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

141–150 of 156 posts

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

#141

Post by stephen_g »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #80
csomar wrote: post #77

I once had a fintech account with a company that is EU regulated. It was a long time ago and I used it for a couple transactions that resulted in a 0.27 Eur dust balance. I didn't use it after that and a couple years before Covid they decided they need more KYC to keep the account active and I just ignored them. To this day I still get emails about my remaining balance roughly every quarter. During this time (7 years…

They can close it, banks have no problem closing accounts with residual balances and they just keep the money if normal fees exceed the balance. Too much time is wasted discussing with various bots and call centre-based "customer support" these days. Normal procedure is/was to send a letter instructing them to close the account and to let them deal with it.

In my country (Australia) unclaimed money is surrendered to a department of the Federal Government and held in trust, and people can claim it back if they can prove it’s theirs (usually the bank has your name and tax file number so it’s not at all difficult).

So there’s no impediment here to closing accounts after a few years of inactivity, whatever the balance (if it’s positive) it just has to be sent there.

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

#142

Post by lmm »

reconnecting wrote: post #114
lmm wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traditional banks can and do do exactly the same.

I'm speaking about Wise, as their logo is featured as a client of a fraud prevention platform. This makes it easy to imagine the kind of risk scoring they might use for their client accounts. However, I'm not aware of large banks using such online fraud prevention services. For example, in France, there's one major vendor that powers most of the banks. If we look at their client area, there's no indication of fingerp…

My 170-year-old household name bank does device fingerprinting. They even advertise it as a positive ("our security systems detect and stop unusual transactions, keeping your money safe" or something on those lines).

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

#143

Post by lmm »

trinix912 wrote: post #139
lmm wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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?

"Computer says no". They'll give you the exact same runaround.

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

#145

Post by recursivecaveat »

Arnt wrote: post #82
scripturial wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

Reminds me of the crazy situation with that fintech "bank" that went under. They were basically a ledger over a real bank. The real bank was FDIC insured, but the protection for the underlying doesn't necessarily mean anything for your 'virtual' account in the ledger. FDIC would only help you if there was some insolvency in the under-layer.

Bunch of customers were screwed by the bankruptcy of the upper layer. Maybe there is some hope for at least the FDIC cracking down on this deceptive fintech trick in the future.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2025/04...

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

#146

Post by privacyking »

otterley wrote: post #140
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.

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.

Conversely bringing in a lawyer can make them close up as well.
Post reply on HN