Major Dutch bank blocks bitcoin purchases

[davout]

Yeh? How do you know. . Bank transfers can be reversed all the time. And what is the difference a bank doing it or an account holder who requests the bank do it for what ever reason.

[Rob E]

I'm not teling i'm asking. Funny you did not get the difference . eh?

[Rob E]

Quite a nifty shop tho. . do you do more?

[Rob E]

Guess not and an unanswered question.  

[repentance]

You should have fought harder, they have no right to return a bank transfer without your explicit agreement.

The reason people are questioning this statement is because their own banking systems will reverse a wire transfer in the case of fraud.  It's true that you can't generally reverse a legitimate wire transfer without the consent of the receiver (if you wired funds to the wrong person, for instance), but fraudulent transactions are treated differently under some banking systems.

[Rob E]

i don't know man im pretty sure i was able to reverse a transfer. . I fact i'm pretty sure i've done it .. I ' don't know if there was a specific time limit but i'm pretty darn sure i was able to reverse a transfer  . without consent.

[davout]

The reason people are questioning this statement is because their own banking systems will reverse a wire transfer in the case of fraud.  It's true that you can't generally reverse a legitimate wire transfer without the consent of the receiver (if you wired funds to the wrong person, for instance), but fraudulent transactions are treated differently under some banking systems.

I dealt with banks in both France and Latvia, and always had the same experience, they'll ask you if you're ok to reverse a transfer but they won't do it without your consent. We accepted most reversals because we correctly smellt something fishy going on and locked the funds, but in one case where there was fraud we had to refuse the reversal because that would have resulted in a net loss for us (and no we didn't feel really good about that, but after all, phishing fraud is the bank's problem for having insecure systems in the first place)

[repentance]

i don't know man im pretty sure i was able to reverse a transfer. . I fact i'm pretty sure i've done it .. I ' don't know if there was a specific time limit but i'm pretty darn sure i was able to reverse a transfer  . without consent.

Are you sure it was a wire transfer and not another type of electronic funds transfer?  Wire transfer used to be the only means to instantly put funds in someone else's bank account apart from physically depositing cash at their bank.  Many banking systems now have other means of doing that so a lot of people think that any instant transfer is a wire transfer, but that's not the case.

[davout]

Guess not and an unanswered question.  

It didn't really sound like one, anyway the answers are here <3

[Herodes]

phishing fraud is the bank's problem for having insecure systems in the first place)

This is kind of an interesting concept. Since the bank is traditionally the entity that customers trust, it's reasonable to expect that they have a sufficient level of security.

Someone conducting business through  a bank, say a bitcoin business selling bitcoins, trusts that the incoming money is legit, and thus dispatch the bitcoins. Later, when the bitcoin business gets told by the bank that it's a fraudulent purchase, and that the funds needs to be reversed, the bitcoin business has no recourse.

The bank(s) claw back their money, and leave the small bitcoin business with their loss.

A bitcoin business selling bitcoins should have some anti fraud system in place, the same should the bank, and it's only reasonable for the bank and the bitcoin business to cooperate about these anti-fraud measures, however as it's been mentioned earlier in this thread, the banks doesn't care, because bitcoin businesses may be fraud prone, and is not contributing significantly towards the bottom line.

Also I can imagine that most bitcoin businesses doesn't have the financial and legal muscles to meet a bank in court to have cases like these settled.

So from the bank's point of view, the way of least resistance is the easiest one: Reverse the transaction(s) and optionally shut down the account of the bitcoin business.

[Stephen Gornick]

As a bank, if they can just cut off payments/support to anything bitcoin-related, then they save themselves some headache and won't lose any significant business, because bitcoin is small.

^^^ that's how a bank sees this.

Since banks don't make much money from people who don't earn much money, as a bank if they can just impose enough fees to cause those account holders to close their accounts and go elsewhere, then they save themselves some headache and won't lose any significant business, because low income earners don't save much.

Does that seem acceptable to you?

The reason banks can't simply "cut off" these account holders is that the banking industry is protected from competition -- they are essentially granted a monopoly.  (i..e., You or I cannot start a bank [edit: even one that does not lending] because there is no way outsiders can put together the ginormous capital requirements required by the regulations).

