Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Paypal Won't Release Funds To Slain Soldier's Family

samzenpus posted more than 7 years ago | from the why-think-when-you-have-policy dept.

Businesses 337

robustyoungsoul writes "Popular sports blog Deadspin established the Adam Knox Fund for the purpose of raising money in honor of the fallen soldier who was killed in Iraq. They took the donations through a PayPal account. Turns out now, however, PayPal will not release the money due to the way the account was set up on their end."

cancel ×

337 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yea, Paypal Sucks, but this is a bit dramatic. (5, Insightful)

lecithin (745575) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550272)

"Paypal Won't Release Funds To Slain Soldier's Family"

That isn't quite true, they are holding the funds until mid April, probably due to somebody screwing up. I'm not convinced that it was Paypal's mistake to begin with.

"Paypal Doesn't Want Slain Soldiers' Families To Receive Aid"

Come on now, yea, there may have been a mistake made, but it has nothing to do with the money going to a Slain Soldiers' Family.

Why the need for so much drama?

Re:Yea, Paypal Sucks, but this is a bit dramatic. (2, Insightful)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550444)

Why the need for so much drama?


Why, because then no here will read it! Who wants to read about a story regarding Paypal if it doesn't shed Paypal in a bad light?

Re:Yea, Paypal Sucks, but this is a bit dramatic. (4, Insightful)

sexyrexy (793497) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550718)

Because it just takes a few stories like that to get picked up by major news orgs or large aggregators like Slashdot to twist PayPal's arm into rectifying the situation quickly.

Re:Yea, Paypal Sucks, but this is a bit dramatic. (4, Insightful)

susano_otter (123650) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551012)

On the other hand, there's nothing like a media frenzy to prompt a company to appease the masses rather than taking the time do get it right.

Re:Yea, Paypal Sucks, but this is a bit dramatic. (2, Insightful)

SensitiveMale (155605) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550766)

Why the need for so much drama?

Ad revenues?

Re:Yea, Paypal Sucks, but this is a bit dramatic. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17550914)

Maybe Paypal should insert a transactional check. If account = Nonprofit and Approved = Not and Balance owed > $100 then flag a warning and have a rep check it out. Either that, or just have non profit accounts frozen *until* proof of non-profit-ness has been established.

Re: Yea, Paypal Sucks...and that's on a good day (1, Insightful)

FractalZone (950570) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551238)

"Paypal Doesn't Want Slain Soldiers' Families To Receive Aid"

PayPal is EVIL. It went from being merely obnoxiusly intrusive and officious to being downright EVIL when it was bought out by eBay. Both companies are all about greed and neither give a shit about fucking over their userbase. The problem with eBay is that Jane Average doesn't realize that there are better auction sites for anything more significant than "collectibles". If you are into books, music, tools, videos, firearms, art, high-fashion, etc. there are plenty of better online marketplaces that won't rip you off the way eBay tends to do. Just do a Google search on "online auction" + a keyword or three related to what you want to buy or sell.

PayPal is particularly pernicious. Most people don't realize that PayPal charges a small fortune for nothing more than a little convenience...and it isn't terribly convenient when one gets ripped off by eBay the way the family of this slain soldier are.

Remember, friends don't let friends use PayPal. It is anything but your pal!

Re:Yea, Paypal Sucks, but this is a bit dramatic. (0, Redundant)

tgatliff (311583) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551266)

No.. I would say that this is just a very unfortunate response by an low level entry clerk. I can promise you that ebay/paypal did not want this outcome. Ebay and Paypal as a company is made of of people who care very much about not only their customers, but definitely the people in the military who serve this country.

People many times forget that systems are built to serve us, not us to serve them. For low level entry clerks, many times this fact is forgotten.

This issue could have been easily resolved by continuely asking to speak to higher level people. Policies are put in place for good reasons, but exceptions are always made. In short, no system is perfect.

Please stop trashing the Paypal name, and instead start to talk up the chain of command. I can assure you will find a number of people who will bend over backwards for you, and especially for any family of a fallen soldier.

release the funds... (yet) (4, Informative)

yagu (721525) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550274)

A more accurate summary should have indicated the money is frozen by policy for 180 days. So, paypal is not saying they won't release the money, they won't release it until April 13.

It probably sucks for the people who raised this money, but it also sucks for paypal that too many people set up these kinds of things with intent to defraud.

Hopefully with the noise raised and ruckus caused by sites such as slashdot, the resolution will become before April 13.

FTA:

Anyway, so, unless Paypal can see reason, we won't be able to send the legitimately raised money for a legitimate cause to Adam's family and the goods to Adam's platoon until April 13. We find this unacceptable.

Hopefully Adam's family and platoon isn't so depleted to not be able to function until April 13. Hopefully if this is so, paypal will figure out a way to disburse earlier.

Meantime, deepest regrets and best wishes to Adam's family for their loss.

Re:release the funds... (yet) (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17550332)

In the meantime Paypal gets a nice fat interest on those funds.

That is the reason they do that, NOT the fraud BS they tout.

Re:release the funds... (yet) (1, Informative)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551108)

Um you do know that with a click of a button you can start getting 5% interest from paypal for your balances.. Right..

You have to opt into their "stock" account which simply means that you accept additional risk that if paypal loses value, you may lose money as well. So far its paying out a constant 5% interest for the year I've had it.

Re:release the funds... (yet) (2, Interesting)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551116)

Is the 5.03% per year their money market fund [paypal.com] (Barclays International) pays "nice fat interest"?

Re:release the funds... (yet) (0, Offtopic)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551188)

Is the 5.03% per year their money market fund [paypal.com] (Barclays International) pays "nice fat interest"?
Please restate the above question using English grammar. Thank you.

Re:release the funds... (yet) (0, Redundant)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551224)

Is the 5.03% per year [that] their "money market fund" pays [what you mean by] "nice fat interest"?

Better?

Re:release the funds... (yet) (4, Informative)

EricTheGreen (223110) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551572)


In the meantime Paypal gets a nice fat interest on those funds.


Mod parent down--this is not accurate, let alone insightful. PayPal is not a registered financial institution (bank, savings/loan, credit union or any similar) and therefore unable to collect "float" interest on deposited monies.

This works two ways of course--as they are not a bank, the FDIC has less regulatory power over their daily operations than over more traditional financial institutions, hence reduced reporting requirements, transparency, sanction ability, etc. They do work with banks [paypal.com] but are not a primary deposit institution themselves.

