What's the alternative?
Moving to a country where banks have at least some legal service obligation, such as the UK, although even then those regulations often don't cover businesses.
Wise refuses to let us access our $60k AUD
101–110 of 156 posts
Re: Wise refuses to let us access our $60k AUD
#102Don't worry too much, luckily you've reached #1 on HN so they'll fix it for you within a day.
Here we go: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43981981
Re: Wise refuses to let us access our $60k AUD
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I must clarify that my opinion is based on EU/Swiss regulatory practices. However, this doesn't change the fact that mostly neo-banks exploit regulatory gaps for growth, which ultimately leads to issues like the one described above.
It doesn't lead to those issues, you get those issues with any bank or pseudobank, neo- or otherwise. It might be harder to get an account to start with with some more traditional banks, but that doesn't make you any less likely to get randomly screwed by them.
Levels of trust differ. Neo-banks, by default, have zero trust for their customer accounts, whereas traditional banks have at least some established trust. As a result, companies like Wise use fraud prevention systems that may flag your account simply because you logged in from an risky network.
Re: Wise refuses to let us access our $60k AUD
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does removing excessive regulation help this scenario? In what you describe the difference would be that HSBC doesn't get fined and neither HSBC or Revolut does any check. How does that help?
> In what you describe the difference would be that HSBC doesn't get fined and neither HSBC or Revolut does any check. How does that help? It would mean HSBC and Revolut would compete on a level playing field, and so would their customers, and ordinary businesspeople like OP wouldn't get randomly screwed. (And sure, maybe a little more "money laundering" would also happen. But at this point the anti-money-laundering-…
yes. there exists a culture of "safetyism" that burdens society with excessive costs relative to the benefits achieved. This is, of course, starting from the (dubious) assumption that the stated objective of the regulation is the true purpose, rather than safety merely serving as a convenient, secondary goal.
Re: Wise refuses to let us access our $60k AUD
#105Unfortunately, this is the reality of modern business banking, and Wise is not unique in this. You can find similar reports about most major EMIs and a fair number of banks. Banks have basically become an inefficient and unfair branch of law enforcement, without presumption of innocence and without due process. Every imaginable abuse is justifiable by Compliance nowadays.
Well, if we're talking about the same thing, there are laws that the banks and fintechs are bound by. These carry hefty fines for the bank and potential jail terms for their employees if not followed to the letter, including things like providing zero context or information about why your account was blocked when suspicion of fraud or money laundering is raised. The failure to report suspicion is likewise punishable.…
I'm not familiar with the exact regulatory text for fintech, but it's highly likely that there is a difference between suspended and closed accounts.
While it may be illegal to close an account without providing proof, it seems possible to soft-block or suspend an account for 'security reasons' without disclosing whether it's related to fraud prevention or other issues.
Re: Wise refuses to let us access our $60k AUD
#106This is a familiar situation. I run a SaaS platform where I sell plugins for WordPress. Recently, my PayPal account was suspended, and a balance of €80,000 was frozen. The stated reason is a violation of the Terms of Service. However, no specific explanation has been provided — neither what rule I allegedly violated, nor how I violated it. I’ve searched through the lengthy documentation, but without clear guidance, t…
In the UK, similar situations are common when “someone” flags any transaction to or from you as suspicious, at which point they need to freeze it, report it to an appropriate branch of an organisation, and… wait. That organisation most of the times doesn’t respond, so the hold expires in about two weeks, and then everything resumes working. The thing is, noone can be told of this freeze/hold, that would be mean tippi…
> noone can be told
Great article on how the US does that: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/debanking-and-debunki...
No, the bank cannot explain why SARs triggered a debanking, because disclosing the existence of a SAR is illegal. Yes, it is the law in the United States that a private non-court, in possession of a memo written by a non-intelligence analyst, cannot describe the nature of the non-accusation the memo makes. Nor can it confirm or deny the existence of the memo.
It’s not just illegal to disclose a SAR to the customer. It is extremely discouraged, by Compliance, to allow there to be an information flow within the bank itself that would allow most employees who interact directly with customers, like call center reps or their branch banker, to learn the existence of SAR. This is out of the concern that they would provide a customer with a responsive answer to the question “Why are you closing my account?!” And so this is one case where in [Seeing like a Bank] the institution intentionally blinds itself. Very soon after making the decision to close your account the bank does not know specifically why it chose to close your account.Re: Wise refuses to let us access our $60k AUD
#107Hey there, I work at Wise and saw this during my break. I'm really really sorry for the bad experience here. I just checked with my team internally and this has been fixed prior to this making front page. If you are still facing an issue, can you reply to my comment - and I'll give you a call back on the number you provided our support team with. Thanks and my apologies again.
So you need someone on HN to get hit by your post to get a decent customer support?!?
Re: Wise refuses to let us access our $60k AUD
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, if we're talking about the same thing, there are laws that the banks and fintechs are bound by. These carry hefty fines for the bank and potential jail terms for their employees if not followed to the letter, including things like providing zero context or information about why your account was blocked when suspicion of fraud or money laundering is raised. The failure to report suspicion is likewise punishable.…
I'm not familiar with the exact regulatory text for fintech, but it's highly likely that there is a difference between suspended and closed accounts. While it may be illegal to close an account without providing proof, it seems possible to soft-block or suspend an account for 'security reasons' without disclosing whether it's related to fraud prevention or other issues.
It's not illegal. Even though having access to banking is absolutely essential to every imaginable business, bank accounts are still treated as a voluntary business relationship by regulators. Some protections exist in the EU for individuals, but for businesses, it is entirely at the discretion of the bank to open and maintain a relationship.
Re: Wise refuses to let us access our $60k AUD
#109Any adequate person would read their Service Agreement and stay back, because by accepting it, you accept that:
1. They reserve the right to reject, refund, or limit transactions "at our sole and absolute discretion."
2. They can impose and change limits without telling you.
3. When you "add" money to your Wise account, you’re technically sending money to Wise, and they then decide when to credit your Wise balance.
4. Even though you are the legal owner of the funds, Wise retains practical control over withdrawals, with several escape hatches allowing them to delay, limit, or reject transfers practically forever.
5. They are not reliable for anything, any errors, attacks or bugs, "unforeseeable" stuff. They can even close tomorrow and just say "goodbye" to all the clients and not be liable – there is a specific clause in agreement for that.
If you read agreement closely — Wise (and similar fintech services) often use legal language that gives them almost total control on your money, as well as reinvesting and getting interest on it while it is blocked from withdrawal on your account for, well, reasons...
I don't understand one thing; how can a Business accept such a risk? For what reward? Is there really no better solution to accept payments online? Why people keep using this middleman stuff?
Re: Wise refuses to let us access our $60k AUD
#110In banking and money services, some things cannot be handled via the usual support channels. In these cases, it’s often more effective to have your lawyer contact their legal department.
Flaming them publicly before doing that is a) cathartic, b) cheaper than the lawyer and might get them to address the issue, c) the right thing to do because it creates an incentive for companies to act right without the customer needing to hire a lawyer. Of course, if they don't react to that, then is the time to contact a lawyer.
Except you can't do that if your case is not big/interesting, like "they locked my account with $500"