Slashdot Mirror


India Suspended From PayPal For "At Least a Few Months"

More details have come about about what was behind PayPal's decision to suspend personal payments to any user in India, as we discussed on Sunday. In a blog post today, PayPal revealed that payments to India will remain in suspension for at least a few months. Customers in India will be able to pull rupees out of the service into their bank accounts within a few days. The suspension came about when Indian government regulators raised questions about whether PayPal's service was enabling remittances (transfers of money by foreign workers) to Indian citizens. "The problems may have been triggered by a marketing push that promotes PayPal as a way to send money abroad, a source familiar with the matter said. The campaign — which reads 'As low as $1.50 to send $300 to countries like India' — may have caught the attention of Indian regulators, the source said."

16 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Paypal is a mess by Seriousity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hope they get in the crap with even more countries and are forced to do stuff like this, maybe eventually they'll have to declare themselves as an actual bank and give their users rights over their money for a change. There is so much dubious crap buried in the terms and conditions that none save a seasoned lawyer would figure out, and so many stories of people being royally screwed over by paypal (eg bank accounts being wiped out for no apparent reason)...

    --
    This post was made in complete sincere seriousity; as such any attempts to derive humour are doomed to instant failure.
    1. Re:Paypal is a mess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My IP, name, address, phone number, etc. are banned on paypal and any variation thereof and they tried to send a collection agency after me for 2 accounts I had. I told them to fuck off and they can't do jack since I, as a precautionary measure, changed my bank account numbers as soon as they limited my accounts. Just because some buyer decides to do a chargeback on his credit card 120 days after purchase does not mean I am responsible for the money. Paypal is not a bank. I did not borrow from them. I do not owe them anything, and they can't touch my credit. The paypalsucks website is living truth of what they can do to their customers. Some people lost $5K plus, and most are scared into cooperating by the collection agency. I at least didn't lose anything except for the account I opened in 1999 and my ability to use ebay, but they can lose the business. I use craigslist instead now and don't have to pay to put up auctions or pay transfer fees.

    2. Re:Paypal is a mess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      "There is so much dubious crap buried in the terms and conditions that none save a seasoned lawyer would figure out, and so many stories of people being royally screwed over by paypal (eg bank accounts being wiped out for no apparent reason)..."

      As someone who worked at PayPal and saw the horror first hand over the years, I cannot possibly agree more. The Terms sheet is a deck that is stacked against the user at every opportunity.

      I remember first hand seeing an employee (with a reputation for incompetence) award $30,000 to a fraudster from a legitimate business account. This is a common error, and PayPal sets aside a budget to fix these mistakes. But because of the dollar amount, upper management decided to hide behind some vague language in the terms sheet and screw the good user.

      I don't know how the story ended out exactly. Legally they may have gotten away with it. But just because it was legal doesn't mean it was moral.

  2. Re:State vs Internet by kai_hiwatari · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Stopping money flow and financial services innovation is, like Internet censorship,

    Its not about stopping money flow, but rather money flow in a regulated manner. I don't think its even legal for PayPal to have the services they offer without registering itself as a bank. As another someone said earlier, "The problem is PayPal wants to do the functions of a bank but does not want to be registered as a bank".

  3. Re:State vs Internet by ImNotAtWork · · Score: 4, Informative

    You don't have to be a bank to transfer funds from one point to another. Western Union can send money across international boundaries. It isn't a bank either, it's a financial service.

    --
    open source sub sim. I might start coding again for this. http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/contribute/
  4. Re:State vs Internet by _merlin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Western Union doesn't hold funds in accounts for you, and doesn't do short-term loans.

  5. Re:State vs Internet by ColaMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    why exactly do we need massive percentages (10-50%) of our resources funneled
    to maintain the state and state-run defense and services

    So that people who are envious of your physical resources don't all band together, drop by your house one day, and proceed to hack you to bits with machetes? So that there's a semi-controlled environment to enable the provision of services - like power, water and maybe even a little internet?

    * physical defense and security being the only notable exception.

    And a very big fucking exception they will remain, too.
    Dreams, meet reality. Watch out for reality's sucker punch, it can really catch you unawares.

    --

    You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
    There is a lot of hype here.
  6. Re:Analog tech... by iammani · · Score: 5, Informative

    The aim is not to stop remittances, but to permit remittances only if the required paper work has been submitted (Which is very simple one page form, asking for sender and receiver details (name, address, identity proof) and reason for transfer).

    The RBI (Reserve Bank of India) mandates banks registered in India to collect these before forex transfers can be made.

    In this case, paypal doesnt want to be registered as a bank and fall under RBI regulations. As a result have been banned. I am surprise it did not happen earlier.

    And just to make it clear, SWIFT Transfer (also called wire transfer) and mailing checks/DDs will continue to work. There are no options send/receive money order to/from India

  7. Re:Why limit incomming remittance? by nedlohs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. The want to know about it so they can tax it.

    2. They don't want foreign funding of domestic terrorists.

    3. They don't want criminals to have yet another way to move money around.

    4. They want to protect their export industry by not having that "favorable" effect on exchange rates.

  8. Re:State vs Internet by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And don't forget, India was mostly unaffected by our recent economic downturn because of their draconian economic laws. For decades they were criticized for their over regulation of their financial markets but after the fall, India was seen as a model for how markets could survive wide-scale economic collapse.

  9. Re:State vs Internet by iammani · · Score: 5, Informative

    FYI, not in India. Western union cannot be used to send money from India. It can be used to send to India though, where the recipient can furnish necessary documentation (identity proof, name address, reason for transfer) and collect it.

  10. Re:State vs Internet by TheLink · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's so true. Because of such artificial barriers I need your excellent help to transfer 40 million US dollars from Nigeria to Malaysia. :).

    --
  11. Re:State vs Internet by metlin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You mean India was seen as a model for how lumbering, stagnant markets could ride through a temporary downturn.

    Only an idiot would consider an economy with almost 7% growth in a global downturn to be a lumbering, stagnant market.

    I don't think you understand what "wide-scale economic collapse" means. 2009 wasn't it.

    Apparently, neither do you.

  12. Re:WTF?? Indian politicians are nuts, just nuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not when the "FOREIGN CAPITAL" exchange service skirts the rules of responsible financial governance... or funds terrorism.

    Paypal is not the only option and they should learn to play by the rules the makes sense.

  13. Re:State vs Internet by paziek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They are baddie here. Banks probably don't have any issues with transferring funds to/from India. PayPal refuses to register as a bank and thus they get this issue. On the other hand, they are registered as a bank in EU and don't have any problems anymore. So perhaps they don't care about India that much?
    Don't blame them [India] for wanting to know what is happening with their own currency/finances.

  14. Re:State vs Internet by pyite · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When Paypal says you have $100 in your account, they actually have that money somewhere waiting for you to withdraw.

    What in the world makes you think that? Not only do they probably have the money in various forms of liquid and illiquid assets, but there isn't even FDIC insurance to protect you if they screw up.

    --

    "Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman