posted on October 6, 2000 04:09:32 PM newDr.Beetle...
You're right. I hadn't even thought of that one. Still...with all that's been said about the freezing of accounts and such...I'm far from sanguine about the security of my money with them. I believe I'll pass.
posted on October 6, 2000 04:26:14 PM new
Rosiebud wrote:
>>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. <<
I agree, basically . But it needn't have been a customer (as in ebay or other high bidder). We just don't know, do we? Yet the notion that there were CUSTOMER complaints cropped up in this disucssion and stuck, as if that were an explicit part of the scenario, and it's not necessarily. We just don't know what precipitated PayPal's actions.
>> So, please, what are your theories as to why that account has been frozen twice in five weeks.<<
Well, I think there is good reason to think that in the FIRST instance, since the account was reinstored with no explanation from PayPal, that there was nothing to it at all. If there WAS something there, why would they have reinstated the acccount?
As for theories, I myself don't know much abour fraud or how the criminal mind works, so I'm afraid I can't help you out with theories. All I know is that PayPal must have suspected something (one would hope with good reason), but what we're not sure of and the only people who know at this point (PayPal) aren't talking.
>> 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).<<
Few things in life are as black-and-white as a SINGLE set of either/or possibilities can accommodate. This situation is no exception. Other possibilities include: an error. A misunderstanding. Unwarranted suspicions. Some wrongdoing. A LOT of wrongdoing. This kind of fraud, that kind of fraud, yet another kind of fraud. We just don't KNOW yet, do we?
Don't get me wrong. I do think there is a strong likelihood that something nefarious has gone on here. But the nature of it has not been revealed. I also think our protagonist is up to her neck in a heap o'trouble. But I do not have any reason at this point not to believe her side of the story, while I do have reason to suspect that PayPal's actions have been overkill, inappropriate, or possibly downright illegal (that is IF they fall under ANY laws anywhere, and I begin to wonder that point).
I also tend to believe that the earlier invasion by PayPal on her account, since it accounted to nothing (including no explanation) was an error and quite possibly not even related to the current affair. Ya'll can go on and conflate the two, that's not totally inappropriate to speculate about (but the key is SPECULATE about). But I don't conflate the two -- not until more information is forthcoming that supports such a theory.
Bottom line: there's an awful lot we DON'T know, and precious little we do. I think it behooves us to be mindful of that in how we go about describing our thoughts and opinions about *what went on here.*
If the woman is an innocent (if also naive, gullible, even as some say stupid) victim, some of the comments made here about her are way beyond the pale. Not just uncharitable but cruel. And unnecessary. If she's NOT an unwitting victim, I'll be happy to come back and say, "Ya'll were right. I gave her too much benefit of the doubt." But I won't be sorry that I did so.
posted on October 6, 2000 05:16:16 PM new
One thing for sure is this whole thing just gets curiouser and curiouser as time goes on and I've been watching it for a few days now. We are only about one auction for weapons grade plutonium away from a James Bond movie script.
posted on October 6, 2000 05:37:05 PM new
Toyranch, now that I will agree with wholehearedly! =)
Clevergirl: I think our main disagreement lies in this statement:
PayPal's actions have been overkill, inappropriate, or possibly downright illegal
I don't believe any of those points.
Something that I didn't consider earlier, is that I had been looking at this whole thing as a 5 week time period. But in reality, it's only a two week time period for the account being frozen. It was frozen, released and then frozen again, all within two weeks. That type of behavior, *might* coincide with CC billing statements.
The PP user said that her foriegn friend started this in mid-August and to date 42 (I think it is but I'm not going back through 5 pages of stuff to find the exact number) transactions have been made with this method.
If the payments started in mid-august, then late august is about the right time for CC statements to start coming in. Two weeks later, (the second freezing of the account) would coincide with more statements coming in. (this is, of course, all conjecture).
Where does all this come into my disagreeing with those specific points that you mentioned? Assuming that that if suspecions are correct, the money was PP and still is. They froze the accounts to stop all activity, until an thorough investigation could be done. That makes sense. I don't believe it's overkill, inappropriate, or illegal.
Rosie
who's very tired now and if this post doesn't make sense, I'll come back and edit it in the morning OOPS, too late, found one thing that didn't make sense already..*L*
[ edited by rosiebud on Oct 6, 2000 05:39 PM ]
posted on October 6, 2000 06:09:29 PM new
Rosie -- I'm tired too.
