Slashdot Mirror
Bitcoin Exchange Sues Wells Fargo Over Massive Wire Transfer Suspension (bitcoin.com)
An anonymous reader quotes this report from the cryptocurrency news site Bitcoin.com:
Bitfinex, on Wednesday, filed a lawsuit against Wells Fargo for suspending its outgoing U.S. dollars wire transfers. In addition to "a preliminary and permanent injunction against Wells Fargo," the exchange is seeking compensatory damages in excess of $75,000 and any additional relief the court may deem fair as well as a jury trial for the case... The court document states that Bitfinex is a customer of four Taiwan-based banks but is not itself a customer of Wells Fargo. However, its banks in Taiwan use Wells Fargo as a correspondent bank to process U.S. dollar wire transfers, which is a normal practice in cross-border payments.
"So far, close to US$180M in funds is locked up in Wells Fargo accounts," writes The Merkle, "with no clear path to a resolution in sight." But a Bitfinex representative on social media pointed out that "Funds are not frozen," adding that Wells Fargo is just a correspondent bank, and "They have chosen to block wire transfers between us and our customers which we are challenging in court."
Another post from BFX_Brandon states that "If we allow them to simply flip a switch and disrupt business, then there becomes a precedence in the Bitcoin industry beyond just Bitfinex, so we believe it is the appropriate time to take action."
"So far, close to US$180M in funds is locked up in Wells Fargo accounts," writes The Merkle, "with no clear path to a resolution in sight." But a Bitfinex representative on social media pointed out that "Funds are not frozen," adding that Wells Fargo is just a correspondent bank, and "They have chosen to block wire transfers between us and our customers which we are challenging in court."
Another post from BFX_Brandon states that "If we allow them to simply flip a switch and disrupt business, then there becomes a precedence in the Bitcoin industry beyond just Bitfinex, so we believe it is the appropriate time to take action."
From fake accounts, to reorganizing deposits to come after payments so they charge outrageous penalties, to arbitrarily changing 30+ year old account agreements so that they can charge exorbitant "fees" for something that costs them absolutely nothing.
I recall historically when Wells Fargo meant security, safety for your funds. Now it's just a cover-up for highway robbery.
Wells Fargo once refused to honour a cheque drawn from their own bank. I wasn't a Wells Fargo customer, but the cheque was theirs and I had more than enough identification (a US passport) and they still refused.
Ended up filing a judgement against them for the amount of the cheque plus a little more for wasting my time.
Can't they settle with their clients in BTC?
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Lots of funny news about Europe lately.
Encouraging lawsuits against their illegal behaviour isn't a good way to make money. Maybe you should tell them that, Mr. Banker.
Unless you have a net worth in the 8 figures, you really shouldn't ever do business with a for-profit bank in the US. They'll fuck you, hard. Credit unions are for normal people in the US.
I don't respond to AC's.
Most banks are like that. When you have a check you should go to your own bank.
I'm an utter BC n00b and have no interest in getting "involved" in bitcoin, owning bitcoins, or anything like that. But I'd like to make a donation to someone who only accepts bitcoin.Are there any trustworthy services to do that with a credit card that don't involve some sort of complicated registration / setup / etc process?
What's illegal about it? Anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason, doesn't mean anything until they win.
Rival money laundering groups don't see eye to eye.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
Times change. Banks have to make money.
Banks have always needed to make money. That hasn't changed
Charge 9% on student loans? Their's a good reason for that.
Yes, it's called greed. If you call it anything else you're just being dishonest.
I get that everyone wants to go off the grid with their magical ether currency...
But without actual regulation on what a real bank / transfer looks like, Wells would be on the hook if one of these magical bit banks faked it out.
You can't both be "I'm totally off the grid and don't need your silly corporate/country moneys" and also "How come the bank won't give me real money for my non traceable money thing" at the same time.
You're asking for the security of the real monetary system, but without the checks. Not going to happen. You want your secret bit money, fine, but don't expect real money to magically appear at your whim and following your magical bit rules, because the real world has to deal with regulations and lawyers and things.
Whose good reason for that?
When the American Bank wants your money, they can just steal it, knowing fully well that their government will keep their backs. There is an easy solution: never ever do business with American banks or financial institutes, and generally, if you keep the U.S. out of your business, you will fare the better.
It's not making money when they place debits that occurred after bank closure before deposits made at 8AM (8+ hours before the debit) local time for said bank.
It's called "STEALING" "THEFT" "LARCENY"...
I want the officers of each bank branch in prison.
I want the CEO/CIO/CFO's of Wells in prison.
If they want to claim "corporate personhood", then they have to assign someone or someones to be the ones held accountable in the court system for the crimes said "corporate person" committed.
So whatever the punishment is for a human that steals, that's the same punishment for the officers of the bank, board of directors, majority stockholders.
All of those tell the corporation what to do, so all of those are held legally/criminally liable for any illegal actions the bank takes.
You cannot claim the benefits of personhood without taking on the responsibilities and liabilities of personhood.
