Slashdot Mirror


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

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."

37 of 337 comments (clear)

  1. Yea, Paypal Sucks, but this is a bit dramatic. by lecithin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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?

    --
    It could be worse, it could be Monday.
    1. Re:Yea, Paypal Sucks, but this is a bit dramatic. by sexyrexy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Rex is 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:Yea, Paypal Sucks, but this is a bit dramatic. by susano_otter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    3. Re:Yea, Paypal Sucks, but this is a bit dramatic. by Korin43 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No it's not that. Paypal sucking isn't news. It has to be "Paypal hates soldiers and America!" to get to the front page by now ;)

    4. Re:Yea, Paypal Sucks, but this is a bit dramatic. by susano_otter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apology for what? The guy claimed to be a non-profit, but couldn't provide any of the paperwork. It's not like Paypal is supposed to sit through a money-laundering investigation from the IRS, just because one of their customers has good intentions but piss-poor business processes.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    5. Re:Yea, Paypal Sucks, but this is a bit dramatic. by Dravik · · Score: 5, Informative

      What I got out of the article is that the guy never claimed to be a non-profit. Paypal classified his account as a non-profit account. So what I got is Paypal screwed up by giving it the wrong classification and is now using their internal SOP's to hold onto the money for an extra 6 months.

      --
      The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
  2. release the funds... (yet) by yagu · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:release the funds... (yet) by mooingyak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    2. Re:release the funds... (yet) by EricTheGreen · · Score: 4, Informative

      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 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...)

    3. Re:release the funds... (yet) by EricTheGreen · · Score: 4, Informative

      Grossly simplified explanation: deposits made to PayPal accounts are considered neither revenues nor corporate controlled assets, from a cash accounting perspective, and because of that cannot be used to fund investments that will return revenue to PayPal. Registered financial institutions can make such investments, at the cost of considerable government nosiness into their affairs and a much more constrained operating environment.

      In the typical case PayPal is not being paid per se when monies are transmitted to it. Rather, it's acting as a very limited management agent--it has no asset claim on those monies. It does, as we all painfully know, have considerable transfer and refund control on your deposits, per their terms of service. But they can't treat them as controlled assets--it's not their money to directly profit from.

      Even though not regulated as a bank, their investment cash flows are subject to the same statutory control as anyone else's. About the best they could do would be to offer to invest it for you, return profits to you, then collect a "management" commission on the invested funds. In truth, however, that gets them perilously close to bank-dom and the associated governmental oversight, which they pretty clearly want to avoid.

  3. I suspect..... by ezratrumpet · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    No one wants that kind of bad PR.

  4. Seems innocent enough. by traindirector · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Seems innocent enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    2. Re:Seems innocent enough. by Dolohov · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  5. Perhaps similar to the Somethingawful Katrina fund by 6350' · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  6. The reason why Paypal does this by Gnpatton · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:The reason why Paypal does this by 644bd346996 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:The reason why Paypal does this by steeviant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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. :)

  7. Dramatic overstatement isn't it? by Vthornheart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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).

    --
    -Vendal Thornheart
  8. Big surprise... by supersocialist · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  9. Re:Thanks, Slashdot! Worst Paypal scam yet! by niin · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  10. not the first time by Nutty_Irishman · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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. Also is the wired article http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,68788-0.htm l. 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...
  11. Re:Thanks, Slashdot! Worst Paypal scam yet! by 644bd346996 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  12. Just remember.. by andy_fish · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    & I wish I knew the password to your heart . . . &
  13. Re:lily tomlin predicted this one... by Zonk+(troll) · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    "The Federal Reserve is a fraudulent system."--Lew Rockwell
    End The FED. -
  14. Mod Story Down by chill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  15. I had sympathy. by DarkkOne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  16. Re: Yea, Paypal Sucks...and that's on a good day by lionheart1327 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Buddy, if your definition of evil is PayPal then you need some serious help.

  17. Re: Yea, Paypal Sucks...and that's on a good day by dangitman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Indeed. We all know that Ray Romano is the true definition of evil.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  18. Any good stories about Paypal? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Who wants to read about a story regarding Paypal if it doesn't shed Paypal in a bad light?

    Umm, are there stories that show Paypal in a good light? I haven't heard / read any...

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Any good stories about Paypal? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

      They were definitely helpful when some miscreant recently got hold of my Paypal login details somehow and transfered several thousand dollars around the world. I had a paypal account handler on the phone within a minute of ringing their (UK) number, she raised disputes on all the items, they were confirmed within 48 hours as problem transactions and they had all been cancelled within 72 hours.

