posted on October 6, 2000 01:13:53 PM new
sulyn1950, I will not argue the fact, that PP needs to clean up their communication methods somewhat.
However, from the way that I'm reading your post, I am to assume that PP merely decides, all on their own.. maybe with someone blindfolded and pointing to a list of user names .. that that person's account should be frozen for no good reason. Frozen, not once, but twice within a 5 week period.
Please tell me that's not the way it works
Let's see, if I can come up with a better way that it can work.. something involving complaints by people, concerning unauthorized charges on their CC's? Not getting the goods that they ordered? .. etc. Now that sounds more reasonable, doesn't it?
So yes, I can legitimately assume that since the account was frozen twice within 5 weeks there had to have been more than 1 complaint... I could almost safely say 2 complaints.
But that's right, we're not suppose to debate the facts we were given, or the logic that it takes to come to certain conclusions.
What are we suppose to debate then? The evils of PP and how wrong it is to protect themselves in case of fraud, especially when something has happened twice on the same account? That seems like an unreasonable debate to me.
posted on October 6, 2000 01:14:52 PM new
I just read one thread started by the woman in question on the other board and these are my impressions:
She knew that PayPal does not allow outside USA users to use PayPal, but she doesn't realize that PayPal may have a very good reason for doing that? She blithley assumes she can charge on in where angels have feared to tread?
She further cements her story by claiming that she got tacit approval from a PayPal representive who told her she was doing nothing wrong?
We're supposed to believe that she got legal advice from more than one attorney and that she still believes that she did nothing illegal?
I think her accusation that "her money" was taken from her is what's wrong with this picture. It wasn't her money to begin with.
In one post she states, "I am notorious for being very open," yet she had earlier pleaded being too upset to reveal all, and also in another earlier post, unwilling to reveal all details.
I think she's mad about being caught. Her statement: "My point in telling this part of the story is, if I had kept quiet and had not admitted I was working with this man, PayPal would not have known and it could have gone on much longer."
My impressions from reading her posts are that some of her statements sound like what a remorseless con artist would say.
Her story begins simply enough, she releases a few details at a time, leading her viewers on, releasing further details to encourage her audience to continue to get reeled in, then really sinking the hook in good by revealing that money was withdrawn from her bank account by PayPal.
Our only source of information about what happened is the story of a woman who admits she engaged in activities that are not allowed by PayPal's terms of service agreement, and she admits to receiving money that she transferred to someone in Romania.
PayPal's terms of use agreement prohibit using PayPal for obtaining cash from credit card payments by accepting payment and forwarding it on to someone else. Obviously, she was not using PayPal properly when she forwarded money for items she had not sold to someone in Romania.
She got caught. She can say anything. It does not mean her story is true, that PayPal removed money from her checking account.
posted on October 6, 2000 01:30:44 PM new
In scams like this, there are often several unwitting parties, and when the fraud is discovered, it's sort of like musical chairs---see who gets left without a chair when the music stops. That person is left out the money- that person becomes the victim.
In this case, it appears that the music stopped, and PayPal found itself the victim. To arbitrarily reach into a user's bank account and take her money (and yes, it was HER money unless she had any fraudulent intent to receive it), without any court hearing or other due process, is just plain wrong. I'm not an attorney, but I'd guess it's illegal as well.
See, the music stopped, and when PayPal found itself without a chair, it pushed the other party off her chair, onto the floor. Why? Because it had her bank account information, and it had the technical ability to do so. Abuse of power, plain and simple.
There are legal, court sanctioned actions that companies such as PayPal can take if they feel they have been defrauded by a customer. This wasn't one of them, in my (lay) opinion.
posted on October 6, 2000 01:34:54 PM new
Teresa,
Very well said.
The woman is extremely vague, too upset to reveal too much and garnering sympathy on the way.
PayPal did as someone else just pointed out what every other CC company would do.
For the one that said wait until PP bites you in the dust. Sorry, this type of biting will never happen as I am aware of what I do. All monies in my account are for my sales etc.
For the other poster that said we should all be aware that PP can now grab your monies out of your account at will. Please understand what too place here and that is not it.
Have a great weekend - interesting too that the woman has been invited but will not post or answer questions here.