They've certainly got a well and truly lousy track record when it comes to funds release and management--but investment float isn't one of the drivers of this. Were it, there'd be a half-dozen regulatory institutions over them very quickly.

(And yes, I do speak from experience in the financial services industry, before the flamers start in...)

Re:release the funds... (yet) (4, Interesting)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551094)

One thing that confuses me here is the 180 days and April 13th...

180 days from today is July 9th.

180 days before April 13th is October 15th.

And (just for completeness) April 13th is 93 days from now.

Is someone's math wrong at paypal? Or is this being reported months after the fact? Or what?

Re:release the funds... (yet) (1)

nanojath (265940) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551120)

A more accurate summary should have indicated... blah blah blah...

A more accurate summary wouldn't have angried up my blood enough!

It may be a necessary policy (meet some kind of legal/tax obligation), it may be a practical policy (they need time to deal with all the database changes and paperwork). The lag seems exceptional and it might just be an asshole policy (you screwed up! Guess we'll collect interest on your money for a nice long time. Hey man, what can you do, we have "policies.")

lily tomlin predicted this one... (3, Funny)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550286)

They took the donations through a PayPal account. Turns out now, however, PayPal will not release the money due to the way the account was set up on their end.

"Paypal: We don't care. We don't have to."

Re:lily tomlin predicted this one... (5, Insightful)

Zonk (troll) (1026140) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550678)

If PayPal wants to continue pretending to be a bank, they should be regulated like one.

Re:lily tomlin predicted this one... (1)

PhoenixAtlantios (991132) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551176)

Depends on where they get regulated, banks in Australia aren't exactly saints despite the regulations we have here; there's been several stories floating around of banks (like the National Australia Bank) defrauding people of 1 million or more dollars and getting away with it, completely screwing over their lives. I'm not saying it happens frequently, but there's obviously loopholes in the law everywhere, so there is no reason to think that regulating Paypal would cause them to become nicer at all when handling the affairs of their clients.

I'm unsure of the laws in the United States for banks but I would imagine they wouldn't stop this from happening, especially as it's one of the better defences Paypal has against theft/fraud. If they needed the money so quickly, they should have taken the time to read the fine print when signing up.

I suspect..... (4, Funny)

ezratrumpet (937206) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550350)

I suspect that PayPal will release the funds within 24 hours of the /. report.

No one wants that kind of bad PR.

Re:I suspect..... (1)

Grogs (1049606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551098)

True, the report probably exagerates too. I doubt they're going to just keep the money.

Re:I suspect..... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17551532)

I suspect that PayPal will release the funds within 24 hours of the /. report.

Oh come on! Slashdot doesn't mean a hill of beans to PayPal. Or anyone else, for that matter.

Thanks, Slashdot! Worst Paypal scam yet! (0)

QueePWNzor (1044224) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550354)

But this time, it's the real PayPal. I never trusted them, but this? The circumstance is already something that should have flexability, but they are just making fools of themselves either way. I've never set up a PayPal account, and I don't think I ever will. Thanks again, you caught these losers.

Re:Thanks, Slashdot! Worst Paypal scam yet! (4, Informative)

niin (1013329) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550512)

Did you actually read the article? Oh wait, this is slashdot. Of course you didn't. Even the guy's personal blog admits that they will, indeed, get the money, and that they didn't set up their account correctly for this sort of online dontation gathering. I'm really not seeing how this is Paypal's fault. They have to have some safeguards in place to prevent fraud. And this has nothing to do with Paypal not 'wanting soldiers to get their money'; that implies someone actively made a decision to withhold the money on the basis of where the money was going. Sure, maybe they're being a bit inflexible, but that might get worked out in the coming weeks. That has nothing to do with Paypal actively withholding money from soldiers.

Re:Thanks, Slashdot! Worst Paypal scam yet! (5, Informative)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550574)

The deadspin folks claim that paypal wrongly flagged the account as a charity account, and that they (deadspin) did not ask for the acount to be flagged as a charity account. If that is true, paypal has no right to be witholding the money, and they are also obliged to correct their classification error.

Re:Thanks, Slashdot! Worst Paypal scam yet! (3, Insightful)

niin (1013329) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550862)

They have every right to withhold the money until they prove it is an error. Just someone claiming there was an error in how the account was flagged isn't enough. It's very likely that on creation, the deadspin inadvertently said they were non-profit, since they are, just not documented.

Paypal has to put these sorts of safeguards in place since, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the way this account was set up looks *exactly* like a phishing scam account.

Re:Thanks, Slashdot! Worst Paypal scam yet! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17550904)

Your logic sounds like a lot of wishful thinking to me. Paypal is not a bank. Paypal has no rules or regulations to follow other than those they make up on fly, and there have been numerous instances of Paypal not paying or holding onto money for little or no reason. Go ahead and trust them. I have never used them. What's worse than a pay in advance credit card? Paypal!

Seems innocent enough. (4, Insightful)

traindirector (1001483) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550362)

While I hate large corporations ripping people off as much as the next guy, I don't think this says anything that bad about PayPal. This is my guess at what happened:

  1. Deadspin starts PayPal account. Despite their claims to the contrary, they set it up as a non-profit, not informed or not paying attention to the fact that documentation of being a non-profit organization is required.
  2. Much money is deposited into the account. Paypal likely doesn't take as big a cut because the fund is marked as a non-profit organization.
  3. They try to withdraw the money. Yes, it's for a noble cause, etc., but an organization like PayPal with such strict rules because of their sheer volume of transactions can't make exceptions (often) unless the issue rises above the first few rungs of the company. Plus, it probably goes beyond PayPal to federal regulations in dealing with non-profits.
  4. The fund starters make a big deal about it, pay whatever additional fees they would have had to pay otherwise (or maybe PayPal lets them off the hook to show how good a company they are), and all is again in balance.

So it doesn't seem the company is trying to rip anybody off or laugh over the graves of the dead. In this case.

Re:Seems innocent enough. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17550580)

So it doesn't seem the company is trying to rip anybody off or laugh over the graves of the dead.

It seems like you've never used Paypal before.

Re:Seems innocent enough. (4, Insightful)

Dolohov (114209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550814)

I suspect that part one went along the lines of,

PayPal Contact: "It sounds like these are charitable donations. Is this non-profit?"
Deadspin: "We're not making a profit off this, no."

