Hacker News Reader

Comment by Canada | Hacker News Reader

They need to just give her the $14k immediately and then eat it if it's a problem. Stop processing the transactions going forward or until it's sorted out, but do not steal her money. Also, I found this distasteful:

"I want to clarify that Square is not experiencing a technical glitch. While I cannot speak with you about Monica's individual case, I can tell you that Square's Customer Success team spoke with Monica yesterday, and she now knows the reason"

How incredibly tone deaf to use such a condescending, bullshit phrase as "customer success team" when speaking with the media in a situation where they are clearly failing the customer. A simple "we spoke with her" would do.

View on HN

This was my main takeaway from the article. Call a spade a spade. "Square's Government Fear team spoke with Monica yesterday, and she now knows the reason."

It's completely legitimate for a corporation to be afraid of the government, and have a team to manage risks. It's not legitimate to call stealing $14,000 of someone's money "customer success". What Square's team did was fail the customer. That's not success.

The name is what it is. How would you feel if your company went to the media and made up some nasty name for your team because the real one sounds too positive?

I think everyone should be accountable for their role. If you're on the "customer success team" but you can't help customers, that probably feels pretty bad.

I agree. Unless there is an actual law telling them to hold the cash. I would let go of it. Cut out future transfers as you said. Why PayPal like companies can just steal cash like that is beyond me. They should be legally liable for the laws broken if they keep someone elses cash.

If this is an OFAC case, which anyone who’s worked for a financial institution can tell you this sounds like a dead ringer for, there is literally an actual law requiring them (both JP Morgan and Square) to withhold the funds.

None of the companies involved even actually get to keep the money IIRC as it’s eventually handed over to the US government. Everyone involved would almost certainly love to save themselves the headache and bad press of this situation if it were at all possible.

When there’s an article about PayPal, Square, or any other financial institution holding on to some person’s cash for vague, inexplicable reasons and refusing to hand it over, the reason is virtually guaranteed to be OFAC. They can’t turn over the funds and they can’t even explain why they can’t turn over the funds without someone facing potential jail time.

If the question is legal liability for violating sanctions, releasing the $14K could put them on the hook for much more than $14K in liability.

No excuse. This is Square Canada. They made a promise to this client and it's not like they stopped taking money on her behalf as soon as they realized there was a problem. Whatever backend problems they have are their own problem and their own liability.

If they aren't able to do that then maybe this company should not be operating in Canada in the first place.

[edit: oops, I meant Square not Stripe!]

Square, not stripe.

Not releasing can put them in violation of Canada's Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act so they are between a rock and a hard place (particularly Foreign Extraterritorial Measures (United States) Order, 1992 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-92-584/p...)

Oh ouch.

And Square Canada is subject to Canada's laws first, even if its parent company is subject to some other country's laws later on.

Doesn't matter. She is doing business with Square Canada. If it comes to it, Canadian courts will find in her favour and the judgement will be enforced against Square Canada's assets.

So why not continue to refuse to pay the sanction-risked funds and enter into a private settlement for an amount of, say... $14,159.26 for failing to comply with their agreement and Canadian law?

“We’re not experiencing a technical glitch, this was entirely an organisational screw-up”

She may have a case if she sues. It would depend on the fine print in the Square Canada agreement. If they say they process money through the US, she might be out of luck. If they don't then she has a case.

It’s probably not worth suing someone for $14000 though.

In Canada the loser pays all legal costs.

Maybe they have the equivalent of small claims court...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com