 AM
This is an interesting issue. PayPal does indeed explicitly state twice in their Terms Of Use that they will not withdraw funds from your account without your permission. In section I. User Responsibilities, subsection 8 Electronic Transfers we see: “X.com will never make electronic transfers from your bank account without your explicit permission.” and in section IV. Consumer Protection Policies, subsection IICharge Backs we see:”X.com will never make electronic transfers from your bank account without your explicit permission.” PayPal shows both these items in bold face to emphasize them.
However, they further state in section II. Rights and Disclaimers of X.com, subsection 2 Miscellaneous Disclaimers, item d (d) X.com shall not be obligated to pay a User for any Payments for which X.com has not been fully paid by the Sender's credit card issuer.
It appears that PayPal is guilty of having a contradictory Terms Of Use. It is patently absurd to expect PayPal to ask me my permission to withdraw/reverse a payment to my account that was deposited under fraudulent conditions. Personally I expect section II.2.d to supercede all other disclaimers about not making withdrawals from my account. But I would expect them to state this in a clearer fashion. Seems to me that in writing the TOU that the PR people were allowed to override the lawyers.
What is somewhat troubling to me is that there is no language anywhere in the TOU that deals with the issue of freezing the bank account that is linked to the PayPal account. On the one hand it makes sense that a credit card processing agency (effectively the role played by PayPal) can place a hold on an account, i.e. freeze it, that is suspected of receiving fraudulent funds. On the other hand it does go against the common expectation of being entitled to some form of due process.
I would expect, as others have suggested, that by virtue of the electronic transfer agreement PayPal does indeed have the right to freeze ones account when fraud is suspected. I for one would prefer to see limits defined for the length of a freeze and procedures defined for account owner notification and negotiation of the process. Furthermore there should be a limit to the amount of funds that could be frozen. It should never exceed the amount suspected of being fraudulently dispersed.
I think that prudence would dictate that if you intend to use PayPal (and I do) that you might wish to make certain that the bank account linked to the PayPal account doesn’t contain any funds that you might not wish them to be able to access (and mine doesn’t).
One last off the cuff thought. Why would a legitimate seller want to pay another person a 7% commission to accept PayPal related credit card payments when that seller could have used BillPoint for significantly less cost than 7%? This would certainly raise some concerns on my part.
Dr. Beetle
Edited for UBB BooBoos
[ edited by DoctorBeetle on Oct 6, 2000 10:17 AM ]
[ edited by DoctorBeetle on Oct 6, 2000 10:19 AM ]
[ edited by DoctorBeetle on Oct 6, 2000 10:20 AM ]
posted on October 6, 2000 10:17:03 AM
Ok, since no-one seems inclined to answer my questions I will forget about it. I don't plan on ever doing it in the first place.
"If the TOS state that you are giving PayPal permission to "reverse" transactions then you are giving PayPal express permission to withdraw funds it suspects to be fraudulent.
The key word in that statement is suspects. That's what worries me. Shouldn't it be that they have found to be (or have proved to be) fraudulent?
Some have said that PayPal has the right to retrieve their money. I was not aware that the money (sent between two parties through them) belonged to them.
This one case is supposedly not the only time that something like this (a chargeback or reversal) has happened.
posted on October 6, 2000 10:17:20 AM
I was really hoping this would NOT turn into a "trial" of whether or NOT this person got "what she deserved". I was hoping everyone could see that there are several very important issues concerning PP (and any OTHER 3rd party payment service)that need to be clarified.
1. Under exactly WHAT circumstance will an account be frozen?
2. When and how will the account holder be brought into the "investigation"?
3. Under what circumstances will the payment service "reverse" monies already deposited into independent financial institutions?
4. Will they give prior notice before doing any "reversals"?
There does not seem to currently be a clearly defined procedure. I think THIS needs to be corrected.
posted on October 6, 2000 10:25:07 AMoutoftheblue, if the person making the payment uses a stolen credit card and the credit card company does a charge back to PayPal then the money paid to the seller was PayPal's money.
posted on October 6, 2000 10:34:17 AM
Thanks Doc. That makes sense but I wasn't aware that this was the case (a stolen credit card was involved).
A lot of information seems to be missing from this case. Was the Romanian guilty of non-delvery? Delivery of damaged merchandise? Were the buyers working with the seller in some money laundering (what ever that means) sceme? Is this woman really as dumb as she seems?
