Tell HN: Marcus.com' automated fraud detection locked me out of life savings
Any advice how to deal with this? Here is the full story which some of you might have lived through already:
I have most of my life savings with Marcus.com, an account that I opened in 2019. I always used the same 1-2 bank accounts to transfer money in and out. In 2020 I moved back to my home country in Europe but left the savings accounts open.
About 4 weeks ago I added a new bank account to transfer money to (a wise.com account with Evolve Bank & Trust). I verified the account (two deposits) and then proceeded to transfer half of my savings with the intent of converting it into Euros to use in my home country.
1 day later, transfer got reversed. I can still access my account but not transfer any of my money anywhere.
Upon calling customer service, I learn that the transaction was flagged. The only way they can prove my identity is by sending a text to a phone number registered in my name. That doesn’t work since I don’t have a phone number in my name in the U.S. anymore. The phone number to access the account for 2FA is a VoiP service. Ok, great. Now what?
Well, apparently they can send an affidavit to my account address in the U.S. (which is my brother-in-law’s address where we usually visit when we’re there) which I can notarize with my ID and send to them. Takes between 5-10 business days. Perfect, let’s do that. I will be in the U.S. during that time frame.
1 week – no affidavit. I call – the affidavit still needs to be approved. 2 weeks later – still no affidavit. I call them “The affidavit still hasn’t been approved”. Every time a different set of agents, each giving the same canned responses. Finally I get a supervisor on the phone “we will expedite a phone call to you and the security team will ascertain your identity. This takes 1-3 business days. If they miss you, they will leave a voice mail and you can call back the hotline”.
Obviously, no phone call ever happens. No voice mail happens. No affidavit is sent. Call agents still telling me “I am sorry this is happening but we need to wait for approval”. I feel like I am stuck in hell. No single employee that contacts me, no one that owns my case. Is this the future we create for ourselves? Unbelievable.
Anyone that has been in a similar situation, how did you deal with this?
49 comments
[ 9.3 ms ] story [ 1966 ms ] threadYou'll have to get your account details updated and let them know you've moved out of the US and close your account. They'll only respond to you after a while after they've reviewed your account for fraud though.
Also you would be better off using your local European bank account when you close your account for the withdrawal, as opposed to using Wise.
I have absolutely zero transparency as to what is happening and their statements have been contradictory with no concrete actions or steps taken so far. Just feel like I am stuck in some sort of dystopian situation.
Wait it out and then ask to close the account and tell them you moved overseas (i.e pretending to live in the US isnt going to help)
- Advice patio11 gave me (adjust for your own situation):
> 1) Unlikely to convince them to re-open the account but if you want to try your best bet is on paper to Sallie Mae; enclose copious documentary evidence of identity, source of funds, and purpose for opening the account. You can address the packet to Legal or Chief Compliance Officer; they can messenger it over to Fraud.
> 2) Assuming primary goal is getting $20k expeditiously: Reg E letter to Sallie Mae’s Legal Department or Chief Compliance Officer or similar. Argument: you made an electronic transfer into the bank; it was not processed properly (not credited to you); you require them to either reverse transfer or return the money via a method convenient to them. Send on paper.
> 3) Check that Chexsystems didn’t get a file opened on you as a result of this; would be unfortunate. More on your local Googles.
- (patio11 used to ghostwrite to banks as a hobby[2])
[1]: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/
[2]: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2017/09/09/identity-theft-credit-r...
As well as with the FDIC [1] and your state’s banking regulator [2].
[1] https://ask.fdic.gov/fdicinformationandsupportcenter/s/?lang...
[2] https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/how-do-i-find-my-st...
I filed with CFPB, and situation resolved automatically in about two weeks.
I had posted a bit more here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37013206
Will keep you posted, appreciate it.
It's just that US does very little to no KYC upon account opening, instead relying on risk indicators (like IP address, and credit systems) at the outset, and throwing flags way down the line if some 'unusual' activity happens in the account. This happens typically when someone really needs access their account urgently (real estate txs) or in unusual situations, which results in stories like these.