I've just been over to the other board checking the updates to this soap opera, which I won't try to recapitulate here. I heartily recommend interested parties take a looksee themselves.
However, I'll say that between here and there I stopped and requested an electronic transfer of my remaining balance at PayPal, which I've kept quite small ever since the last brouhahah (Hah! as if that much ever went thru there to start with). I'm done with them, and now I'll never have to worry about getting caught in the crossfire of some mishap or misunderstanding and not being able to get some sort of answer from SOMEone in authority over there.
BTW - Had to chuckle, after logging in I was greeted with another one of their "wouldn't you really like to upgrade" screens. Didn't even bother to read it -- doesn't apply to me anymore.
Anyway, the one thing I will share is that our protagonist posted the private correspondence between her and Damon. There have been TWO *reversals* from her real-life banking account (both nearly $1k), and both a good month after the original electronic transfers. PayPal says their so-called *reversals* were actually requested from her bank a month ago, September 1, I believe Damon said. I'll be looking forward to furthe documentation of THAT, and/or explanation from her bank why it took so long.
No explanation yet about why her PayPal account transaction log is mysteriously still missing in action.
Again, IMHO this little lady is in a heap o' trouble, whether she *deserves* to be or not (and ya'll know I think not). It's not a pretty picture and it's going to take a while for her to extricate herself -- if, indeed, she ever does. And she's going to have to have some darned good (read: expensive) help doing it.
For the sake of argument, let's assume she has been an innocent victim in all this. Would any of you like to ALSO be in the dark about what is happening, unable to get anything but Damon's well-meaning but essentially not very helpful *help,* having what you thought was *your* money in what you thought was *your* nice, safe, brick and mortar bank eeking away in $1,000 increments? And no one to answer your questions?
Just to be clear: I DO think PayPal has a right and even an obligation to investigate fraud. I think they have a right and an obligation to *protect* their assets in certain ways. But I also think they have the obligation to not ride roughshod over users when they go about doing so. Yes, for all they know at this point she's been a willing participant of this probable fraud. But IMO they've still mishandled it -- surprise, surprise, surprise.
As I think magazine_guy brilliantly pointed out, some of these fraud schemes are like musical chairs, and in this case this unwitting *accomplice* got caught holding the financial bag. PayPal gets their money back through her, from what she thought WAS *her* money, and for whatever portions of it was not gained thru the foreign friend, WAS her money. How convenient for PayPal she violated some of their TOU in the process.
And what DOES that $100,000 insurance against fraud for all accounts mean, anyway? I sure can't figure it out. But then, I don't need to know now, do I?
posted on October 6, 2000 06:11:03 PM new
The new thread is just really much more interesting as the lady known as clueless posts 'all' of the email she traded with Damon, but Damon seems to think a part was left out....
It's the thread Damon started about Bank Account Withdrawals...
Even though mounting evidence shows the probability of gross wrongdoing, PayPal's handling of the situation still draws questions as the guidelines seem to change on an ongoing basis.
But I have to give Damon a lot of credit, he seems to be gaining serious ground and credibility for PayPal without stepping over the line. sniff sniff... Damon is growing up before our eyes sniff... and I mean that in the best possible way!
posted on October 6, 2000 06:17:27 PM new
Hi toyranch,
Thank you. Generally, I am at a disadvantage because I can't discuss account specifics in a public forum.
Please feel free to review the customer information and the company information in the threads you mentioned.
When fraud occurs, we will place a request to stop the item from leaving our system.
To all users:
Do not accept money on the behalf of unknown parties and do not engage in conversations or sales with those asking you to ship to an international address. Our list of countries will be available when international is released this month.
Fraud is not my specialty, but stating company policy or resolving customer issues within my sphere (or directing them to where they need to go) is.
posted on October 6, 2000 06:54:44 PM new
Hi, all. I came to this thread and from the title I hoped we'd get some juicy gossip on Paypal or maybe even a necktie party. I must admit though that it seems Paypal did nothing "wrong" in applying their terms of use. There was a "reasonable" suspicion and apparently, if I read PPD correctly, a court order allowing Paypal to withdraw the funds.