No I do NOT think they put a blind fold on and point out user's they intend to harrass! However, this is NOT the first thread on accounts being frozen and the user's not being told why. It probably won't be the last.
They DO NOT state anywhere, that I can find, exactly what it takes to get your account frozen. What kind of proof, if any, must be furnished. The wording they use is very vague and left open to a broad interpretation. They like to use the word fraud, but DO NOT give a consice definition of their interpretation of what that entails.
As another poster stated, it would not be out of line for them to freeze first and ask questions later, for obvious reasons. However, I think that somewhere in the TOS they need to STATE that is what they will do and exactly under what circumstance it will be done. If it only takes an email/telephone call suggesting misconduct, than buyers remorse could take on a whole new meaning! I have no idea if that would cause an investigation or not. That's my point!
Once the account is frozen, I see NO REASON why the user should not be notified "officially" by "electronic notice" or by letter through "regular mail" and given an explaination as to why it has been done. They at that point should be allowed access to any/all information that was used to make the determination to "freeze" the account and be given an opportunity to offer evidence/explaination on their own behalf.
I also think, that if they intend to "reverse/remove" already deposited funds, that should ALSO be clearly defined in the TOS. I think they should have to give an accounting of how they determined what amount to removed.
All I am asking for is a precise, procedure that will be followed to the letter each and every time. Is that asking too much?
posted on October 6, 2000 01:54:52 PM new
boysmommy3: Thank you!
I think it's important to reassure people that what happened to this woman will NOT happen to everyone else.
I agree that it's interesting that the woman has been invited but is not participating.
I appreciate that ToyRanch started this thread, so that we can all share views and opinions. Reading in between all the lines, the truth does come out.
I don't think it's fair to unduly alarm people, especially when it strikes at the core of our faith about doing business securely.
I think it's VERY IMPORTANT to consider the source of all this information we're being given. The source is the woman who allegedly admits to improper use of PayPal's services and possible illegal money laundering.
My impression is the implied message of the woman is "it could happen to anyone."
I hereby deny that message.
Possibly it could happen to anyone who did what the woman claims she did.
It's good to discuss things. It's good to pass on information. It's good to talk this out and think about it.
But we really don't know and we have no proof of what really happened.
posted on October 6, 2000 02:03:37 PM new
Thank you, PayPalDamon!
That certainly is reassuring!
AND suggests that the woman is not being truthful when she posted that $1,000.00 was withdrawn from her checking account by PayPal without her knowledge or permission.
posted on October 6, 2000 02:11:22 PM new
sulyn1950, ok, please find on BillPoint, CCNow, Kagi, etc, what their actions are when an account is suspected of fraudulent activity. Please remember that their TOS's and other "open" pages (re: pages that everyone can see before they sign up) must be specific about what actions they take.
posted on October 6, 2000 02:13:20 PM new
Does anyone really NOT understand why this woman would not want to come over here and post?????
Currently, the OTWA board this is being discussed on is being conducted in a mature, constructive manner. She has not been called "clueless", she has not been "accused" of knowingly committing fraud and then expecting sympathy,ect.
She originally posted to ask what steps she should try next, since for 5 weeks she had gotten absolutely nothing from PP.
Whether you want to believe that or not is of course up to you.
People begain to offer suggestions. She was encouraged to contact Damon. Damon even joined in and asked she send her information to him. It was after she sent Damon her information (even though it took several days), that she had her first real contact with a PP investigator. Information began to come forward and this person never once "dropped" out of site even when it became obvious that there was obviously a serious problem at hand. She has furnished more personal information, than I would, but she has done that primarily I believe, because she has not been "attacked".
This has been going on for quite awhile now and it still has NOT eroded into a free-for-all with unnecessary insults being hurled. This thread has only been going on for 1 day, and look at what has happened already!!!
She is much better off where she is, and that discussion may actually accomplish something worthwhile and long lasting and perhaps beneficially to us all concerning PP policy/procedure. I don't believe that would happen if she joined us here.
posted on October 6, 2000 02:27:02 PM new
I haven't been able to read the "other" thread. Does this have anything to do with those Nigerian scam emails I keep getting where someone named Joseph wants to give me 33 million to hide for awhile then he'll give me a part of it?
