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

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

This is all pure rubbish.

Regardless of what you claim, eBay/PayPal did not agree to any offer that he made. You know as well as I that only a fool would buy this. You show me where PayPay agreed to the OP's "counter offer."

JPZ is completely correct in his analysis.
PayPal, by initially allowing me to create the account, then accepting the fund transfer from the buyer and then accepting my initial request to transfer funds from PayPal to my bank, is confirmation that the initial contract giving me access to their services was completely accepted by them.

The OP did, however, agree to PayPal's Terms of Service. And then he lied when they asked him to further verify his account. Clear and obvious fraud.

Pure rubbish !
PayPal initially drew up and then accepted a contract between themselves and me, otherwise how would I have even had a PayPal account into which money could be transferred. At this point, all was well and a working contract in existence between PayPal and myself.

It was after this initial contract agreement by both parties that PayPal decided to restrict my account and freeze funds. Such action was NEVER disclosed to me when I initially contracted with them to create the account. It was only a later date that PayPal decided to alter the terms of the agreement/contract by asking for additional id verification and until I supplied it, the account would remain in a hold status. A clear violation of the terms of the originally accepted contract/agreement.

At NO point did I act fraudulently or lie.
PayPal, in a questionnaire that I was required to complete and submit, did not ask but rather insisted that I disclose to them my personal annual income level. I disputed their need to know, selected an appropriate income response and then EXPLAINED my reasoning behind my choice of income response.
At NO point was I acting fraudulently as I clarified my response. Acting fraudulently would have been to select an incorrect income response and NOT give them an explanation. In my opinion I was not happy with the terms of this new contract alteration they were trying to impose on me (long after the account had been completed and made use of) and so I made an entry indicating that I was offering a minor modification to the terms. At NO time after this counter offer was made by me did PayPal indicate that they were refusing it.

But, again, none of this matters, as the OP admits to submitting fraudulent information which is a clear violation of the terms he agreed to when he sought out and requested to do business with eBay/PayPal.

Bollocks !

it's seems the australian government is to blame, not pay pal, since it's they and not them, that are forcing pay pal to comply with anti-laundering laws.

your anger should be directed at the politicians that introduced the law and the politicians that voted and enacted it.

reply to post by muzzleflash


It is very daunting to file a claim against a faceless corporation. They don't make it easy and are very misleading. Per there terms of service you cannot sue them. In another section it says legal issues need to be dealt with at their local state. (paraphrasing) both of these aspects have been broken via previous court decisions. But the haven't removed them from their T/C.

Nebraska AG has a dedicated team responsible for dealing with PayPal. Several banks will allow you to block withdrawals from PayPal. As they like to randomly take money from your checking account if they feel you owe them. Even before a investigation is done.

Small Claims Court is around $175, Supena $40. Most issues requiring PayPal to freeze your account are less than $200-300.

Do a Google Search for Paypal Sucks. Plenty of information out there.

What's sad if any other online business had this much bad press they would of been closed down a long time ago.

You all know that Paypal bought EBay years ago, right.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

The law of contracts is universal. If the law of contracts varied from nation to nation, there wouldn't even be a thing called globalization. If businesses cannot count on a standard rule of law regarding contracts smart people wouldn't bother to contract. However, just to be clear here, here is a brief overview of Australian contract law:

Australian contract law is based on the inherited English contract law, with specific statutory modifications of principles in some areas. Australian law has developed through the decisions of Australian courts, especially since the 1980s, and various pieces of legislation passed by the Parliament of Australia and by the various states and territories. See contract law for very general doctrines relating to contract law. In Australia, the law of equity has also played an increasing part in changing the laws regarding contracts, and what occurs when they are breached.

Now let's look at this English contract law:

English contract law is a body of law regulating contracts in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth (such as Australia, Canada and India[1]), and the United States.

My, my, my, you just keep digging that hole deeper and deeper, don't you?

The evolving nature of contract law is a part of its common law heritage, and as new technologies, such as the internet, continue to develop, contract law will continue to evolve, but the principles behind it remain the same, and your sad attempt to deflect this by claiming "American contract law" is somehow fundamentally different than "Australian contract law" is, quite simply, misguided at best.

You've gone from accusing the O.P. of committing fraud because of how he filled out a form, going as far as insisting I read IRS 6050w and get back to you, (of which I did and you are still evading that) to now claiming that your argument was always about him selling silver. You really do think people are profoundly stupid, don't you?