Then, since corporations don't seem to care about the law, add-on a billion dollar fine for each instance of law-breaking. That ought to wake them the fuck up.
I know a bit about wire transfers but have no idea what a 'correspondent bank' is, or how funds can be locked up without being frozen. What exactly is the problem here? Furthermore, why is an injunction being sought? Is it an 'affirmative action' type injunction, to compel Wells Fargo to process the transfers? I could read the article but the summary shouldn't be so impenetrable.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
the price of bitcoin has recovered around $300 since March 25th, however this is only because people have no way to get money out of bitfinex except to buy bitcoins. there are complaints about delayed withdrawals from multiple users who tried to withdraw just before the price run up http://i.imgur.com/O7IWseg.png
Student loans are high risk and will have a relatively high default rate and those taking out the loans generally have no assets themselves, hence the need to be charged at a higher rate to cover the defaults.
... all the "Wells Fargo, Bitfinex, Taiwan-based, The Merkle, BFX_Brandon" references are pseudonyms and stuff.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Wow, you obviously have a very dull life, and waste time on trivialities.
Student loans can't be discharged in bankruptcy so even if the debtor defaults, the bank will still go after them with MORE penalties and have it garnished from the debtor's pay. student loans are paid back only subordinate to taxes
Inn recent years I've been cashing savings bonds (series E I believe). I first went to Wells Fargo because they were the closest bank open on Saturday.
My god, it was a fucking hassle. I knew it would be bad, and I expected the teller to have no fucking clue what a savings bond was let alone how to process it, but what I didn't expect was the damn resistance to actually cashing it because I wasn't a Wells Fargo customer.
You're a fucking bank, and there are still (some) laws you have to respect. After 3 people had a powwow and figured out where the scanner was, and after putting the bond (which was clean and undamaged and unfolded) through it about 3 dozen times, they finally forked over the cash. They also handed over a receipt and a large side of attitude, with a parting recommendation to switch my banking over to Well Fargo. No fucking thanks. Those clowns made Bank of America look competent, and I had to ditch those crooks about a decade ago for refusing to do anything about fraudulent ACH activity on my checking account.
Closing my accounts on those fuckers and walking out with a stack of cash was particularly satisfying.
So every savings bond after that was taken to the same Wells Fargo, just to maximize their inconvenience. Each teller I encounter is flabbergasted that a non-customer can walk in, make them do some actual work, and get money without any fees attached.
That's shit-though-mouth backwards. The issuing bank can more readily identify the account, available funds, detect fraud, minimize clearing times, etc. Of course they fucking don't, because all the clearing and processing times are artificial, and are designed to hit an account holder with fees later should the check bounce. It's the same with the overdraft "protection" scam.
Frankly I'm surprised any banks even deal with treasury bonds anymore.
I cashed out some old I-series bonds at a credit union over the course of a few months a couple years ago, and I was surprised at how much work it was and how long it took. For each bond, the teller would scan it through a machine, then type something into the terminal, then write down the serial number and amount in a log book, and then every few minutes the manager would come behind him to double-check the latest batch of work. I had more than 300 bonds, but broke them up into 50 per visit every few weeks, because 50 bonds took more than an hour to process.
Not being a customer of that credit union, I know they weren't at all happy to see me walk through the door. I used up at least an entire employee-day, plus whatever time the manager spent, over the course of cashing my bonds. All of that was at 0 revenue to them, so a complete waste from their point of view. I thanked them by moving my accounts there from my own bank, who had refused to touch savings bonds, and suggested I drive to the FRB branch 2 hours away.
Student loans are not a high risk. They maybe medium based on the degree.
You want a high risk loan, house mortgage in 2007.
Banks operate under many regulations (even today, even in the US). Wells Fargo may well have a legitimate concern and obligation under a regulation to withhold on these transactions because they cannot identify the source of funds, and therefore cannot prevent money laundering. That may point to the bigger scandal here around US hegemony against of the rest of the world. For example, see FATCAâ"basically the IRS has bullied banks outside America to be their tax enforcers.
Wow.
Banks have to make money.
Do we get to vote on that? Because somehow I could foresee that the general consensus says otherwise.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
> So far, close to US$180M in funds is locked up in Wells Fargo accounts
Cyber gangs running "ransomware / cryptor" malware infection schemes cannot gain access to those ransom bitcoins they blackmailed out of victims. The amount will be auctioned off by the authorities and the proceeds will be used to compensate the victims.
That is good news. Even better news would be if the cybercriminals were caught and lost ther hand to judical verdict. (Not every country has sissy laws like USA and Europe.)
Times change. Banks have to make money. If you were a banker, you would instantly recognize simple facts. But you are not, so you will never understand. Charge 9% on student loans? Their's a good reason for that.
Nobody deserves to make as much of a share of the wealth in circulation as they do. The fact they make it is reason enough to hang them all.
Each teller I encounter is flabbergasted that a non-customer can walk in, make them do some actual work, and get money without any fees attached.
As someone who has never worked in banking or finance, that is news to me as well. How did you learn that they were required to do that?