      My account was usable again a week later, but that was mainly my fault for cancelling the direct debits and cards linked to the paypal account the morning I discovered the activity, so I had to reset up the paypal - bank account conduits.

      Funny thing is, I actually made money from all this :) Because the vast majority of transactions made were done through the direct debit system, Paypal could not stop them at that time, so we were waiting for them to fail. During this period tho, Paypal preempted themselves and applied a balance readjustment to take into account currency exchange rate changes, giving me over fifty dollars. The direct debits failed, no money actually left my bank account so no funds were needed to be returned, but Paypal point blank refused to admit that the fifty dollars wasnt mine, so by their admission I gained money!

      All in all, I have had excellent customer support from Paypal and all the other anecdotal websites around dont match my experiences.

    2. Re:Any good stories about Paypal? by loraksus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is there any need to ask rhetorical questions?

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    3. Re:Any good stories about Paypal? by jandrese · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your story is typical when I ask around at conventions/with friends. It seems to me that a lot of the "Paypal sucks" stories come from people who were scamming or trying to launder money through the service (or doing activities that looked a lot like that) and discovering that Paypal actually pays attention to what's going on with their accounts. It doesn't help when the "Paypal Sucks!" type sites offer suggestions for alternative online payment systems that are known to be scams.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    4. Re:Any good stories about Paypal? by @madeus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They took money out of my account they shouldn't have, due to a screw up entirely of their own making (it wasn't an error on my part, or another user trying to scam me and I certainly wasn't trying to scam anyone or up to anything remotely unusual or nefarious).

      They wouldn't refund it and told me not to contact my credit card company (Mastercard) and sent me a cookie cutter response saying they would ban me from using Pay Pal if I reported the problem to Mastercard (as Mastercard policy explicitly said I should, given the nature of the transaction). Which is an 'interesting' way of doing business to say the least. As the only way to actually get a refund, I did tell Mastercard, I told them about everything Pay Pal had sent me, and told Pay Pal of this and instructed them to close my PP account.

      Even after I had closed my account I kept getting junkmail from them (which I couldn't unsubscribe from, as I'd closed my account - which in turn prevented me from unsubscribing). Slick.

      This has, to my surprise as much as anyone, been the sort of story (along with mysteriosly delayed releases of funds) that I've heard more of from people that success stories. I've met quite a few people who no longer use Pay Pal for their business because it's been such a hassle to deal with. It's ridiculous that they are not subject to stricter regulation.

  19. Re: Yea, Paypal Sucks...and that's on a good day by iocat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    PAYING with PayPal is rarely the problem. It's GETTING YOUR MONEY BACK from PayPal where all the issues come up. All their policies are designed to do one thing: keep the cash in their accounts, earning interest for them, for as long as possible. As a payer, I've never had any issues.

    --

    Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

  20. Nothing new... by Skal+Tura · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's absolutely NOTHING new in Paypal doing this. They aren't regulated, so they can do what the hell they want to in effect. and you can notice this.

    On top of that, atleast in one point, even fscking janitors could get to see your account info there!

    It does get better tho... Rather than working honestly, in one case i had, i got a fraudulent order, found out about that myself
    a day later, e-mailed them about the transaction needs to be reversed. This got to happen due to the fact, that they do not require any authentication at all to deposit more into paypal, as long as you have username & password.

    I explained what has happened in detail etc. meanwhile, calming the victim down (who's account was stolen, victim of a phishing attack). I wasn't going to just send the funds to her, then the insane transfer fees would be lost etc. Total amount was approximately 150.

    Almost 2 months later, i finally got a word from there... Nope, they hadn't read my e-mails, it seems it was automated message, saying the funds had been refunded etc. but the thing is, who's money it was, never got it. She noticed my Myspace profile 6months later, and she hadn't got STILL got it, while paypal had taken the funds from me.

    In effect: Paypal decided to take the funds, without refunding them.

    Nevermind the insanely high fraud amounts with them! I dropped them, after using them years and years, guess they calculated the
    one time cash was worth to them more than continuing transfer fees.

    People, don't use paypal, there is honest companies out there to replace them... That being moneybookers!

  21. Re: Yea, Paypal Sucks...and that's on a good day by IainMH · · Score: 4, Funny

    I sugest that you read the post again. He is saying "PayPal is evil" not "Evil is PayPal". There is a difference you know.

    Not to Yoda.