All other issues are at this point speculation. My own opinion is that the woman was involved in a money-laundering scheme and was willing to look the other way for the sake of 7%. That's irrelevant too, I'm just throwing in my two cents.
When EVERYONE's accounts suddenly disappear and Paypal stops answering their phones, then it will be time to worry. But I won't worry, because I have decided not to use their services. I have heard that line "we would never do that" too many times (and then they do exactly that) to attempt to discern the truth or falsity of their statements. Personal accounts vs. business accounts, withdrawl vs. reversal, it's just too much corporate double-speak for me.
Though I will admit that if this was a case of credit card fraud, I support Paypal's right to recover their funds. They should not be responsible for anyone's fraudulent dealings.
posted on October 6, 2000 07:02:34 PM new
b00kdealers: Hi Tessa! Thanks for bringing my attention to this interesting thread.
And Toyranch, thanks for bringing this matter to our attention waY on oveR hErE!!
Now........here is mY 0pInIoN:
I believe that this messagethread is filled with HEARSAY, and also with lotsa compellingly interesting opinions based upon that hearsay.
Late last year, I listened to a radio interview of a computer security specialist, who used to work the NSA, that ol' infamous "No~Such~Agency"< lol.
This former National Security Agency special adamently stated that during 1998, alone, there was over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS worth of credit card fraud on the Internet. That's Big Money, hey?!
Okay............
Now, since we are all participating with giving our >OPINIONS< on this thread, without basis of any of the actual facts, well.....here's mY taKE:
HOW ABOUT: The account was frozen the FIRST TIME, because Western Union questioned why soooooooo many payments were going to ONE address in Roumania from ONE address in the USA.
Western Union notified the FBI.
The FBI got a court order; the account was momentarily shut down.
It was RE-OPENED to assist the FBI with the gathering of hard FACTS, cold data, hard evidence. The entire Kit & Kaboogle of an electronic "paper trail."
=======> i.e., it was part of a Sting job by the FBI.
Given that frudulent use of credit cards is soaring every second as you read my words, I do NOT believe that the above interpretation is conspiratorial, although I spose I'll get accused of same.
Nah, I believe that Paypal did NOT do anything illegal, but rather is actively working with federal law enforcement agencies, and certainly CANNOT enlighten any of us any further.
LOL!!
That said, I must say that I LOVE BILLPOINT ELECTRONIC CHECKS, AND NOW THEY ARE **FREEEEEEEEEEE*!!!
posted on October 6, 2000 07:08:02 PM new
twinsolft: I agree! I won;t use Playpal or Brand X Bank -- I'll stick with companies that have LOOOOONNNNNNNG term experience with financial services.
However, just cuz I don't use Paypal does NOT mean that I believe they did anything, whatsoever, untoward here.
I believe there is a HUGE investigation going on.
Our government is VERY concerned that nothing occur to undermine the integrity and safety of online auctions, so I imagine that there are a gadzillion investigations of all manner going on, even right now, LOL!!
posted on October 6, 2000 07:16:03 PM new
OK, reality check time.....
Remember that you don't know who is posting or whether they are telling the truth. Just because a story is posted doesn't mean that's what happened or even that anything happened.
I brought home a copy of the ACH Rules tonight, albeit a 1999 copy (so some of the information may be outdated - but this should give people a better idea of how this works). ACH stands for Automated Clearing House. What they do is set up guidelines on how all the banks and other financial organizations can interact without each of them having to come with a seperate agreement with each other. Please note these are not laws, merely guidelines.
The guidelines state (if I haven't missed something) that unless there is an error (such as duplicate processing, keying error, or computer glitch) or the cash letter is destroyed (I'm assuming that means the original request for the funds to be transferred was obliterated some way) niether the Originator (Paypal) or the ODFI (Originating Depostory Financial Institution - PayPal) has the right to recall an entry or file, to require the return of or adjustment to an enter or to stop the payment or posting of an entry, once the entry has been received by the Originating ACH Operator (the Automated Clearinghouse who processes the transfers).
A reversal is defined by these guidelines as 'Any ACH entries (single transaction) or files sent within required deadlines or reverse previously originated erroneous entries or files.'
There should be a code associated with any reversal indicating the reason for the reversal which the bank can easily see.
That was an interesting note you made, Damon about the possibility of the reversal being 'court ruled'. That's certainly a reason I've never seen before. If the money was stolen, then I'm not sure why PayPal would be given custody of the money, but I'll grant there is a possibility.
The guidelines go on to say - PayPal can ask your bank for the money back and it's the bank's decision as to whether they get it or not. At that point it is the bank's liability if they make the wrong decision. The customer can tell the bank that a withdrawal was 'unauthorized' and then the bank can kick it back to ACH as denied, reason 'unauthorized', if that's what they want to do. Then Paypal (or whomever) is supposed to come up with evidence that the withdrawal was approved.
Other interesting passages in these guidelines include:
start quote (with notes in parenthesis added by me to clarify):
In the case of debit entries (transactions) to a consumer account, the authorization must be writing, signed or similarly authenticated by the consumer. The term similarly authenticated includes the use of digital signature or other code. To meet the requirement that an authorization be in writing, an electronic authorization must be able to be displayed on a computer screen or other visual display that enables the consumer to read the communication. The authroization also must be readily identifiable as an authorization, must clearly and conspicuously state it's terms, and must provide that the receiver (the customer) may revoke the authorization oly by notifying the Originator (PayPal) in the manner specified in the authorization.
end quote
In other words, you (the customer) should be able to revoke the authorization of PayPal to withdraw money from your account by whatever means that PayPal should have ~clearly~ specified when you authorized them in the first place.
start quote:
Section 3.4 Consumer Accounts - copy of debit authorization
An originator must provide each receiver with an electronic or hard copy ofthe receiver's authorization for all debit entries to be initiated to a consumer account.
Section 3.5 Records
An originator (PayPal) must retain the original or a microfilm or microfilm-equivalent copy of each authorization of a Receiver (the customer) for two years from the termination or revocation of the authorization.
stop quote
There is another interesting comment in the section relationships and responsiblities of Originators (PayPal).
Start Quote:
Originators must ensure that the consumer is completely aware of the nature of the product or service that he or she is purchasing. The rights provided to the consumer in questioning electronic funds transfer activity to his account are very liberal Failure to understand the
nature of the product or service that is being sold could result in the return of the ACH debit to the Originator.
End Quote
This is the particular passage that I feel PayPal really falls down at. This makes it sound like PayPal can really be liable in a whole sale way for misleading customers about the nature and extent of services that PayPal provides for it's fees.
I'll also further state that it looks like there is an arbitration process in place for disagreements, but I just glanced at that part so I can't go into details.
posted on October 6, 2000 07:48:54 PM new
There was no court order- Damon admitted as much in email to the user, which is posted elsewhere. He admitted it was an attempt to reverse a previous withdrawl. They just took the money because they thought they were entitled to it, and because they could.
Although X.com will vigorously pursue debt collection of any amounts owed to it, X.com will never make electronic transfers from your bank account without your explicit permission.
Once money has left our system and cleared into a bank account, we can't access the funds.
The did it anyway, 30 days after the transaction was completed, and the funds were "safely" in the user's checking account. This should be a matter of concern to all PayPal users.
posted on October 6, 2000 08:00:09 PM new
magazine_guy, if you're going to report the news, then at least report it accurately! I sure did NOT see this post from PP that you are talking about.. please direct me to the title of the thread that PP made such an admission.
This is what I've read on page 3 of "bank account withdrawls":
These reversals for 971.87 and 960.00 were requested as a stop withdrawal on September 1st.
There is more which can be read by anyone who wishes to read it.
This is farfrom They just took the money because they thought they were entitled to it, and because they could.
They put a "stop payment" on it while the account was orignally frozen. As to why the stop payment was delayed a month at the PP user's bank, that is something that she will have to find out from her bank.
But please, magazine_guy, please do accurate reporting if you're going to report. Anything else is slipshod work and can make one wonder what the real movtives are.. ya know? Thanks
[ edited by rosiebud on Oct 6, 2000 08:02 PM ]
Yes, lots of heresay and some decent information and more and more intrigue. When I started this thread I was mainly just interested in the ways this PayPal policy could effect the accounts and businesses of others, but the sheer magnitude of the drama of it all has simply overtaken any interest I had in that and I find myself mesmerized by it all. I hope Damon doesn't take the weekend off this time and can keep it going because I don't know if I can wait until Monday for the next big revelation. This is SOOO much better than TV!
posted on October 6, 2000 08:48:47 PM new
And as far as figuring out what happened goes... with the $1000 that is...
quote:
---------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Toy Ranch:
Here's a theory...