Each party walks away thinking something different. Hijinks ensue.

This is why I'm convinced that corporations ought to be obliged to record all phone conversations with their customers, and produce them on request.

Re:Seems innocent enough. (3, Insightful)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551262)

I suspect that part one went along the lines of,

PayPal Contact: "It sounds like these are charitable donations. Is this non-profit?"
Deadspin: "We're not making a profit off this, no."

Each party walks away thinking something different. Hijinks ensue.

This is why I'm convinced that corporations ought to be obliged to record all phone conversations with their customers, and produce them on request.
Are you kidding? That'a a nice imagination you've got! You think there's a mechanism for actually talking with a person at PayPal to set up an account? PayPal doesn't have a phone number! Well, they do, but it's near impossible to find and the only time it's answered is between 6 and 7am Tuesdays, by the janitor. Everything is online. Deadspin filled out a webform to open their account, just like everyone else.

No major competition with PayPal is the problem (-1, Offtopic)

PurifyYourMind (776223) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550390)

Even Google is having trouble taking on that sector...

http://blogs.business2.com/beta/2006/12/google_che ckout.html [business2.com]

Re:No major competition with PayPal is the problem (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550786)

Google Checkout was never intended to be a direct PayPal clone (AFAIK).

Google will never launch any product that directly competes with anything EBAY owns or does. Why? Because EBAY is (judging by the number of sponsored links and such) the largest advertiser on google by a large margin.

Perhaps similar to the Somethingawful Katrina fund (5, Interesting)

6350' (936630) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550392)

SomethingAwful.com ran into a similar problem when they set up a paypal donation fund, to collect money for the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. They intended to give the money to the Red Cross.

After more than $20,000 had been donated in a day, PayPal froze the account. PayPal insisted that they would be unable to donate the money that had accumulted before the freeze to the Red Cross, tho bizarely said they could donate it to the United Way. After finding that the United Way had a reputation for inefficiency, SA finally just threw their hands up in disgust and told PayPall to refund the money to the donaters.

Wikipedia has a brief writeup of the issue in their SA article, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somethingawful [wikipedia.org]

Re:Perhaps similar to the Somethingawful Katrina f (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17550670)

LOL, they think the United Way is less efficient than the friggin Red Cross?

Sorry but I have personally been through several disasters (hurricanes) and the Red Cross was the least helpful and had some of the rudest people I have ever met working for them. The Red Cross is a commercial entity by the way and have been nailed several times for inappropriate use of funds and fraud (Google it, I'm lazy).

The United Way on the other hand was very nice to work with as was the US Army. I'm not saying the United Way is perfect but they can't be any worse than the Red Cross.

Re:Perhaps similar to the Somethingawful Katrina f (2, Informative)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550854)

LOL, they think the United Way is less efficient than the friggin Red Cross?

Yes, it is. The level of payment to executives and executive benefits is higher at the United Way. The percentage of payment that directly helps people is greater with the Red Cross, even if the people helping are rude.

Re:Perhaps similar to the Somethingawful Katrina f (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17550948)

Maybe but I said they didn't help and were rude on top. Lord help you if you make more than $10k/yr and need food from the Red Cross (probably doesn't help being white either).

At least in my experience the United Way helped everyone without prejudice.

Re:Perhaps similar to the Somethingawful Katrina f (1)

blincoln (592401) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550992)

The level of payment to executives and executive benefits is higher at the United Way.

Yep. That's one of the two reasons I refuse to donate to them. If I'm going to donate to a "charity," they had better be sending as much of that money as possible on to the actual people in need, not lining executives' pockets and sending big contributors on fancy vacations.

The other is their insulting method of "partnering" with big companies to make it seem like you're required as an employee to donate.

Re:Perhaps similar to the Somethingawful Katrina f (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17551154)

Whoops, your comment made me realize I was thinking "Salvation Army" not United Way.

Yes, the United Way sucks balls more than the Red Cross. Salvation Army was better than the Red Cross.

Re:Perhaps similar to the Somethingawful Katrina f (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17551510)

After finding that the United Way had a reputation for inefficiency, SA finally just threw their hands up in disgust and told PayPal to refund the money to the donaters.

Once the money is not going for the stated purpose, isn't this the only alternative?

PAYPAL STEALS money for 180 for INTEREST!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17550406)

Think about it - they are going to give up the money - but they must hold it for 180 days FOR WHAT FREAKING SECURITY (etc.) PURPOSE?????????

The ONLY reason for them to keep the money is to earn interest.

ANOTHER reason why Paypal should be considered a bank, and I'd like to see state and/or national legislation to due so. (Then I'll get back ALLL that money they owe me....)

THIEVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:PAYPAL STEALS money for 180 for INTEREST!!!!!! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17550486)

Unfortunately, THIEVES!!!!!11! are exactly the reason why PayPal has to maintain policies like this if they want to remain in business. There is an entire cottage industry, stretching from Bucharest to Lagos, that's devoted to figuring out new, innovative ways to rip off PayPal and its users.

If you are going to start a legitimate charity drive, you need to follow the prescribed procedures, or you WILL encounter hassles like this one. If not from PayPal, then from the IRS.

The reason why Paypal does this (5, Informative)

Gnpatton (796694) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550410)

The reason why Paypal does this is because creating a charity account without being able to provide documents proving your charity status is suspect. It's a red flag. Another red flag is having a new account suddenly receive a massive amount of funds from many individuals.

To make things clear, the types of accounts that is:
A) New accounts
B) Unable to provide documents
C) Receiving many funds from many separate individuals

If you can't guess already.... accounts created by phishing scams!

The fact that this person is not a phishing scam is a travesty on the part that they were suspended, but the FACT REMAINS that they have no possible means to prove their innocence.

Yes I said prove their innocence. This is a company, not a trial. Likewise, they haven't been found guilty either. The reason for the 180 suspension is obvious:

If the people who sent them money start to increasingly cancel their money payments, then, bingo, the account is a scam. If they don't after a given time, say... 180 days, then hey the account is legitimate.

Paypal sucks, but not in this particular case.

Re:The reason why Paypal does this (2, Insightful)

jt2377 (933506) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550484)

also, paypal make shitload of money from the 180 days hold period gernerated interests.