[ edited by outoftheblue on Oct 6, 2000 10:36 AM ]
posted on October 6, 2000 10:44:16 AMoutoftheblue, I don't know that the credit card was used fraudulently but that seems to be the common assumption among the posters.
Money laundering is considered to be the process of taking illegally gained money and making it appear legal (i.e. washed). As it applies to this case (partial assumption on my part) it seems that people that were allegedly buying from the Romanian would make payments to the clueless person (that had their account frozen) with a fraudulent credit card. This illegal money would then be laundered by the clueless person by sending funds to the alleged Romanian seller in the form of Western Union money orders. Illegal money was made legal, so to speak.
I say allegeded for the buyers and the Romainian seller because there might never have been any sales to begin with. The Romanian could have simply made fraudulent payments to the clueless person who then, for a 7% cut, sent the stolen money back to Romania in the form of money orders.
Since clueless never sold anything, and therefore never shipped anything, it would appear that clueless doesn't meet the terms required to be covered by the fraud protection for verified sellers (clueless didn't sell anything).
Dr. Beetle
Edited cause I can't do UBB and can't spell either (and to take the main out of Romania).
[ edited by DoctorBeetle on Oct 6, 2000 10:45 AM ]
[ edited by DoctorBeetle on Oct 6, 2000 12:01 PM ]
posted on October 6, 2000 10:51:18 AM
Thanks sulyn1950 and Dr. Beetle for returning to the real points at hand instead of attacking the woman (now known as clueless)
Nobody even knows if there were any fraudulent transactions or any fraud whatsoever. The account was suspended and funds were reversed based on an ongoing 'investigation'. No charges have been levied as of yet.
This is the disturbing thing about it. PayPal freezes entire accounts if the mere suggestion of a problem occurs. I don't know what type of activity triggers that. Someone questioning a charge on their credit card? Or does it take more? And at what point to they let the person know what's going on with their account? 5 weeks later???
posted on October 6, 2000 10:53:28 AMoutoftheblue-It's my understanding from what I have read on the original thread, there has been no indication that a stolen credit card was involved, OR that there had NOT been a delivery of goods. That is WHAT had the poster "confused". She was not GIVEN any details as to what the "alleged fraud" was. She is beginning to wonder if it is simply the fact she DID accept payments for a 3rd party EVEN though she maintains that a PP REP told her they saw nothing wrong with it!!!!! You know sometime left hand does not know what the right is doing. Therein lies the problem. NO CLEAR CUT PROCEEDURE OR POLICY ADDRESSING THE ISSUE.
[ edited by sulyn1950 on Oct 6, 2000 10:56 AM ]
posted on October 6, 2000 10:56:08 AM
Suylin: Good questions that don't seem to be answered. I learned a long time ago that when you agree to use one of these services or any entity that requires an agreement or TOS, or TOU that the agreements usually allow the entities to do pretty much anything unless the agreement states specifically, on a point by point basis, what it can and can't do. If you agree to the TOS and it doesn't say we will notify you of such and such an action, then it doesn't have to notify you. So if PayPal's TOS doesn't say we will only freeze the amounts under investigation, it can freeze everything. If the TOS doesn't say you will be advised of the ongoing status of the investigation, then it doesn't have to let you know anything. It is the same for each point. The only way I know around it to expressly deny the entity permission on a point by point basis. But often if you try to do this the entity will deny service. They are only interested in preserving their "rights". They aren't going to offer one iota more in an agreement to protect me than they are legally required to do.
It is like the cookies that follow you around the net like Doubleclick. DC offers an opt out feature and if you don't take the initiative, or even know you can opt out, then it has your tacit permission to do what ever it wants with information it collects about you.
This is why there is a lot of talk about opt in as opposed to opt out. This would require DC to get users affirmative permission before it does anything.
I would like to see a variation of "opt in" that would require entities like PP to get specific permission or agreement for everything it may or may not do such as "reversing" transactions. This tacit consent, taking action by exception, we can do whatever we want unless you tell us otherwise, or unless we specifically say we won't, is generally only for the benefit of the business entity, not the consumer.
posted on October 6, 2000 11:12:06 AM
Toystory -
Your comments - know one even knows is exactly my point.
No one even knows the true story here. What was she warned about a couple of months ago? Why would she continue when she knows there may be fraud?
What exactly happended here? What was the possible fraud being committed? I do not believe PayPal has the right to comment on this specific case on an open forum, however; the woman can. Does she care to come here and be more specific than she is being on OTWA? She has not outlined what exactly the complaints are for? What is the seller's ID? Maybe his feedback will make it clear.