What if they generated the reversal request in September and it sat at Julia's bank waiting for the necessary funds to fill it to become available and when the bank account reached the balance needed to fund the request it was funded, a month after the reversal request was made...
I have no idea how this all works, it's just a theory.
---------------------------------------------
quote:
---------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Damon Billian:
Hi,
The date the request to reverse was put in was the email posted. Sep.1.
posted on October 6, 2000 08:58:11 PM new
I'm still shaking my head over the fact that ANYONE would accept payments for a total stranger in Romania and assume that merchandise was actually being sold and shipped to customers......
posted on October 6, 2000 10:31:36 PM new
Who is ToyRanch and RUBBISH!!
I have trusted paypal or PP with my bank account since it's inception and have yet to have a bad experience with them.
FBI? Give me a break! A little slow at times; but, "Slow" is my only criticism of the paypal system. Xcom, I have no experience with; except, from the time of their merger with paypal.
This sounds like a total misconception of data input financial instructions.
1. Nothing in this story has anything to do with money laundering. Nothing.
2. No evidence beyond "should have known" indicates that the PP customer was herself engaged in fraud. What if she was truly clueless? The story at face value includes no fraud except by Romanians, and is plausible.
3. I don't see a definitive answer to the question regarding what PP actually did, and I await such an answer. PPD has been coy rather than frank. I do see Damon backpedalling from the earlier statement that PP will never remove money without the customer's permission. Now Damon includes court ordered removals. On such split hairs do major policies transverse major divides, a truth which has escaped Damon more than once in the past.
"We will not do" is profoundly different than "we will go to court when we believe we need to do".
As usual (having observed the ongoing string of such "re-statements", I don't believe that this reflects deception on the part of PPD, but rather naivete, a belief that "it's the thought that counts", even while Damon's company feels free to restate that expressed thought without consideration of the feeling of violation from PayPal customers who took it more seriously than did PayPal. In PayPal's "mind", claiming "never" seems to always imply "never, unless we need to to prevent fraud".
It's this lack of sophistication when encountering fraud which betrays PayPal's lack of financial experience time and time again.
posted on October 7, 2000 07:06:44 AM new
toyranch: LOL! You mentioned, "...but the sheer magnitude of the drama of it all has simply overtaken any interest I had in that and I find myself mesmerized by it all."
~ ~ ~
gadz00Ks! ain't it the truth!
Playpal mEEts the Real World, hey?
Since I do not use Paypal, I typically do not follow any of the messagethreads about it, as I made my point VERY clear many months ago, when I got flamed royally for stating my honest opinions about same.
However, this mesmerization quotient that you speak of, I can really relate to that -- so MUCH of the Net's eBiz is founded upon sheer hype...
Now, in the Days of Olde, the word 'hype' had a very negative connotation, signifying cons & lies.
I found it a-m-a-z-i-n-g to watch the popular usage of 'hype' become a positive buzzword at the fin de siecle, LOL!!!
Indeed, during the last year and a half there is a part of my core essence that has been similarly mesmerized by the abject gawdawfulness of the groWTH and DEMise of so-called ecommerce, LOL!!!!!
I have been riveted, not by the "drama" of it all, but by the sheer outright utter UGLINESS of it, the firsthand magnification of the very worse that the "bandwagon" effect can have, stirring what has been referred to as, "The Extraordinary Delusions and Popular Madness of Crowds."
There's a certain fascination with observing textbook terms come to LIFE before your very eyes, LOLOLOL!!
posted on October 7, 2000 07:18:08 AM new
Montre9 asserted, "FBI? Give me a break!"
~ ~ ~
I suggest that you go back and read this entire thread, and then re-read my post until you can accurately digest it.
If YOU happen to believe that Western Union would NOT be interested in why a US citizen suddenly is sending money through them to Roumania alla the time, then I suggest that you do a leeetle widdle bit o' reading about credit card fraud.
And if you happen to believe that a profession financial services corporation like Western Union would NOT notify the FBI about strange suspicious financial activities involving countries in Eastern Europe, just to name ONE of the "Hot Spots", then you are sadly mistaken.