Re:The reason why Paypal does this (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551174)

I repeat you can start earning 5% interest on your paypal balance by selecting the "stock" option. This does include some potential risk of loss though if paypal ever tanks, than again as its not FDIC insured everyone else does as well.

Re:The reason why Paypal does this (4, Insightful)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550540)

It strikes me that they have already proven their innocence beyond the point that paypal has a right to know about. The fund in question was set up (possibly improperly) with an explicit, legitimate purpose that all donors can be expected to know about. That means that it is not phishing. Furthermore, there is no evidence that potential phishing is any part of the dispute. The only issue is that paypal is treating the account as belonging to an official, regulated charity, whereas the deadspin folks were doing an impromptu fundraiser.

Re:The reason why Paypal does this (4, Insightful)

steeviant (677315) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551446)

The reason why Paypal does this is because creating a charity account without being able to provide documents proving your charity status is suspect. It's a red flag. Another red flag is having a new account suddenly receive a massive amount of funds from many individual.

So why didn't they outline the fact that these things would be "red flags" when it comes to recovering money from them?

Why would they let someone set up an account in that way when it is obviously going to create problems with the recovery of funds?

Obviously, the account never should have been able to be set up as a charity without documentation identifying it as such if it's going to create these kinds of problems down the line. The problem is clearly of PayPal's own devising by allowing the account to be set up as such a trap in the first place.

To make things clear, the types of accounts that is:
A) New accounts
B) Unable to provide documents
C) Receiving many funds from many separate individuals

If you can't guess already.... accounts created by phishing scams!


Even if the person who set up the account requested the wrong type, PayPal should have either not set the account up in that way without the proper documentation, or outline the ramifications of not being able to produce said documentation when the money is withdrawn. I think it's obvious that they didn't do either of those things from the reaction of the site, and the "ho-hum should've known better" reaction of a lot of users here.

These people can provide a lot of documentation, just cannot prove they are a charitable organization, because they aren't, never were, and never should have ended up with an account of that type, but because of PayPal's corporate policy of setting up interest-traps like this (they obviously want to trap as much money as possible by luring people into setting up PayPal accounts in such a way that they will enter a "suspended" state which they can then collect interest on) they are now unable to collect their funds.

If PayPal were interested in helping people not be ripped off, they would demand all of the information required to draw down from a PayPal account at the establishment of the account, not when someone tries to withdraw their hard-earned (or hard-earned, then donated) cash from PayPal.

Paypal sucks, but not in this particular case.

This particular case highlights exactly why PayPal does suck. Because they encourage their staff to use legal technicalities to bar people from receiving money they have a legitimate right to, because it is more profitable and legally prudent to do so than not to.

PayPal sucks because as a corporate citizen they are psychopath with a pathological money addiction.
The same reason every other large corporation sucks. :)

Dramatic overstatement isn't it? (5, Insightful)

Vthornheart (745224) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550458)

Lesson learned to all: if you're going to claim you're a nonprofit organization, BE A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION.

This site was not nonprofit, and was having the funds sent to their own, private account.

Yes it's sad, but ask yourself the following: could you trust a nonprofit paypal donation if you knew that they only had to casually mention that they were nonprofit? That they didn't have to prove it?

There's nothing stopping the people who run that website, other than personal honor, from pocketing the cash and giving the finger to everyone who donated. And THAT is why PayPal has those policies. I'm surprised that they'd even hand over the cash after 180 days in fact.

It's sad, yes: but in the future, they should know to make an actual nonprofit organization with its own account. Doing such a thing isn't that hard: you just have to apply, and make a seperate checking account. My club at High School did it, and the people in that club were a bunch of idiots, especially in High School (myself included).

Re:Dramatic overstatement isn't it? (1)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550664)

The only claim that deadspin is a non-profit comes from paypal. The original blog post did not claim that they are a non-profit, and even said that the deadspin people would spend the money to buy goods to send over to Iraq. They even labeled their fund as "slapdash." Anybody reading the original blog post should understand that deadspin's integrity is the only thing that will get the money all the way to the soldiers.

If there are any laws prohibiting informal charities, paypal is responsible for pointing them out. Otherwise, paypal needs to allow the transactions to be completed.

Re:Dramatic overstatement isn't it? (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551602)

The only claim that deadspin is a non-profit comes from paypal.

The only claim that Paypal screwed up comes from deadspin. Why would PayPal arbitrarily make an account a non-profit? I think deadspin messed it up, and is now trying to pin the blame on Paypal. Something smells fishy.

Big surprise... (4, Informative)

supersocialist (884820) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550502)

PayPal did the same thing when Dan Savage of the Savage Love sex column took up a collection for charity. PayPal refused to release the funds to him and would only donate them directly to United Way, a charity with a very questionable reputation. Don't take charity through PayPal, people. They're sketchy enough when you're buying and selling like they want you to.

Obviously... (2, Funny)

TrappedByMyself (861094) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550516)

the CEO of Paypal must be a Michigan grad...

not the first time (5, Insightful)

Nutty_Irishman (729030) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550548)

Not the first time the company has hindered someone using paypal for a charitable cause. http://www.paypalsucks.com/forums/showthread.php?f id=3&tid=9630&old_block=0 [paypalsucks.com] . Also is the wired article http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,68788-0.htm l [wired.com] . I particular find this line a bit unsettling:

Kyanka said he asked PayPal to donate the money directly from the account to the Red Cross. However, PayPal declined, saying it has an exclusive charity relationship with United Way of America.
Umm... I can understand having exclusive relationships with, say, Pepsi or Coca Cola. However, it seems refusing to donate to one charity because you have an exclusive relationship with another charity almost implies that there is some financial benefit for you to donate money to one charity over another. Not to point fingers, but it's a bit of a gray area there...

Re:not the first time (2, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550676)

I think you should make a correction to your post. PayPal was NOT doing the donating to charity. They were simply a vehicle for the funds. It was NOT PayPal's money and never was.

PayPal refused to transfer the money to any charity except United Way (which I personally loathe due to their methods and policies). That's like saying they have an exclusive relationship with Microsoft, and they can't transfer any funds to Apple but they'll send them to Microsoft instead.

The fact that UW and RC are charities is totally irrelevant. PayPal refused to do what they were 'contracted' to do. Transfer money to a specific third party.