So this is a righteous fight.  How dare they suppress a competitor in this manner.  In taking this action they are limiting my options as a consumer and as a monopoly player they can work together making it impossible for this competitor to serve its customers.

If I can open a bank next door, then I say fine let these financial dinosaurs serve their dying days milking their profitable customer base and whatever else they do, but until then we cannot allow banks to choose to serve only their most profitable customers and force the rest to go elsewhere.

Be polite, explain politely that it's not acceptable, explain politely that you are losing business because of them, insist heavily on this fact. Insist that this absolutely not acceptable, that the issue is on their side, not yours.

Silence is acquiescence.  Thank you for not backing down.

[Rob E]

Guess not and an unanswered question.  

It didn't really sound like one, anyway the answers are here <3

 oh i didn't know ..

[davout]

Someone conducting business through  a bank, say a bitcoin business selling bitcoins, trusts that the incoming money is legit, and thus dispatch the bitcoins. Later, when the bitcoin business gets told by the bank that it's a fraudulent purchase, and that the funds needs to be reversed, the bitcoin business has no recourse.

Quite the opposite in fact.

[Trader Steve]

This thread cracks me up. Wasn't bitcoin created as an alternative to banks? I think Satoshi is beating his head against a wall right about now. Instead of trying to figure out how to use bitcoin with banks, figure out how to use bitcoin without banks.

My two bit-cents.

[phantomcircuit]

The reason people are questioning this statement is because their own banking systems will reverse a wire transfer in the case of fraud.  It's true that you can't generally reverse a legitimate wire transfer without the consent of the receiver (if you wired funds to the wrong person, for instance), but fraudulent transactions are treated differently under some banking systems.

I dealt with banks in both France and Latvia, and always had the same experience, they'll ask you if you're ok to reverse a transfer but they won't do it without your consent. We accepted most reversals because we correctly smellt something fishy going on and locked the funds, but in one case where there was fraud we had to refuse the reversal because that would have resulted in a net loss for us (and no we didn't feel really good about that, but after all, phishing fraud is the bank's problem for having insecure systems in the first place)

Unfortunately this isn't strictly true.

The recipient bank is legally obligated to honor a recall request if it believes the funds are the proceeds of crime (at least in every jurisdiction I'm familiar with).

The amount of evidence the recipient bank requires to convince them that the funds are the proceeds of crime varies wildly.

Some banks will return any transfer for months afterwards if the sender claims to have been hacked others will require substantial evidence.

Edit: I should note that Intersango's account with BZWBK is effectively blacklisted at all major .NL banks.  However customers who call the bank and insist that the transfer be made have been successful despite the blacklist.

[MPOE-PR]

but fraudulent transactions are treated differently under some banking systems...

...that aren't wires.

Banks go about substituting actual service with bullshit replacements that are "just as good" all the time, just as any other corporation.

[davout]

Unfortunately this isn't strictly true.

The recipient bank is legally obligated to honor a recall request if it believes the funds are the proceeds of crime (at least in every jurisdiction I'm familiar with).

The amount of evidence the recipient bank requires to convince them that the funds are the proceeds of crime varies wildly.

Some banks will return any transfer for months afterwards if the sender claims to have been hacked others will require substantial evidence.

Edit: I should note that Intersango's account with BZWBK is effectively blacklisted at all major .NL banks.  However customers who call the bank and insist that the transfer be made have been successful despite the blacklist.

They are required to *report* transactions if they believe the funds are of criminal origin, not return them.

[Herodes]

Someone conducting business through  a bank, say a bitcoin business selling bitcoins, trusts that the incoming money is legit, and thus dispatch the bitcoins. Later, when the bitcoin business gets told by the bank that it's a fraudulent purchase, and that the funds needs to be reversed, the bitcoin business has no recourse.

Quite the opposite in fact.

OK, please fill me in with what the opposite consists of.

[davout]

OK, please fill me in with what the opposite consists of.

Well, read the thread

[Herodes]

OK, please fill me in with what the opposite consists of.

Well, read the thread

Such is done.

With lots of business practise in said field, I can assure you that banks are a pain in the ass to deal with. Most of the time a small bitcoin company doesn't have the resources to hire expensive lawyers.

Until proven otherwise, I take your statement as a load of bull.