Not my name on ebay.
posted on October 6, 2000 02:27:18 PM new
Sulyn,
This isn't about what I want to believe in. I believe in the facts and hearing one side of a three sided story doesn't prove anything.
The reason I believe she is not coming here is she will have to answer the questions that she is not willing to answer on honesty.com. The honesty community is known for light hearted threads and they are not allowed to heavily question posters. No one here will attack her - simply politely ask her to explain herself as her promoters are making her transactions appear to be fraudulent and do not paint a good picture of her.
I agree with you that name calling is not okay but I do not agree that she should not come here. If she is going to post her story and is aware that the post is going on here -I would think she would want to defend herself.
I still would like to know why you are not upset with a fraudulent seller - why is the Romanian guy not getting any negative posts when it is all centered around his activities?
posted on October 6, 2000 02:27:44 PM new...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."
Yes, what is meant by the statement "X.com reserves the right to reverse all such transactions..."?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All rights reserved. All wrongs reversed.
posted on October 6, 2000 02:30:26 PM newrosibud-I though we were discussing PP and it's policy or lack of. I have not seen a thread where BP (or any OTHER) payment service has frozen anyone's account for "alleged" fraud. Maybe it just hasn't been discussed by anyone yet????
I DID have to return a payment to someone through BP when I initiated a refund. I was sent an email stating plainly that the amount of the refund (the exact amount that was goig to be removed was given) was scheduled to be removed on a specific date (date was clearly given) and I should be sure I had funds in my checking account to cover it. If I had any questions I was to contact BP.
There was no "surprise". I really don't know how they would handle an accusation of "fraud". I am assuming (perhaps wrongly) that it would be handled in a similar manner.
posted on October 6, 2000 02:42:13 PM new
Sulyn: I don't think anyone would attack the woman if she came over here, nor has anyone attacked her thus far (that would be a violation of the user's agreement for this site). I noticed that she got a lot of support and great suggestions from posters over on the other board. I'm sure she'd get the same if she posted here. I think this thread raises some legitimate concerns and we all would like to be reassured and told the truth.
Valleygirl: This thread is not about the Nigerian scam, but that scam has some similar aspects to this one. In the Nigerian scam, (years ago) people received postal mail claiming that the sender's government would not allow him to take his millions of dollars out of his country, so he was asking for help to do so. He promised that if the recipient would allow him to deposit the money into the recipient's USA bank account, he would allow the recipient to keep one million dollars of it. The recipient would be expected to transfer the money into the sender's USA bank account. The recipient was urged to fax the recipient's bank account information immediately. Those who did so promptly had every penny removed by the sender from their bank accounts by electronic withdrawal. The federal government investigated and the postal service warned the public not to participate in the scam, but I do not think anyone ever go their money back.
posted on October 6, 2000 02:46:12 PM new
Thanks, Damon. In that case, are you saying that PayPal has never withdrawn funds, or reversed a deposit out of any users bank account, at any time, without their explicit permission?
posted on October 6, 2000 02:46:37 PM new
sulyn1950, we are discussing PP. However, since PP is .. basically a poor man's merchant account, isn't it relevant to bring up other "merchant accounts" and their TOS/policies/open pages? I believe it is, especially since fraud does happen on all these services.
Compare, CCNOW and Kagi. CCNow, specifically states that you can not have an account there if you sell items that are nontangible. This eleminates many sellers, such as software (transferable through email), graphic design, etc. Why? Because in dealing with CC purchases, the number one protection of the seller is to prove they mailed/delivered the item. Kagi, on the other hand, allows for these nontangible sales, through credit cards. Tell me which one may have the high instance of fraud?
These are not necessarily auction related sites, however their TOS and policies are just as relevant to this conversation as anything else brought up in it.. because you're asking PP to be specific about what it does in cases of fraud. Yet these other sites, which have been around longer than PP, do not offer these specifics, even though fraud is there. So why should PP be any different from any of the other business that offer the same or similiar services?
Rosiebud
feeling like a contrarian today for some strange reason.
edited for spelling but what else is new?
[ edited by rosiebud on Oct 6, 2000 02:47 PM ]
posted on October 6, 2000 02:50:48 PM new
HI Toke,
To the best of my knowledge, yes. In the less likely event of a system glitch, we would resolve the issue.