This actually has little or no bearing on the current issue, though. I think PayPal is halfway correct in this case. When someone is doing something fraudulent, they are obligated to investigate. These people claimed they were a non-profit organization and they were not. But PayPal should never have allowed them to collect any money until they proved they were a non-profit in the first place. PayPal should suck up the loss and return the money, or just distribute it like they were supposed to. (Without fees, for having caused such problems with their idiotic policies.)

Re:not the first time (1)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551084)

Umm... I can understand having exclusive relationships with, say, Pepsi or Coca Cola. However, it seems refusing to donate to one charity because you have an exclusive relationship with another charity almost implies that there is some financial benefit for you to donate money to one charity over another. Not to point fingers, but it's a bit of a gray area there...
It helps if you think of the United Way as being roughly as charitable as Coke of Pepsi. They've paid little more than lip-service to the idea of charity for a number of years now.

Re:not the first time (1)

pyr3 (678354) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551398)

The reason for a single charity is probably to reduce fraud. If they didn't have that policy, someone could try to get around the 180 day wait period by saying 'please donate the money to my charity, 123donations.com.' 123donations.com could just be a money laundering scheme for some phishers or mobsters, etc.

Paypal on the other hand was being quite unreasonable since the Red Cross is hardly a money laundering scheme. It would seem more beneficial to PayPal to seek out to 'certify/verify' certain charities to their own criteria to make sure that they are legit, and then allow their customers a choice, rather than just one charity or none.

180 Days? Sphincter Says What?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17550564)

January 10, 2007 + 180 days != April 13. Something's fishy.

Re:180 Days? Sphincter Says What?? (1)

MDMurphy (208495) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550730)

This page where the fund is mentioned: http://www.deadspin.com/sports/adam-knox-fund/intr oducing-the-adam-knox-fund-205453.php [deadspin.com] is six months from the April date.

The freeze then creates a 90 day delay from now, but 180 sounds more dramatic.

mod parent up!! (1)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551030)

mod parent up

Competition is Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17550590)

Perhaps now would be a time to kick the tires on Google Money. Paypal is not the only 800lb gorilla around.

Just remember.. (5, Funny)

andy_fish (557104) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550638)

No matter what the "factual" details are, if you're on the same side of a dispute as a dead soldier's family, there's no possible way you can be wrong.

So what kind of a bank are paypal anyway? (1)

Henry 2.0 (1017212) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550666)

It's so gross to see a company pulling off this whole "we're not a bank" lark.

I think its about time that paypal were held accountable in a more regulated way, not saying it would stop this from happening, but you'd be sure as hell they wouldn't have phone monkeys telling customers there account was frozen because of a technicality on the signup form - I imagine the FSA would look pretty unkindly on a bank for saying "its just policy sir".

I've used paypal a bunch of times for merchant facilities, but decided it's not worth it after our first encounter with the supposed support people

</rant>

I seriously hate paypal (1)

21stCenturyDigitalJe (1036266) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550688)

They have the worst customer service I've ever run into

Have the donors tried to retract the donations? (1)

MDMurphy (208495) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550690)

I didn't see anywhere that the donors were forbidden to retrieve their donations, or the account holder unable to refund all donations. If either of these were possible, then all the effort spent in complaining could be replaced with retracting the money and sending to a new account ( paypal or otherwise ).

The article has a post by someone who mentions haveing a charity account problem with Paypal in the past where they told PayPal to refund everyone's money. If that's possible then the money could be pulled out of the account by the donors and re-sent in less time than the current 3 month delay . Because they're pissed the authors make a stink about the 180 freeze, but since it looks like it based on the October creation date of the account April is only 90 days away.

What part of tax law don't you understand? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17550706)

Problem #1
A charity can not be set up that benifits a single individual or a small number of individuals and be non taxable. Thus to keep the IRS happy Pay Pal will have to see the not for profit documents.

Problem #2
If the fund is taxable, Pay Pal has to take care of the IRS paperwork for withholding the federal and state taxes. This money will be taxed twice, once when the fund creator gets the money and second when the money is distributed.

Pay Pal is stuck no matter what, the IRS will be all over them if they distribute the funds without following the correct procedures. If they don't distribute the funds, then the public is all over them.

Bottom line; the fund creator screwed up big time by not getting the lawyers in on this at the start. No good deed goes unpunished.

The same thing happened over the summer when a fund for the families of the firefighters killed in a wild fire was created. The IRS wanted to take half of the money. A special law was proposed to get around that (I don't know if it ever passed).

"Hi I'm from the goverment, I'm here to help you!"

Re:What part of tax law don't you understand? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17550784)

So let's get this straight....

My sister's house burns down. I go to work the next day and send a mass email asking for donations to help. At the end of the week I collect the money and wire it via Western Union.

By your logic Western Union is responsible for doing tax paperwork and withholding taxes my sister owes the government?

Mod Story Down (4, Insightful)

chill (34294) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550724)

Read the article, and it will be obvious that the person who set everything up is not only and idiot, but they are rude and foul-mouthed as well.

PayPal is doing what they have to, giving themselves time to investigate to make sure it isn't a scam. Scams like this are rampant, both with soldier funds and hurricane relief funds.

Considering the guy did NOT set this up as a non-profit, he is going to be in for a rude shock come tax time. Once PayPal releases $20,000 to his PERSONAL BANK ACCOUNT the bank will file a "suspicious transaction report" with the gov't. I wouldn't be surprised it HIS BANK didn't then freeze the funds for 30-90 days.

Assuming it is then released, the IRS is going to count that $20K as INCOME and will want 20-33% tax from this person. All his protestations of "but I gave it to the widow's family as a gift!" won't amount for shit.

Sure, he meant well, but he is going to be a living example of "The Road to Hell is Paved With Good Intentions" because PayPal is only the beginning of his descent.

Re:Mod Story Down (1)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550910)

The truly ironic thing is this guy probably intended all the money to go to the family where as most legitimate charities keep between 1/3 and 2/3s of the money for expenses. I can't recall which one but I remember a few years ago reading a story where one of the biggest couldn't prove they had given any money to the people it was intended to go to. A lot of charities do good work but just as many "legitimate" ones are in the business to raise money not hand it out. Any charity that keeps more than 1/3 of the money for overhead and expenses isn't a charity and should have to pay taxes. It's sad but you really should do research before you give to any charity. They are largely unregulated by the government and few are ever prosecuted if they have established themselves as legal charities. There needs to be another standard set for informal charities. Say if your kid raises a few grand for the soldiers you can be responsible for taxes inspite of never benefiting from the money while an exec with the Red Cross can get a hundred grand bonus for raising lots of money. It's a screwed up system and designed to benefit the big organizations which infact are corporations they just don't pay taxes.