I just think that before we all jump on the PayPal is bad bandwagon we have ALL of the facts and not a 3rd party interpretation of them.
I for one have no concern with my PayPal account as I do not have questionable transactions. If a chargeback were to take place, I also have steps I can take. I never leave a balance in my PP account on site nor in that bank account so I have little risk.
I find it hard to believe she was filtering all this money for him, was warned and now is 'suprised' that it may be fraudulent. PayPal did acoording to their terms what they would do.
They never took funds from her account - but reversed a possible fraudulent deposit. Why should they take the loss?
I guess we will never know what truly took place here but this one doesn't hurt PP's reputation in my mind.
posted on October 6, 2000 11:29:42 AMboysmommy3-I don't know if you have read the original thread or not, but this person apparantly was NEVER told at anytime that what she was doing was "illegal", "possibly illegal", "fraudulant" or "just plain dumb". She apparantly was not told to "stop".
She maintains she was straight forward with PP the 1st time around and that her account was released only a few days AFTER speaking to the rep that told her they saw nothing WRONG with what she was doing.
If you can't count on information from PP reps as being correct, what info can you count on??????
posted on October 6, 2000 11:37:30 AM
Ok, thanks to Doc, here is a possible scenario. The Romanian and possibly others could be involved in a stolen credit card ring using PayPal to move money out of the country (using less than brilliant verified PayPal users) and these users, not PayPal or the true criminals will be left holding the bag. This makes me wonder how many other people this has happend to and we have not heard about it.
Of course this is only an assumption based on what I have read.
This should show us that PayPal's verification based fraud protection is somewhat flawed. The crooks will find a way to commit fraud through PayPal by using
unwitting PayPal verified users.
[ edited by outoftheblue on Oct 6, 2000 11:43 AM ]
[ edited by outoftheblue on Oct 6, 2000 11:44 AM ]
posted on October 6, 2000 11:45:19 AM
Good grief. This thread has deteriorated into a really bad version of the old *Telephone* children's game. Sheesh.
Toyranch, I want to thank you for bringing this matter to our attention by posting some of this info here and referring us to the Honesty.com site for the whole story.
More's the pity that far too many of the posters here haven't bothered to read the original thread over there. Oh, I doubt it would change their minds -- er, prejudices -- much, but it might keep them from looking like such fools here.
I'm certainly not going to try to do the heavy lifting for you folks who are too lazy -- and too eager to condemn -- to check that thread out yourselves, but I will point out a couple of things.
One, no one except someone at PayPal knows WHAT the problem is that precipitated freezing her account and preemptively *taking back* $1000 from her real-life brick and mortar bank, without even bothering to tell her (even if after the fact). There is therefore no evidence (get it?), nor has any SUSPICION on PayPal's part been CONFIRMED that there was any (a) money laundering, (b) fraudulent use of credit cards, (c) customer complaints, or (d) non-shipment. There COULD be any and all of those. But any speculation about it at this point is just that, speculation. Until/unless PayPal bothers to tell the person who is afffected (who has been VERY forthcoming in discussing all this so far) NO ONE will know. Well, perhaps except for those of you who are psychic, or imagine that you are.
Having said that, it DOES look as if (again, speculation) this woman unwittingly became involved in something that is some type of fraudulent activity, and if so, she readily admits to her naivete and is paying a very high price for it. But I think of all the things that have bothered me today in reading all this (over there and here), the one truly ugly post here to the effect that *no one could be that stupid* bothered me the most -- partly because it was so cavalier, but also because it was so ill-informed.
Some people are sweet and trusting (yes, too trusting). That's not a character flaw. Some people are naive, some are even stupid. None of these is illegal. To say that the naive, gullible or stupid deserve what they get if they become naively embroiled in or victimized by some scam is just cruel. Thank heaven our legal system doesn't rest on such principles.
BTW, I'd not visited the Honesty.com boards before, but I was struck by how much friendlier and, in this case, more charitable towards someone in trouble, they are over there.
Finally, for those of you who are conveniently ignoring PayPal's actions here (and their INactions), you're missing the REAL story, as others have already pointed out. The other piece of this that bothers me the most is not JUST what they did, not JUST their silence to her for weeks now, not JUST that PayPal Damon's help wasn't (surprise, surprise), but what happened when this woman finally was able to speak to the *investigator* in charge. I am simply aghast at what transpired in that conversation.