I can only state this again. Withdrawals and deposits are federally regulated items to and from your bank account and we would not access the bank account information without user permission or court order.
posted on October 6, 2000 02:59:04 PM new
Thanks very much for your quick answers, Damon!
Well. This certainly does more than suggest that the "Romanian Connection" may be less than accurate in her statements at TOP. Or we are seriously misunderstanding her......
posted on October 6, 2000 03:05:43 PM newboysmommy3-You stated she should want to come over here and "defend" herself. Why should she have to "defend" herself here. This is a spin off of the original. The entire thread in question is not about/ never has been presented as anything other than a discussion on what could be done to find out why her account was frozen and funds removed from her account under the heading "reversal" therefore, NOT violating the TOU.
Because Damon has stated that money would not be removed without a court order, we are assuming the woman is not telling the truth about whether funds have been removed from her account or not. On the original thread, Damon has asked that he be furnished with the email sent to her indicating funds have been removed from her personal bank account. So far, there have been no additional posting about whether that has been done or not. We are also still debating whether or not she is guilty, willing or unwilling of comitting fraud. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with the one she is currently involved on.
As to the Romanian. That's the kicker. He has been in contact with her wanting to know why she has accussed him of fraud. After talking to PP she apparantly emailed him very upset and accused him of involving her in some sort of fraud. He has responded, more than once, that he doesn't understand what he is being accused of and could she please be more specific. She of course maintains she cannot be more specific, because she has nothing at this point to go on except what PP has told her and that is "fradulent funds" have been received by her.
Is this the whole story? Who knows. Is anything constructive going to come out of this particular thread? Probably not. Will anything come out of that other thread? I hope so, and maybe it can IF it remains on the level it is currently on.
Since it really isn't very reliable to get info second hand, I suggest if your really interested in this particular issue, you go and visit the original thread. You will quickly see it is not about what she should or should have not done, but it is about what she can or cannot do about it. A total different direction from this discussion.
posted on October 6, 2000 03:06:29 PM new
Tessa wrote:
>>She knew that PayPal does not allow outside USA users to use PayPal, but she doesn't realize that PayPal may have a very good reason for doing that? <<
International fraud would not have even been my TENTH guess as to why PayPal has that provision. Intricacies of currency exchange would have been my 1st thru 9th guesses.
Further, it was not my understanding that even knew about provision about not SHIPPING to other countries (I didn't), nor that she connected the dots like you have (after the fact I might add).
>> She further cements her story by claiming that she got tacit approval from a PayPal representive who told her she was doing nothing wrong? <<
Nope, she didn't -- and I wouldn't -- call that conversation anything like *tacit APPROVAL.* Merely a lack of indication from a PayPal representative that there could be anything wrong. There's a difference. Subtle, but substantive.
>> We're supposed to believe that she got legal advice from more than one attorney and that she still believes that she did nothing illegal? <<
First, I'm not sure she believes she did nothing illegal -- altho THAT actually depends on whether OTHERS did anything illegal and involved her, doesn't it? And that hasn't been shown, just suspected.
IF there was NO fraud on the other end, what she did was not illegal. However, if there WAS fraud on the other end, she is involved as an unwitting accomplice.
Remember, there hasn't been anything illegal shown or proven here, just suspected. You are all ASSUMING there's been customer complaints (and I really am scratching my head over where that idea came from -- it's not explicit in the discussion) and money laundering, which by definition involves fraudulent or illegal activities -- also not shown, at least not yet.
I also wouldn't characterize the conversations she had with two or more local attorneys she knew as *legal advice.* My impression was that this wasn't their area of expertise, and from what she could tell them at that time, there WASN'T anything wrong with what she did.
We STILL don't know if there is indeed any fraud ANYwhere in this, you know. Likely? Yes. Positively? Not shown.
>>I think her accusation that "her money" was taken from her is what's wrong with this picture. It wasn't her money to begin with. <<
You don't know that at all. YOU'RE assuming that every penny that is currently tied up by PayPal and which has been re-appropriated is related to this international situation. That is simply unfounded, and further is actually contrary to what she has posted. (But then you don't believe anything she says.) Some of her other sales money is involved -- her WHOLE account, not just the money in question in this international situation.