Laughably, you hope to play not just defense attorney to Paypal, you hope to play prosecutor to the O.P. and now, quite amusingly, you pretend to be the judge as well. Case dismissed indeed! In your little make believe world of pretend court, this may be how things work, but not in the real world, sport.

Ok, can't resist.

You keep focusing on this fantasy contract - it doesn't exist. The only contract is the one the OP legally agreed to when he clicked that little box we've been talking about.

You can talk out your ass all day long, but you are accomplishing nothing. The OP still falsified information, and PayPal is going to keep his money.

You can attempt to use big words and legal definitions, but you are completely wrong in 99% of what you've stated. Most of it has no substantial foundation in reality. You are ignoring facts and misrepresenting what the OP himself stated to have occurred and then finding a legal case to suit your fairy tale.

Don't tell me about the real world - I live in it. Let me know when you guys take down PayPal with your internet vigilantism.

Had a similar experience with paypal. I sold 36,000 worth of palladium coins and bars and requested a transfer after a few days. They froze my funds for 180 days even though the buyer had received the items and left positive feedback through ebay. I filed complaints with the Secretary of State of California, Nebraska and Colorado (my home state) and with the Better Business B, and the banking commission of each state. They had to respond to each and every complaint. They contacted me and finally released my funds after ninety days. They have fought all efforts to have them regulated as a bank which would force them to just take deposits and transfers and have to release funds on request by arguing that they are not a banking institution, which is a load of crap.

Ron Paul 2012.

Originally posted by PrimePorkchop
reply to post by tauristercus

 

so - you refuse to abide by their rules, and get angry when they freeze your funds as a result?

You're the typical "what's wrong with this country" prime example.

Grow up. If you want to use paypal to sell and receive money - you have to attach a bank account.

Maybe if you would have taken the time to read thru the thread instead of coming up with such an idiotic answer to the topic being addressed, I might take your words seriously. But no! There always has to be a newbie who knows it all.

It’s always nice to have members of your stature participating in this amazing and thought provoking website!

Give me a break!

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

This is all pure rubbish.

Regardless of what you claim, eBay/PayPal did not agree to any offer that he made. You know as well as I that only a fool would buy this. You show me where PayPay agreed to the OP's "counter offer."

JPZ is completely correct in his analysis.
PayPal, by initially allowing me to create the account, then accepting the fund transfer from the buyer and then accepting my initial request to transfer funds from PayPal to my bank, is confirmation that the initial contract giving me access to their services was completely accepted by them.

The OP did, however, agree to PayPal's Terms of Service. And then he lied when they asked him to further verify his account. Clear and obvious fraud.

Pure rubbish !
PayPal initially drew up and then accepted a contract between themselves and me, otherwise how would I have even had a PayPal account into which money could be transferred. At this point, all was well and a working contract in existence between PayPal and myself.

It was after this initial contract agreement by both parties that PayPal decided to restrict my account and freeze funds. Such action was NEVER disclosed to me when I initially contracted with them to create the account. It was only a later date that PayPal decided to alter the terms of the agreement/contract by asking for additional id verification and until I supplied it, the account would remain in a hold status. A clear violation of the terms of the originally accepted contract/agreement.

At NO point did I act fraudulently or lie.
PayPal, in a questionnaire that I was required to complete and submit, did not ask but rather insisted that I disclose to them my personal annual income level. I disputed their need to know, selected an appropriate income response and then EXPLAINED my reasoning behind my choice of income response.
At NO point was I acting fraudulently as I clarified my response. Acting fraudulently would have been to select an incorrect income response and NOT give them an explanation. In my opinion I was not happy with the terms of this new contract alteration they were trying to impose on me (long after the account had been completed and made use of) and so I made an entry indicating that I was offering a minor modification to the terms. At NO time after this counter offer was made by me did PayPal indicate that they were refusing it.

But, again, none of this matters, as the OP admits to submitting fraudulent information which is a clear violation of the terms he agreed to when he sought out and requested to do business with eBay/PayPal.

Bollocks !

PayPal's Terms of Service

You should really read this, OP. This is what you agreed to when you checked that box, and if you read through you'll find that PayPal has made reservations for situations where fraud is a consideration and they need to gather additional information from you.

Don't do something stupid and then cry about it - you broke the contract when you refused to answer PayPal's verification questions honestly. I don't like doing business with liars, and it comforts me knowing that a company that handles a decent chunk of money for me doesn't either.

I feel safer doing business with PayPal knowing they are actively looking for scammers and thieves, liars and those who seek to profit at the expense of others. Great job, PayPal, in keeping dishonest people off of eBay!

I guess that they just confirmed that you are nothing but the 99% of the population who is not important to them.
Ironically, even if I say that with sarcasm, I recognize that in fact, they can actually do what-ever they want to piss you off because even without you as a client, they'll still be filthy rich.

So I do feel for you, I know exactly what it is you go through, unfortunately this rant won't change a lot in the way people do business with them but at least you got to blow off some steam.

What will you do next time you want to sell an item on ebay?

reply to post by TinkerHaus


Dear Lord! Is there any claim you make that you can actually stand by? You not only announced in this thread you were done, you actually messaged me to make the same claim, and now here you are! No wonder you cannot understand the principles of contract law. You seem to be lacking in principles, or view them as disposable.

Of course, maybe you just had to pitch Paypal one more time...or maybe you'll keep posting and advertising for Paypal, but if I were in charge of Paypal and aware of your posts in this thread, I would implore, I would beg you to please stop. You're making Paypal look worse than all the naysayers in this thread collectively.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

This is all pure rubbish.

Regardless of what you claim, eBay/PayPal did not agree to any offer that he made. You know as well as I that only a fool would buy this. You show me where PayPay agreed to the OP's "counter offer."

JPZ is completely correct in his analysis.
PayPal, by initially allowing me to create the account, then accepting the fund transfer from the buyer and then accepting my initial request to transfer funds from PayPal to my bank, is confirmation that the initial contract giving me access to their services was completely accepted by them.

The OP did, however, agree to PayPal's Terms of Service. And then he lied when they asked him to further verify his account. Clear and obvious fraud.

Pure rubbish !
PayPal initially drew up and then accepted a contract between themselves and me, otherwise how would I have even had a PayPal account into which money could be transferred. At this point, all was well and a working contract in existence between PayPal and myself.

It was after this initial contract agreement by both parties that PayPal decided to restrict my account and freeze funds. Such action was NEVER disclosed to me when I initially contracted with them to create the account. It was only a later date that PayPal decided to alter the terms of the agreement/contract by asking for additional id verification and until I supplied it, the account would remain in a hold status. A clear violation of the terms of the originally accepted contract/agreement.

At NO point did I act fraudulently or lie.
PayPal, in a questionnaire that I was required to complete and submit, did not ask but rather insisted that I disclose to them my personal annual income level. I disputed their need to know, selected an appropriate income response and then EXPLAINED my reasoning behind my choice of income response.
At NO point was I acting fraudulently as I clarified my response. Acting fraudulently would have been to select an incorrect income response and NOT give them an explanation. In my opinion I was not happy with the terms of this new contract alteration they were trying to impose on me (long after the account had been completed and made use of) and so I made an entry indicating that I was offering a minor modification to the terms. At NO time after this counter offer was made by me did PayPal indicate that they were refusing it.

But, again, none of this matters, as the OP admits to submitting fraudulent information which is a clear violation of the terms he agreed to when he sought out and requested to do business with eBay/PayPal.

Bollocks !

PayPal's Terms of Service

You should really read this, OP. This is what you agreed to when you checked that box, and if you read through you'll find that PayPal has made reservations for situations where fraud is a consideration and they need to gather additional information from you.

Don't do something stupid and then cry about it - you broke the contract when you refused to answer PayPal's verification questions honestly. I don't like doing business with liars, and it comforts me knowing that a company that handles a decent chunk of money for me doesn't either.

I feel safer doing business with PayPal knowing they are actively looking for scammers and thieves, liars and those who seek to profit at the expense of others. Great job, PayPal, in keeping dishonest people off of eBay!

edit on 16-5-2012 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)

He did answer honestly... he was actually brutally honest with them. No one should be forced to reveal such personal information to a middle man. The transaction is between the seller and the buyer, the transactions are between the buyer's bank and the seller's bank. Paypal only smoothes out the transactions and makes sure that everything is done right and fair. But right and fair has nothing to do with how much money is in the seller's bank account.

Question was irrelevant imo and he answered appropriately, just not in an appropriate "manner".

Paypal are some of the shadiest payment processors I've dealt with and say you run into a scammer, they side with the buyer 99% of the time.

reply to post by tauristercus


I believe him to be correct as well. He has given you good advice. The main thing is not to give up. Don't roll over and let them take your money. If you have to stay on the phone from the time you get off work until the time you go to sleep, that is what you should do. Too many people give up and that is why Paypal continues with this sham day after day. If just a few of Paypal's members let a few dollars go out of a few accounts because it "isn't that much hence not worth the time/effort" then Paypal is making tons of money from that as well.