Re:Mod Story Down (1)

Simetrical (1047518) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551128)

How much overhead is required by law? I should imagine any decent-sized charity would have to pay something for accountants, lawyers, and operating facilities. And from a cost-effectiveness perspective, surely good advertising is more valuable than actually giving the ad money to the poor people, because it nets you more money spending half of your income on ads is good if those ads pay for themselves at least twice over. And so on.

Overhead is not and should not be the major gauge of how charitable a charity is.

Re:Mod Story Down (1)

Reapl (96156) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551388)

Well I don't know how things work in the US for charities but some of them do down here in Australia would have the same issues if you researched in to how they dispense their monies.... ...BUT... please don't put all of the larger corporate style charities into the same bin...

I have had quite a few friends that have worked for a variety of these and can tell you that the better ones have firm rules on what money goes where, now some of this information is prob 5-10 years old, some is much more current.

    World Vision: raise money from both normal "unwashed masses" fundraising activities and also specific coporate ones. Here in Aus all operating expenses for the charity is paid for out of specific CORPORATE funding, that was targetted and received for that specific purpose. They are the only ones that I found that have expressly confirmed that 100% of my personal donation will go to their aid programs. Also from their overall fundraising they have to operate on less than 11% of their total corporate donations.

    Save the Kids (or some name like that): I was speaking to one of their streetside fundraisers about their cost structures, and she was very proud in saying that her salary and the operating costs use less than 10% of the totalled donations. I tried to validate that but found nothing else to validate it. Just more cases of them patting themselves on the back and qouting the numbers.

    Red Cross: Here in Aus they operate similarly to World Vision. They do corporate fundraising to cover operating costs, and a percentage of non-targetted donations are used to make up any shortfall. But if you donate to a specific aid program then that money is garunteed to go to the ppl being helped by that program.

    Save the Rainforest (or other similar "green" campaigns): (note: I'm a technogeek surprisingly and I lean green in my political views) I haven't found a good one of these apart from the local Wilderness Society from my home state of Tasmania. But I see them more as a political activist movement than a non-profit, so I don't mind as much where the money goes.

    Specific Campaigns: we have the usual big fundraising campaigns for things like Childrens Hospitals, Cancer Research, SIDS, etc. Again most of these are audited here in Aus and you can find out the details of how the costs of running the campaigns is paid for out of specific targetted fundraising from corporates, so that the millions raised from the masses goes to where it is needed, and any extra from the corps goes into the pot as well.

Re:Mod Story Down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17550932)

Once PayPal releases $20,000 to his PERSONAL BANK ACCOUNT the bank will file a "suspicious transaction report" with the gov't. I wouldn't be surprised it HIS BANK didn't then freeze the funds for 30-90 days.

I doubt it. Once the bank files the report, their ass is covered. They don't care.

Assuming it is then released, the IRS is going to count that $20K as INCOME and will want 20-33% tax from this person. All his protestations of "but I gave it to the widow's family as a gift!" won't amount for shit.

By what possible basis could this be considered income? There isn't any relation to income. At worst, these would be considered gifts to him, and small gifts aren't taxable.

Re:Mod Story Down (0)

chill (34294) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551328)

The "gift" limit is $12,000, I believe.

It is "income" basically because it "comes in" to his bank account. It certainly isn't outgo (expense). The money goes into his account, thus is income. If he meant to be a middle-man for donations, he needed to follow all the rules -- and didn't. He's screwed.

Re:Mod Story Down (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551350)

Mod parent up. He may be an AC, but he's exactly right. The banks don't freeze funds, the government does. Banks are only permitted to hold deposits over $5,000 for 11 days [msmoney.com] . The bank must notify the IRS of some transactions -- I've heard any single deposit approaching or exceeding $10,000, or individual deposits totaling the same withinin a given period -- but the details of that program are not public. The IRS might audit him because of it, but he would be covered with his PayPal transaction records. Since no one person (likely) gave him more than $10,000 (or whatever the taxable limit is these days), no taxes would be owed. But even if taxes were due, they would have to be paid by the giftor.

Of course if he's got unrelated skeletons in his financial closet, they may fall out during the audit, but that's incidental.

Re:Mod Story Down (1)

panaceaa (205396) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551054)

I don't think your predictions are accurate. Tax payers are entitled to receive gifts up to $10,000/year from any individuals tax free. Now maybe someone gave a single gift of more than $10,000, it's highly unlikely. What's more likely is that he received many small gifts from many different people, which would be completely tax free. Now once he receives the money, if he gives it in one lump sum to another taxed entity, it would be subject to gift tax. But hopefully he's smart enough to use other people as relays to dip below the $10,000 threshold, or the money is going directly to a non-profit.

I am not an accountant but I am aware of the $10,000 gift maximum and I thought I'd share its mechanics.

Re:Mod Story Down (1)

chill (34294) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551370)

Actually, I think the limit is now $12,000, but it will take a creative accountant to make this work. That is gonna cost him, unless the accountant does it pro bono.

God help him if he mentioned anything anywhere about "tax deductible" or even "charity".

Re:Mod Story Down (1)

panaceaa (205396) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551596)

There's no tricks to be played by an accountant. If what you've received is under $10k, you don't even have to declare anything on your taxes. And it's not like PayPal is filing a W2 on your behalf. Additionally, I've transferred well over $10k between accounts (including accounts that weren't in my name -- like mortgage escrow accounts) without being contacted by the feds. So I really don't think he has to worry about anything.

Re:Mod Story Down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17551072)

Agreed. This is simply a case of some idiot trying to start an internet army by presenting half-truths.
I recently made an account for people to donate to from for a game server I run, and *gasp* I RTFA(Read the fucking Agreement) which clearly states you must provide documentation to operate as an NPO, even though I dont profit from the game server.
Dumb ass...

Re:Mod Story Down (3, Informative)

autophile (640621) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551578)

Assuming it is then released, the IRS is going to count that $20K as INCOME and will want 20-33% tax from this person. All his protestations of "but I gave it to the widow's family as a gift!" won't amount for shit.

