Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wise refuses to let us access our $60k AUD

hey.paris

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 156 posts

Re: Wise refuses to let us access our $60k AUD

#131

Post by fragmede »

xtracto wrote: post #121
robocat wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 m…

Having worked in Fintech for several years, THIS is the main reason why I moved the majority of my liquid assets to cryptocurrencies. For all the things people want the. To do, the most important one to me is the "not your keys, not your coin". I don't trust banks as neither. One time a bank i use to get paid decided to "block" my accounts for 'suspicious avtivity" (i made a transfer to an account number they deemed…

The idea that I have to not lose a private key file to access my own money is terrifying, and on top of that, if someone else gains access to that file, they will steal my money is just a horror show on top of that. I also worked at a FinTech for a few years but it's not relevant. What is relevant is how much you trust your own opsec and the level of organization you have for your own files. I can believe that some people find self-custodial ownership of significant amounts of crypto reassuring, but I do not.

Re: Wise refuses to let us access our $60k AUD

#132

Post by water-data-dude »

fto_wise wrote: post #65

Hey 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.

Given how similar this reply is to the emails the customer was trading with customer support earlier (it looks like it’s fixed, try again!), I wouldn’t assume it’s actually fixed until the customer says it is.

Re: Wise refuses to let us access our $60k AUD

#133

Post by Arnt »

IAmBroom wrote: post #122
Arnt wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps because they try to look like banks to their customers. Paypal even has a banking license where I live. A paypal transfer may or may not be a bank transfer, I don't know, but it has a banking license so I can understand it if people assume that they can trust it like a bank.

So, financial ignorance. They're being "soft-defrauded" by the marketing of "looking like a bank". I'm not saying victims are dumb; they're ignorant, and the solution is self-education. Hopefully before you start leaving 5+ digits in their care...

I beg to differ.

Banks have particular protection in the modern financial system. When states grant that, they should IMO protect banks against impersonation.

Re: Wise refuses to let us access our $60k AUD

#134

Post by TiredOfLife »

scripturial wrote: post #40
justinde wrote: post #2

This 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…

I am genuinely surprised to find out that some people leave large sums of money in these types of non-bank services. Why don’t people move the money out? Is it too much trust of the competence of these organisations?

Once the money moves to your bank it becomes official. You need to pay taxes etc.

Re: Wise refuses to let us access our $60k AUD

#135

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

poisonborz wrote: post #110
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

Assuming you're talking about taking a lawyer:

I'm sure you're right in some countries. In countries with a working small claims system, you should be able to do that without a lawyer in simple enough cases. In some other countries, you might be out more than $500 temporarily but in the end the company pays the lawyer and all other costs.

Often, once it reaches the escalation point where their legal department and not their customer-service-denial department is handling the case, they'll cut a check.

If you are talking about shaming: Your shaming might not have the same reach, but you can still leave negative reviews and tell your friends. I have a policy that if a company pisses me off or wastes my time, I will spend at least the equivalent amount of time leaving negative reviews or telling people about my experience, for reasons a) and c).

Re: Wise refuses to let us access our $60k AUD

#136

Post by vb-8448 »

omnimus wrote: post #118
vb-8448 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you need someone on HN to get hit by your post to get a decent customer support?!?

Seems like they are saying this has been resolved before it was posted here so before someone had a chance to see it on HN?

maybe yes, maybe they are just trying to patch up bad publicity...

the point anyway is not this but the fact that customer service should work regardless of whether a mishap ends up on HN

Re: Wise refuses to let us access our $60k AUD

#137

Post by trinix912 »

alterom wrote: post #68
trinix912 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt they have a license to operate in all countries where the service is accessible/used. And yes, it is way easier to get justice from a local bank, a letter from a lawyer is usually enough if it ever gets to this point in first place, whereas for PayPal&co good luck with ever getting a response. Filing a lawsuit against a foreign company and getting anything out of it is even more of a gamble.

>I doubt they have a license to operate in all countries where the service is accessible/used. Really? I doubt you have tried checking all countries' regulations. Or any, for that matter. Because there isn't a country where money transfers aren't regulated. Go prove me wrong. To save you some effort: in the US, you need to have a money transmitter license issued by your state, e.g. in California' https://dfpi.ca.gov/…

> I doubt you have tried checking all countries' regulations. Or any, for that matter.

I checked it for my country before writing anything. They don't have a license, nor does Revolut for that matter. I'm not pulling this out of my ass, go check it yourself: https://www.bsi.si/sl/nadzor-bancnega-sistema/izdana-dovolje... (Hint: look in the 4th column where the 2nd column says "Dovoljenja za opravljanje storitev bank in hranilnic")

They definitely do business here, just like Revolut, which has the authorization to do banking in the UK, but not here.

> To save you some effort: in the US, you need to have a money transmitter license issued by your state, e.g. in California'

That's the US, not the entire world.

> In any case, filing a lawsuit and raising a complaint with the regulator is an action that can cause the foreign company in question to lose the license to operate in your state.

They _don't_ have it in the first place, there's nothing to lose for them, only for you as their customer. Furthermore, there's no legal entity of theirs in my country which the court could liquidate to pay me back in such a case. Please consider the fact that not every country has the same legal system as the US before you start lecturing me on how the legal system of my own country, which I dare assume you don't live in, works.

> And unlike your local bank, they don't have direct ties to politicians.

But they have ties to international politicians, which is no better.

Re: Wise refuses to let us access our $60k AUD

#139

Post by trinix912 »

lmm wrote: post #111
reconnecting wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Traditional banks can and do do exactly the same.

But with a traditional bank you can just walk into the office and have someone check why you’ve been flagged and what to do next, right? At least that’s my experience. With neobanks you’re at the mercy of algorithms, UI designers, and a customer support with little direct power when such a case arises.

Re: Wise refuses to let us access our $60k AUD

#140

Post by otterley »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #86
otterley wrote: post #7

In 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.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it backfires. Some companies will refuse to do business with you if you stir the pot. You might get your money back, but you'll have severed the relationship, and that can be a worse outcome for the long-term health of your business.
Post reply on HN