NO professional experienced financial services company with professional experienced employees would EVER, not ever, oKay the potential laundering of funds to parties in Roumania.
However, the ENTIRE story as it stands, is simply a STORY.
Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of the term HEARSAY.
Hearsay = STORY.
Everything is allegations, pure and simple!
Worse yet, they are allegations appearing on a stinkin' CHATBOARD on the Internet.
In case you ain't aware, Internet chatboards have a notorious reputation for being filled with RUMORS, worse yet with intentional LIES which are meant to mislead and influence people by the use of memes, catchwords, hype and BUZZ.
twinsolft: I forgot to mention a
THANK YOU to you in my first post to
this thread, in reference to your
statement, "All other issues are at
this point speculation."
NO kidding, LOL!
Ain't that the word:
* S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-I-O-N *
Now when you later commented, "Can't believe I'm saying this, but I like Radh's conspiracy theory." --- Well, frankly, IF, and that's a real big *If*, if enough of the hearsay represents a somewhat accurate portrayal of the actual incidents, then frankly there is simply nothing whatsoever "conspiratorial" about my OPINION, as I'm certain that most cyberlaw enforcement professionals with even INFINTESIMAL background in financial transactions would agree.
And see, Western Union, they been in biz a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnG, long time - they know very quickly when something looks FISHY. lol!!
posted on October 7, 2000 08:19:45 AM new
Why would Western Union give a rodent's hindquarters about where their money orders go? As long as they are paid in cash for their money order they won't have a concern. As long as the person that cashes the money order is the correct payee they won't care.
If I wrote a check to a burglar to pay them break into someone's home and steal their keyboard (which has a defective Caps Lock key) the bank wouldn't care as long as I had sufficient funds and the person endorsing the check was the actual payee. The police would consider it evidence, but the bank won't care.
If Western Union isn't defrauded then they have no reason to care and they most likely won't. How are they supposed to distinguish those money orders that represent laundered funds from the thousands that don't? I guess they should report every money order cashed in Romania to the FBI.
Dr. Beetle
[ edited by DoctorBeetle on Oct 7, 2000 08:25 AM ]
There seem to be a number of eBay users who NEVER signed up with Playpal and have NO intention of ever conducting their financial transactions with them.
To all others who feel angry about Playpal "deceiving" them with "false promises", all I can say at this point is that the next time a financial services company attempts to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, I hope you are prepared. I also suggest you do web and news SEARCHES on companies you rely upon to conduct your services -- as, I distinctly recall last year there being news articles about what'll happen when PayPal starts charging after their viral marketing extravaganza is done - all the journalists knew it would NOT be free forever.....
Believing that ANY business can live off "The Float" is conducting business the amazon-dot-com way, LOLOLOLOLOLOL
I do not chose to discuss this topic any further, as I have never used Playpal, and I never intend to use Playpal.
I want a REPUTABLE long term EXPERIENCED professional corporation to handle financial transactions associated with my business, and I certainly do NOT intend to be tracking and collating payments from multiple web-based payment systems. I have more than enuff paperwork as it is, thank you very much.
posted on October 7, 2000 10:11:25 AM new
"PayPal Withdraws $1000 from User's Account"
I'm not sure which is worse, the reader that allows themself to get worked into hysterics over 'gossip' or the spin doctors that use message boards in such dubioius manners.
There is something very wrong with this and it has nothing to do with PayPal.
posted on October 7, 2000 10:28:27 AM newThis former National Security Agency special adamently stated that during 1998, alone, there was over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS worth of credit card fraud on the Internet. That's Big Money, hey?!
Considering that the US GDP in 1998 was 8.75 trillion, it is not possible for this "agent's" claim to be accurate. There's no way that there was even $1 trillion in total credit card transactions, much less fraudulent ones.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All rights reserved. All wrongs reversed.
OOPS, too late, found one thing that didn't make sense already..*L*
, I don't believe that this reflects deception on the part of PPD, but rather naivete, a belief that "it's the thought that counts", even while Damon's company feels free to restate that expressed thought without consideration of the feeling of violation from PayPal customers who took it more seriously than did PayPal. In PayPal's "mind", claiming "never" seems to always imply "never, unless we need to to prevent fraud".