No, no, no!

You can receive any amount of money as a gift, and it is NOT TAXABLE. This is why tips are a special category of income. You might think a tip is a "gift" to your server, but the IRS says it's a tip, not a gift, and thus taxable. There used to be these little cards that you could leave on top of your tip that said "This money is a gift, and not a tip". But I don't think they work :)

When you are the one doing the giving, then YOU are the one who has to pay a "gift tax", unless it's under the annual exclusion which is (this year) $12,000 per person you gift. Anything over the annual exclusion goes into the "lifetime estate exclusion" bucket -- so if you pass your estate on to someone after you die, they get to pay taxes on it if the amount of the estate is (this year) $2,000,000 MINUS the lifetime estate exclusion.

WTF does this all mean? These guys can take in $20k and give it to two people without anyone having to pay any taxes at any time. Which is why you were wrong.

If, on the other hand, he gives the full $20k to one person, then $8k is above the exclusion, which means his eventual estate inheritor can now only inherit $1,992,000 tax-free. So he probably still doesn't have to worry, but he shouldn't make this a habit.

I'm not an accountant, but I play one on the Internet!

--Rob

SGLI (0, Flamebait)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550774)

Service members are entitled to a thing called SGLI. It's $5/month for $500,000 policy. It usually pays within a week of the death. I have seen it not pay when the member committed suicide or died in a DUI.

SGLI isn't required, but it's highly recommended. To deploy to Iraq without SGLI, a will, a living will, and multiple powers of attorney is actually more difficult than just getting them.

No one should be in Iraq without at least a $500k policy!

So, why does this guy's family need money from paypal?

The money is not for the family (2, Insightful)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550838)

If I read correctly, the money is not for the family but is for care packages for the people in the unit he was in.

Get a loan (1)

PrvtBurrito (557287) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550798)

Someone could always get a loan (maybe against their house) and then send the money a little late. A loan would probably be 20-40 per 1000 borrowed. That really isn't that much to fix this, frankly.

What did they expect? (1)

liveinthewire (648556) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550810)

Anyone who doesn't know that Paypal is famous for being customer-unfriendly has not been paying attention. Anyone who knowingly uses Paypal anyway, should not be too disappointed when the experience turns out to not be a positive one. It's entirely predictable.

WTF (1)

tommyatomic (924744) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550812)

An "exclusive relationship with the united way"

That sounds dangerously like theft. If a bank pulled that crap the treasury department as well as the justice department would be getting involved.

Your accepting money for a charitable cause. Specificly set up as a legal charity or not you accept the money like a bank. It tecnically belongs to owner of the account. No matter how you set the account up. If you refuse to release the funds to one relief organization but your willing to give them to another. That sounds alot like conspiricy and colusion to defraud.

This definetely falls under the catagory of illegal. Why cant the corperate officers be arrested?

My "Screwed By Paypal" Story (3, Informative)

Nova Express (100383) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550824)

I run a business selling science fiction first editions on the side [rr.com] , and eBay is one of my selling venues.

Over the past few years, eBay has been slowly tightening the screws to get people to switch to "Business" accounts (i.e., the ones they get a percentage of every transaction on) as opposed to "Personal" accounts. First they made it so that you couldn't accept credit card payments on your personal account. (OK, fine, credit cards charge fees.) If you received a credit card payment on a personal account, you had the choice of upgrading the account or denying that charge. Then they made it so that you couldn't sell on eBay accepting paypal and NOT take credit cards, which meant you had to get a business account. (Not so fine.)

But what really pissed me off was the fact that, sometime in October 2006, they changed the rules again without bothering to tell anyone. They disabled the Deny button for PayPal payments for eBay auction if you had a personal account designated for that auction, and also made it impossible for the Payee to cancel the transaction! Before I just denied the charge, then sent a bill from the my business Paypal account. But now neither I nor my winning bidders could cancel the transaction! And both eBay and Paypal customer service (the phone support of which has been is a pay call to a call center that's re-routed to India) refused to do anything about it. I finally had to wait until it aged out of the system after 30 days, because I refuse to upgrade with a metaphorical gun to my head.

There was no e-mail or account notice of this on Paypal or eBay, just an update to the Terms of Service buried somewhere on their respective websites.

Thanks a lot, eBay. Way to ensure that GCash has an audience ready and willing to switch from Paypal at the first opportunity thanks to your heavy-handed tactics. Ditto for a GAuction, when it comes...

I had sympathy. (4, Insightful)

DarkkOne (741046) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550828)

Notice the use of the word "Had." I'm sorry, but responding to a problem like that with that sort of language is somewhat ridiculous. Paypal is supposedly following their own policy. You can respond to it by acting professionally, writing it up for the public, and then returning to PayPal and trying to get access to someone higher up the command chain, or you can do what they've done, and mouth off about it. Considering the way they reacted in text, I have a hard time believing that they acted professionally enough on the phone to make the PayPal representitive honestly feel they were there in good faith. As well, their request that people assault PayPal with phonecalls and other contacts is somewhat petty. Honestly, I'm not a fan of PayPal in the slightest, but this isn't the way to react to such things.

PayPal doesn't protect you when you need it (1)

BillGatesLoveChild (1046184) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550846)

I bought a piece of independent software through Paypal. The author had been selling it for several years, and seemed ok. What he did was announce an upgrade sale, then when we all sent our money. he took it and ran.

I thought PayPal protected me from this sort of thing, and that I had credit card protection on top of that. Turns out when you sign up for PayPal you agree to waive your credit card rights (so no chargeback or refunds). The guy hadn't transferred all of his money out of the PayPal account (latecomers to the sale). I complained straight away, and did get my money back. But many people didn't!!! The ones that said "let's wait and give the guy a chance because maybe he's had an emergency?" were the ones that got shafted.

PayPal provides not protection. I've a friend who on eBay bought an 8Gb flash card (which was 4Gb under the sticker, and a factory QA reject) and a laptop that didn't work (made from parts of other laptops and the bad CPU didn't even fit the socket) and eBay/PayPal did nothing for that. There are often stories on the news about people ripped off usually laptops or jewelery.

Use PayPal or eBay at your own risk. Many do, but I won't.

Re:PayPal doesn't protect you when you need it (1)

Nkwe (604125) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551138)

Turns out when you sign up for PayPal you agree to waive your credit card rights (so no chargeback or refunds).