All of this is the last straw for me with PayPal. Those of you who continue to patronize PayPal do so at your own risk, which is considerable and getting more so, IMO. But it IS your choice. I'll be among those laughing at how niave, gullible and stupid you wwere when PayPal rises up and bites you on the behind. YOU at least have been warned.
posted on October 6, 2000 11:48:07 AM
We do not know anything about what really happened or why it happened, except for what this woman said.
We've only heard her side of this.
I think it's foolish to believe anything this woman says.
I doubt very seriously that she was "clueless." I also doubt that she was unable to clear this up with PayPal for over a month. She sounds like most con artists whose motto is "Lie, they'll believe you."
By the way: Romania is NOT one of the countries that Billpoint has extended its services to. For the list of countries that Billpoint extends its services to, go to this location: http://www.billpoint.com/services/international.html
posted on October 6, 2000 11:49:48 AM
boysmommy3, correction on the timeline. Her account was originally frozen 5 weeks ago, unfrozen, and then apparently frozen again (current) 3 weeks ago.
ToyRanch, let's go solely upon the facts that were presented in her posts, becaues that's what we're speaking about.. facts.. correct?
User is verified.
Account was originally frozen 5 weeks ago (8/31).
At that time, one withdrawl (8/31) was placed on hold and 2 more (9/1) were reversed. Total sum placed on hold 3K.
Account frozen again approximately 1 week after it was lifted. (this would put it on or about 9/15)
PP user finally got to talk to PP fraud deptment on September 28.. in which it was stated: The investigator said I have received fraudulent payments.
Only, after that time, does the user bring up, in the forum, the fact that she is accepting CC payments for a seller based in Romania.
Please note, as per the users own quote from PP fraud, it does not state "fraudulent payment" it states fraudulent payments.
October 05, 2000 ~ user states that PP reversed a deposit of almost $1K, which was made into her account on 9/5. Please remember, according to her own statement, her PP account was frozen on this date, so are these the funds that were on "hold" or are they the ones that were "reversed" as to her previous statement... or are these another set of funds that weren't mentioned previously?
So, I'm afraid that the statement you made:
Nobody even knows if there were any fraudulent transactions or any fraud whatsoever, is invalid. Because, once again, we have to go on exactly what the user is telling us and she told us that PP said there were fraudulent payments made to her account.
I do agree with many of the points that have been stated in this thread, on how PP could better it's TOS and make things more clear. However, I can not jump on a "they're so bad, watch out for them!" bandwagon, when it's obvious to me, they're protecting their best interests. The actions that this user has taken are suspect, whether she realized it at the time or not. Her guilt or innocence is not in question, but the story that she's relating needs to be looked at in full. But because of privacy, we won't hear from PP and we have to rely on the honesty and integrity of this particular user and trust that she's telling the full and complete truth and that she has no other motives.
This senario should not be another bash PP thread or an attempt to frighten users away from PP... but rather it should be used, to point out to PP where they can improve their TOS's.............. or even to warn, other unsuspecting, newbies, that there are frauds and schemes running rampent.
It's your reputation and livelihood that's always on the line.
edited for spelling, but what the heck, that was always my worst subject
[ edited by rosiebud on Oct 6, 2000 12:07 PM ]
posted on October 6, 2000 11:50:29 AM"This should show us that PayPal's verification based fraud protection is somewhat flawed. The crooks will find a way to commit fraud through PayPal by using unwitting PayPal verified users.
Can you show me a system allowing anyone to accept credit cards that would prevent such a scenario? Even a merchant account holder would be subceptible to such a scam. I know they check your credit rating, and such, but none of them to my knowledge employ an IQ test for it's customers.
"I'm sorry ma'am, your application is denied, we require an IQ above room temperature"
I saw something that I thought would be of interest to users of PayPal and I brought it to this discussion forum for discussion. Yes, as the thing develops and as more info comes out I'll be interested to see what happens also!
The idea that this person intentionally committed a crime, published details of the crime on a message board, and then notified the FBI about it is pretty far fetch'd, but I'll accept the possibility... I watched a 'World's Stupidest Criminals' show on TV once and there are some pretty dumb ones... personally my opinion is that she didn't know what she was doing was wrong and still doesn't know for sure that she did something wrong because nobody, apparently, has told her anything except that her money is gone.
If discussing this situation is not appropriate for this message board because it might cast PayPal in a bad light, then this is not the AuctionWatch that I've been a member of for over a year now.