This is one of the problems, you see. PayPal has gone BEYOND its reach here.
>> In one post she states, "I am notorious for being very open," yet she had earlier pleaded being too upset to reveal all, and also in another earlier post, unwilling to reveal all details. <<
Oh, there's no contradiction here. I'm notorious for being very open too, but that doesn't mean I shoot my mouth off to just ANYbody.
>> I think she's mad about being caught. <<
I don't.
>> Her statement: "My point in telling this part of the story is, if I had kept quiet and had not admitted I was working with this man, PayPal would not have known and it could have gone on much longer." <<
That's taken out of context, which is something I always think is unfair to EVERYONE (such as people reading here), not just the person in question. As I recall (without going back and trying to find it in the 7 or 8 pages on the other board), she was either talking about the first discussion when the account was frozen for a short time and then re-opened (and we have NO idea why it was frozen then, and probably didn't have anything to do with the current situation -- else why would they have reopened it?), or about sharing as much information as she could with that bimbo investigator who hadn't even reviewed the information yet after something like 3 weeks.
>> My impressions from reading her posts are that some of her statements sound like what a remorseless con artist would say. <<
Boy, I see the exact opposite. And why on earth, as has already been asked here, would she go out of here way to bring this to public attention? She's in hot water (that is IF there was any fraud) anyway. Talking about it publicly isn't going to help her on that score in in any way.
>>Our only source of information about what happened is the story of a woman who admits she engaged in activities that are not allowed by PayPal's terms of service agreement, <<
Which only became apparent to her after the fact . . .
>>and she admits to receiving money that she transferred to someone in Romania.
Which isn't in and of itself illegal, immoral or wrong.
>> PayPal's terms of use agreement prohibit using PayPal for obtaining cash from credit card payments by accepting payment and forwarding it on to someone else. Obviously, she was not using PayPal properly when she forwarded money for items she had not sold to someone in Romania. <<
That's true enough. But think of this: if I transfer PayPal money from my account (put there by credit card payments) to my bank and go to my ATM, am I not obtaining cash from credit card payments? I mean, eventually some of these PayPal accounts are turned into something other than paper money. Anyway, I don't fault her for not being savvy enough to figure this out.
>> She got caught. She can say anything. It does not mean her story is true, that PayPal removed money from her checking account. <<
Well, between this woman and PayPal, guess who has the most credibility with me?
posted on October 6, 2000 03:17:18 PM new
I have zero faith in anything Damon says here on the boards. His statements have been rendered "inoperative" before.
posted on October 6, 2000 03:20:23 PM new
One of them is wrong. The woman says the money was removed from her account. Damon says to his knowledge that has never been done to anyone without explicit permission. There you have it. An impasse.
Frankly, I don't care what the woman has, or has not done. I'm only interested in the safety of my money and the reliability of PayPal.
posted on October 6, 2000 03:21:00 PM new
Clevergirl~
You say:
You are all ASSUMING there's been customer complaints (and I really am scratching my head over where that idea came from -- it's not explicit in the discussion)
There we are back to square one then.. with PP sitting there blindfolded and randomly choosing what accounts to freeze. Please remember, this account has been frozen twice in 5 weeks. Doesn't that indicate that there is SOMETHING wrong with the account? Doesn't that indicate that these things don't just pop up by themselves? SOMEONE has to complain about something, in order for an account to get flagged and frozen, not once, but twice. That is simply logic.
So, please, what are your theories as to why that account has been frozen twice in five weeks. Remember, either PP is a villian and they're just harrassing innocent users .. OR.. innocent users are not as innocent as they claim (either knowningly or unknowingly).
posted on October 6, 2000 03:29:08 PM new
CleverGirl: Thank you for sharing
your opinions. I don't agree with your
opinions.
Maybe we can agree to disagree?
Toke: Well said!
Tessa
http://bookdealers.home.mindspring.com
posted on October 6, 2000 03:39:19 PM new
HI amalgamated2000,
Items still within the PayPal system, such as not cleared out of our system, can be reversed if fraudulent. In other words, we can take action on items within our system.
Once it is out and completed to another institution, it requires user permission or court order.