How is this possible? Don't my credit card rights come from an agreement between me and the credit card company? How does a third party alter an existing contract between a first and second party?

Re:PayPal doesn't protect you when you need it (1)

BillGatesLoveChild (1046184) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551274)

I think it's the old story of they get you to sign your rights away, and maybe it will or maybe it won't hold up in court, but the mere fact it might scares a lot of people from even trying. There was a story of someone who sued them for $150 in the local court, and they tried big-assed corporate lawyer tactics to scare him off. He did win(!), but most people I know who get ripped off blame themselves for not being more careful. (which makes it the perfect crime? ;-)

Check out http://paypalsucks.com/ [paypalsucks.com] They have more about how your waive your credit card rights.

Slashdot-ers see through the Bull (1)

rzrzedg (252492) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550906)

I just wanted to say that I am glad that my community has taken a much more reasonable look at this situation. The title and tone of this post really makes me sad that they could be so vicious. Seems to really taint the service of Adam with all the profanity and ill will. From someone who served in the military this should come as no surprise to his family, hurry up and wait is the motto of all volunteer members.

God bless you and your family Adam, thanks for your service, and god rest your soul.

Your family will receive the support, be patient, greive for your loss.

It's a 180 day hold, not a flat denial (2, Insightful)

duncan (16437) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550930)

Someone made a mistake. Possibly Paypal, possibly the organizers of the fund.

My guess is that they had never set one of these up before and when setting up the Paypal account was asked many questions and they ticked of the wrong box.

This is not unreasonable due to those who tend to set these accounts up as scams. But putting the hold it forces the legit people to justify themselves and the bogus people to jump through hoops.

Now if you really want to be upset at someone it's the bankers who try to pull scams that caused these types of rules in the first place. The banking regulations that were tightened in the 90's. The Sarbanes/Oxley regulations that have caused increased accountability and paperwork.

Re:It's a 180 day hold, not a flat denial (3, Insightful)

Shadyman (939863) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551142)

Only problem is, Paypal is not a bank or financial organization, and therefore do not have to comply with federal regulations.

The Bombing a few months back (2, Funny)

Xolom (989077) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550976)

Expect it to get bombed again... now that they've pissed off the military.

i'm glad paypal do this (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551082)

too many con artists use paypal. a few delayed payments is worth catching these scum.

This doesn't surprise me. (3, Informative)

thesolo (131008) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551124)

Recently, my dog and my girlfriend were attacked by a Staffordshire terrier ("pitbull") that was allowed to run off of his lead. Due to the extremely high vet bills for my dog, a friend of mine set up a donation fund and created a new paypal account. I didn't know about it, and then was surprised with a nice gift from my friends to help me through a rough time; it was all very touching.

However, Paypal would not let me associate my bank account with the account he created, since it was already associated with my account. So, we just forwarded the money in my friend's account to my account, where I then moved it to my bank account.

Apparently this set off some red flags for Paypal. They called my friend not once, not twice, but five times, each time asking him to reiterate why he created the account, what the money was for, and why I was putting it in my account. Each time he told them what it was for, why it was set up, linked them to the donation web page, etc., and the next day, they would call him back. Apparently they never made notes of the fact that they called him the previous day.

I'm very glad that I removed the money from my account as soon as possible, Paypal has been known to freeze accounts for various reasons, and it seemed like they were looking for a reason to do so in this case. The thing that I found most odd is that they put you through hoops to speak to a real person over there, but try to do something nice for someone, and they grill you like a criminal in an interrogation room.

If Paypal weren't so ubiquitous, especially among eBayers, I would never touch it again.

Just ponder this for a moment and it makes sense (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551202)

Let's take a look at it from the PayPal perspective.

1. An account is opened.
2. A LOT of people pay towards this account, within rather little time, accumulating also a LOT of money.
3. The amount should be withdrawn, all at once and also rather shortly after it's been set up.

Where do I know that from... Ah heck, pick your favorite fraud scheme, I'm not teaching scamming 101 here.

It certainly isn't in PPs intention to keep a soldier's family from receiving their money. But I can well understand that they want to make sure that it does INDEED go to the family and not to some con artist.

Or we'll soon see headlines akin to "PayPal helps con artist to pull off scam", and people will get their undies in a knot because PP doesn't do jack against them and doesn't even try to stop these things from happening.

R-Tards Setup Account & Now Whine? (1)

multimodal_dialog_wi (985943) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551258)

If one sets up an account as a charitable org 501c.3, and accepts donations it is absolutely required (under Bush era anti-terrorism laws) to provide proof of standing. Just because this was done by someone to benefit a "soldier", that in no way makes them exempt from the law. My own experiences with PayPal have convinced me never to utilise their (so-called) services again, in this instance however their hands are tied by the Federal Government. They should not be expected to carry the can for this. The neanderthals who could not/would not read the setup instructions need to crawl off of their high-horse & quit trying to rally the hyenas for an attack against a company that is obeying the law & refuses to make an exception simply because the beneficiaries are in some perceived privileged group.

Scams the lot of them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17551296)

Paypal are cunts along with lots of these internet businesses. Because they are an "internet" business they think they can fuck around and steal things. Google shuts down accounts in its adsense program on whims... with no response other than a form letter. They claim they are "protecting advertisers" yet they dont refund the money to them.. instead they keep it. Paypal does the same "freezing accounts" or in other words "increasing bottom line profitability". etc etc.

Scams the lot of them. If paypal REALLY cared about fraud it would require ID like a bank does before you open an account. But of course, that would fuck em wouldn't it?

Exclusive charity relationships (1)

yourfuckingkiddingme (1045036) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551348)

May be alittle off topic, but in regards to the exclusive charity relations. When i worked at UPS, they had an exclusive relationship with United Way. Whoever donated the most out of ones paycheck would get a prime parking spot close to the guard gate. A buddy of mine who also worked at UPS had an experience through his church where, they were organized to do some sort of charity work with constructing a domicile of some type(?) Point is, towards the end of all the work these local joint churches did, a woman who represented United Way came to the site and passed out free United Way t-shirts, then did some photo-ops with the tshirt clad churchgoers. The paper read something along the lines of `United Way helps people in need'. They did no work and took all the credit. Combine this with the corporate environment and this story/stories. Im losing confidence in most charity establishments.

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17551392)

Lern2Paypal IMO
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>