←back to thread

Ask HN: Stripe holding funds for 120 days for no reason

158 points interesting_att | 4 comments | 22 Oct 22 15:43 UTC | HN request time: 0.9s | source

Hi Guys--

I started a Stripe account (even incorporated through them) for a basic graphic design and web design service business.

I process a few charges and even though I didn't get a single chargeback or dispute, Stripe decided to deactivate my account and said they would refund all the charges that were processed.

Which would have been fine with me. They said they would refund on Oct 17, but that date came and past. So I kept emailing.

Now they're saying they're holding all the funds for 120 days because of "elevated risk".

Which is insane because they have already withdrawn all the funds, meaning their risk would be zero if they refunded everyone.

I am beyond hurt and confused as I did need this money for my daughter. These decisions have real impacts on real families.

What do you do in this scenario? I have tried contacting support at Stripe but seems to be of no help.

Show context
etaioinshrdlu ◴[22 Oct 22 17:50 UTC] No.33300437[source]▶
Sounds exactly like PayPal. Is there a law of nature that forces payment processors to act like this?
replies(5): >>33300474 #>>33300693 #>>33300851 #>>33301125 #>>33301479 #
colechristensen ◴[22 Oct 22 17:56 UTC] No.33300474[source]▶
The business of payment processing is actually the business of managing fraud, and everybody tries to lower costs as they grow and age.

Unless there’s specific external regulation, there’s a regression towards being awful.

replies(2): >>33300743 #>>33301082 #
KptMarchewa ◴[22 Oct 22 18:59 UTC] No.33301082[source]▶
I would guess AML, not fraud.
replies(1): >>33301361 #
1. maxbond ◴[22 Oct 22 19:30 UTC] No.33301361[source]▶
I think they're saying there's an inherent ponzenomics to payment processing, wherein the might use AML as an excuse to paper over a lack of liquidity by stalling withdrawals. Lots of cryptoasset exchanges will freeze withdrawals over fictitious security or AML concerns when they're going under, for instance.
replies(2): >>33301477 #>>33315843 #
2. ycombobreaker ◴[22 Oct 22 19:45 UTC] No.33301477[source]▶
AML regulations are real, though. Crypto exchanges' fictitious claims wouldn't fool anybody if it wasn't already "a thing" in the more-regulated side of the world.
3. KptMarchewa ◴[24 Oct 22 12:33 UTC] No.33315843[source]▶
I haven't seen real example of this in real money financial institutions. Haven't followed crypto exchanges though.
replies(1): >>33325112 #
4. maxbond ◴[25 Oct 22 01:38 UTC] No.33325112[source]▶
I'll add that I'm also not aware of something like this happening outside of crypto exchanges & don't actually hold an opinion on this hypothesis, as I'm not familiar enough with payment processors to know one way or the other. My comment makes me sound like I support this hypothesis, but that's a mistake in my wording.