Outside of the 'feasting on the carcass of the woman' aspect of this thread, there is some very good information about banking, TOS of online payment services, etc. etc. THAT is the point of the thread. Discussion, learning, examining the situation and how it might affect others, etc. etc. Personally, I've learned a number of things about all of that by starting this thread. Unfortunately, I've also learned that starting threads at AW has become rather treacherous and I don't know if I'll be anxious to start any more or bring other topics I feel may be of interest here in the future.
While I understand everyone's concerns over this issue, I am in contact with the user asking for documentation from the bank. We do not erase customer records.
posted on October 6, 2000 12:32:20 PM
Toy,
I never said there was not a place for this type of discussion. I just said that without all of the facts we are all truly in the dark as to what really took place.
For the other poster who said we must not have read the OTWA boards - you are wrong. If you see my original post - I have read all postings on both boards about this. You say PayPal never contacted her or explained anything - and you would know this because you read her posts or you spoke to PayPal and got their side?
If you would like me to believe someone whom made a deal to transfer funds to a foreigner and charge him without every knowing if the customers received the item or were satisfied it will never happen. You would all like to say she was just naive. Okay - let's buy that for a moment - was she also naive enough when it was brought to her attention just 2 weeks ago not to do research and see what is going on? Someone who set up this deal and was able to account for another person's transactions, deduct off her % and WU the $ sounds like someone who knows exactly what they are doing.
I am sorry but I don't buy it. PayPal did as they should. We do not have the entire story. I would still like to have the seller's ebay # to look at feedback. Her posts on OTWA are very vague.
BTW -
I am not voicing this as a naive PayPal user. If you read the TOS on all agreements with service companies you use - you will not have this problem.
Their TOS clearly states that they would do exactly as they did. They also state no foreign transactions etc. as has been posted.
She made what she thought was a great deal and got burned. Why isn't she mad at the seller? Why not go after him? Oh, yea because another PayPal is bad thread is better.
For those that keep saying this isn't about her possible fraudulent activities or the fact that she was working with a seller who may have committed fraud - it is about PayPal - I rest my case.
I give up on this one. You either like em or you hate them but this one isn't a good reason to hate them as they did as they should and said they would.
posted on October 6, 2000 12:56:24 PM
Of course, we can debate this "till the cows come home", but we do not have all the facts just as someone has pointed out, so it's really pointless.
What this has brought to light is accounts can be frozen without prior notification, there still seems to be a problem with customer service, PP does not feel obligated to bring the users into the investigation on any level. How can they conduct a thorough investigation without gathering all the facts, and NOT allowing the user in question an oportunity to speak to anyone or present information on their behalf. This is not right.
It has also become apparent that PP can and will reach into your bank account with or without your permission and remove money. You would think they would have to at least establish they are entitled to the amounts they are "reversing". Keep an eye on that little word. I am sure we will soon be INFORMED that "reversing" is not the same thing as "withdrawing" and PP only stated they would not "withdraw" without our permission.
edited 'cause I can't figure out how to get a quote displayed properly. Yes I can be clueless too!
[ edited by sulyn1950 on Oct 6, 2000 01:03 PM ]
posted on October 6, 2000 01:06:59 PM
I'm real sorry the seller was naive and didn't know this was a scam, but too bad. Paypal has every right to recover this money, and indeed, an obligation to.
I also don't understand the call for "due process". If I'm not mistaken, a regular merchant account recovers money first, asks questions later, for things a lot more innocuous than fraud. For example, if a customer charges back, the bank charges back the funds immediately, pending investigation.
If paypal finds there is no fraud, the funds will be replaced.
However, even if the seller is an unwitting victim of stolen funds, the seller is still receiving stolen funds. I don't understand why anyone is sympathetic to the seller because Paypal trying to recover these funds.
Paypal certainly doesn't word things properly "always free""will never take money from your account", etc.
But if you guys are willing to believe that Paypal will process your cc payments for free, forever (even as they run into tens of thousands of dollars), insulate you from customer chargebacks, and cover your losses when you violate their rules, YOU are the one that's naive.
[ edited by yankee98champs on Oct 6, 2000 01:11 PM ]
[ edited by yankee98champs on Oct 6, 2000 01:14 PM ]
posted on October 6, 2000 01:10:03 PM
I forgot to add, the reason Paypal grabbed the funds first is probably because if they waited for the investigation to conclude, the funds wouldn't be there anymore. In particular if the verdict is fraud. You think a thief will leave the money in the account waiting for the "investigation" to end?
[ edited by yankee98champs on Oct 6, 2000 01:10 PM ]
)