They are no different than any other entity...

If it becomes too painful or not worth it to them, then they will cease doing what they are doing. The more people stand up and speak out, the more pain Paypal will eventually feel. Some will not see your side regardless of how you explain it, or what documents you produce.

Truth is, either way it IS YOUR money. If the funds you received are deemed illegal then Paypal needs to be investigated by the authorities as well for taking THEIR CUT off the top of illegally attained funds.

Sorry to say,.but it sounds like you're the one acting like a dick. A PayPal account is the same as any credit card account. It doesn't sound like PayPal is asking for anything anyone else doesn't ask for.

Every credit card place asks how much you make a year. All you needed to say was $6000, or do like me and lie about making 500K as a rocket scientist, and leave it at that.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus

 

You should really read this, OP. This is what you agreed to when you checked that box, and if you read through you'll find that PayPal has made reservations for situations where fraud is a consideration and they need to gather additional information from you.

Holy crap TinkerHaus ... just give it a rest will you as you're beginning to sound like a broken record and I'm starting to get somewhat miffed regarding the accusations of dishonesty and fraud you're blatantly accusing me of.

Here is in part, one legal definition of fraud

In summary:

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements:
(1) a false statement of a material fact,
(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue,
(3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim,
(4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and
(5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

According to the above, for fraud to be clearly the case, all 5 elements must be true.

Whereas (1) and (2) are true as I selected an inappropriate income level as my response ...

item (3) is clearly false as I had NO intent to deceive the alleged victim (PayPal).
item (4) is clearly false as by explaining my actions regarding income selection, there was no need for the alleged victim (PayPal) to rely on my income response.
item (5) is clearly false as there was NO resultant injury to the alleged victim (PayPal).

I can't even sell my music on bandcamp because its linked to paypal, although this was my fault as I went in the red with paypal a few years ago, a new account created broke agreements, so there I am no way to sell my tunes!

reply to post by mrnotobc


They extended him NO credit! He funded his own account which makes it even more ridiculous that they needed to know that information.

reply to post by tauristercus


I sell on ebay and I also use paypal. I have never had to fill out that form though. I never gave paypal my annual income. Maybe it is a new change or something. Sorry to hear they froze your account though.

Originally posted by Im a Marty
I can't even sell my music on bandcamp because its linked to paypal, although this was my fault as I went in the red with paypal a few years ago, a new account created broke agreements, so there I am no way to sell my tunes!

I completely sympathise

And just think of all the business that insist on conducting transactions by way of PayPal. This means that you and I are effectively blacklisted from doing business with all of them because PayPal have deemed it that we're not fit, reliable enough, trustworthy, whatever .... to do business with them.
Talk about the power that PayPal hold and wield, solely at their whim and discretion

Originally posted by FlyersFan
PayPal is like using a credit card.
Credit Card companies have a right to ask what your income is.
They are extending credit and can get burned if you can't pay.
Although I hate giving up our income information, it can be necessary to receive/use credit.

Although I agree Paypal i like using a credit card, the keyword here is "using", not "applying". When you use your credit card you are not required to supply income information. When you go out to eat, do you tell the hostess or host how much money you make per year when you pay your bill?

Paypal is not on the hook and assumes no risk. Your payment comes from a debit or credit card, or directly from the bank. They verify the funds and transfer, that's it. If the funds are not there, Paypal does not transfer anything.

Had it been me, I would not have made any type of statement, I would have simply lied on the form and chosen the lowest amount and kept my opinion to myself. Anyone can ask anything they like, I am not required to answer truthfully, especially if it is none of you business.

That being said, I do not use Paypal to receive payments. I use Paypal to pay for items.

reply to post by tauristercus


I sold a laptop once through PayPal and I received the funds in my bank acct within 2 days and shipped out the item within 24 hrs. Then I get a call stating that I needed to return the $429 because the credit card used to buy my laptop came back later as stolen. I simply said you, PayPal, approved the payment ma'am so that is on you, not me. I'll be damned if they'll ever see a red cent out of me ever again. This happened 8-10 years ago. They contact me every 2-3 years and I tell them to take a flying leap.
After reading your story I guess I was lucky to receive the money before having a problem. Like I was supposed to cheerfully return the money to them and be out a laptop when the only reason I agreed to use them is because they guaranteed payment at that time.
If I were you I would get an attorney if you can afford it, or, notify a local investigative reporter, or take them to small claims court which is pretty cheap. Force their hand. Don't let them get away without kissing you after having bent you over!,,,