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
But a Bitfinex representative on social media pointed out that "Funds are not frozen," adding that Wells Fargo is just a correspondent bank, and "They have chosen to block wire transfers between us and our customers which we are challenging in court."
So the funds aren't frozen, they just aren't accessible. Alternative facts much?
1849.
Charge 9% on student loans? Their's a good reason for that.
Care to elaborate on what that good reason is? Return is proportional to risk. Student loans are just about the lowest risk loans that can be made, and should be "priced" accordingly.
Oh Bitfinex, they love to act like champions of the crypto-currency space, but they are hardly the white knights they think they are.
Back when they had their "hack", they used customer funds and allocated it to future "legal" expenses. No prior warning, just shifting dollars around. Then they issued BFX "Tokens" to their customers, essentially forcing them to take a 36% haircut up front due to the loss attributable to BFX's own security mismanagement. (Trusting an API blindly is a bad way to run a remittance-type business.)
If that wasn't enough insult, even after their token gained full parity (due to BFX siphoning off enough fees from their remaining customers who blindly traded with them), they had the gall to announce that everyone had been "fully paid", even when that wasn't true. Most customers had taken the haircut and moved on.
With this past pattern in place, and the wire suspension freezing about 180 Million in capital, Bitfinex is on the same path Mt. Gox was when it started having money transfer problems.
Just because its "upstream" of their primary provider matters little -- the cash is frozen and they need that cashflow to pay existing customers, sooner rather than later.
Beware of BFX, this is just the same old tired song and dance from yet-another-exchange setting itself up for the final "runner" where they abscond with what's left in their trusting customer's accounts. (What isn't frozen by the transfer problems, that is...)
cheques are for losers...
I mean, who in this day and age should be forced to receive a physical cheque, go to a physical bank, fall in line, fill out the paperwork, and then wait in line for his own money!
In Europe they do it much better, quicker and more efficiently: Just transfer the money to payee's bank account. In a flick. No charges. Europe-wide.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Bitcoins are totally traceable through the blockchain.
If you buy them from an exchange, they are coupled to your name, until they get transferred to your payee, from where the coin can be tracked further.
Try that with cash...
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Sorry, no. The only thing that's changed is the urge to make more money faster has overridden concerns that banks could go away if they lose consumer confidence.
Part of this changing times is that these days a bank account is more important to fully participating in society. Stuffing it under the mattress is just not much of an option anymore.
It would be interesting to see your excuse for charging customers fees for services they didn't sign up for and saw no benefit from.
Student loans are a wonder. Schools push them when you neither want or need them for some reason. When I paid mine off early I had to fight to be allowed to do it. There are government guarantees to the bank to make them low risk to the banks. And there are trillions of dollars in student loans and a quarter are nonpreforming. This is 2006 Mortgage time.
https://www.savingsbonds.gov/
A "savings bond" most commonly refers to a bond issued by the government at a fixed interest rate. In the past, the government offered decent interest rates and people trusted the US Dollar, or the government was desperate and offered high interest rates and people wanted to help the government (war bonds). The last time savings bonds were popular was with series EE in the 80s.
People often bought them for newborns and young children. They carried a fixed interest rate (7 percent or something in the 80s) and took 30 years to fully mature. EE Bonds were sold at half of their face value, I believe, so if you cashed them early you lost out. They reach their face value after a certain number of years and continue earning for years after (EE bonds were 30 years, I think). You pay taxes on the income once they stop earning interest, or once you cash it in (whichever is earlier).
They're a government-backed bond, meaning you can present that to any legitimate US bank and get the money, so long as you show that you're the person entitled to the bond (you're named on the bond or you're the the beneficiary of a dead person named on the bond) with some ID and give them address, SSN, etc. for tax purposes.
The bank has to fork over the cash regardless of your relationship with them You don't have to be a customer. The bank gets the cash back from the government, but it's a huge hassle for them to process each bond. There's lots of manual keying in and record keeping, scanning the paper bond, checking ID, fingerprinting, verifying address, etc.
While I'm not aware of any specific restriction that prevents them from charging a fee for processing a savings bond, they'd get a lot of blow back if they tried. Different bond series have different rules. I believe in some cases the bank doesn't have to cash you out directly but still has to do all the work of verifying your identity/signature and giving you proof of that so that you can send shit off to feds directly. This can ultimately be more work for the bank, and more unusual, so they'd prefer to just cash you out.
The answer is obvious- since the funds aren't actually frozen, sign up with another US partner who IS willing to do international wire transfer, transfer funds to them.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
No, most banks aren't like that. Maybe most US banks, but I don't have the "privilege" of dealing with them on a regular basis.
Also, no, I didn't want to go to my bank nor could I being in the US at the time. I wanted the money from the bank from which I had a promissory note for money. They tried to welsh on their promise, so I took it to court and won my money plus some.
Yet another reason why the US is a shithole and why I'm glad I left it behind all of those years ago.
Also, it's spelled "cheque", not "check". Go learn proper English.
Yes, trivialities like getting my money...
It must be fun for you, living broke in a cardboard box under a bridge.