No other country has high-street banks (obv. excluding the 'tech'-banks of yore) that let me open an account without ever entering a branch or requiring a single piece ID
My only advice is to find every regulator from the local to national level that governed financial and consumer issues where you used to live in the US. State level ones are usually the right balance of having enough resources and heft to fight for you, yet still small enough where your complaint might reach a person. If all else fails, contact the state attorney general for the state you used to live in, many have online forms. File complaints everywhere you can. Eventually the bank will be forced to reply to some of these regulators and CC you on snail mail.
When all else fails, do your best to guess email addresses of those at the bank and work your way up internally that way. Cite dates, support ticket #s, transaction #s, etc to prove you're the real deal and won't go away until it's fixed.
If you're persistent enough it will get resolved.
I can't offer you advice for your present situation, but after it is resolved you need to move your money to a bank that lets you open an account with your up-to-date European address and phone number. Offering services to non-residents is a very complex topic for any financial institution, and many/most will not support it at all.
All banks that inconvenience you “for security reasons” are like that.
Right now they are probably trying to figure out when exactly they banked someone who was no longer a US person and what the consequences are.
It‘s actually not the phone number that caused this issue, more likely doing a large withdrawal and not being able to „identify“ myself by having a US registered phone number.
This is a tech problem where banks have very local support only. (ie: only US phone numbers).
The employees they'll let you talk to on the phone are probably telling the truth that they can't do anything.
Google voice numbers are regularly banned.
I believe that Leftium's advice (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38136366) is solid, but the first line (Unlikely to convince them to re-open the account) is accurate here. First-line customer service will almost certainly not have the powers to do anything about this, and the silence is probably because someone have reviewed the account and confirmed that your account is too weird (phone number is dead and address is inaccurate, reasonable possibility of running afoul of anti-money laundering laws which triggers the "no tipping-off" (https://aml-cft.net/library/tipping-off/) provisions).
The rough approximation of other sentences are of course found in other banks' terms (they really want certainty that they wouldn't be prosecuted in Otheristan!) but definitely not this one. Please state which word/s that allow you to use it in another country (outside of US bases).
I already stated those words, you're not parsing closely enough.
Right after they say what you just said, they said and I quoted, "The Service may not be appropriate or available for use in some non-U.S. jurisdictions."
why would they say "may not" instead of "are not"? because they don't care if you use the services, they just want to be able to hide behind the other statement if you become a pain in the ass.
Notice that in his interactions with the company, they are not bringing to bear the statement that you think is so binding. They are actually saying that they want to help him.
If you live in a foreign country, and open a bank account and they tell you "it's for residents only", if you move out of the country they don't get to keep your money. Every modern country has ways of dealing with these issues, they've been happening since the days of sailing ships.
In modern times the new challenge is not long ocean voyages, but how to deal with a company that is online only and has no humans. But you know what the company has? Legal counsel, they have to. And you can contact that department/attorney and say you have a legal beef, and they will do something.
Oh sure, I'm not disputing that (and I certainly would want sherlock_h to get their life savings), but again Marcus has been so clear in this (including not allowing to input a non-US number and address) that you having to say "oh it's boilerplate stuff" runs against the practicality that, yes, Marcus does not want people outside the US to hold accounts.
Also, "may not" is almost always certainly interpreted in law as equivalent as "shall not". There are edge cases where this is not the case, but both federal and Utah law (where Marcus legally operates) use this meaning.
They are not invoking this clause, they are trying to help him. So the clause is not for the purpose you are suggesting.
I had another realization: they probably need the clause to not violate US laws about money laundering and international money movements. It doesn't mean they don't want to, they're a website, the more customers the better. It means they don't want to deal with regulation
It seems like you're saying they're not allowed to continue using their account after moving overseas?
Yes. I'm not saying that they're not *entitled* to their money (in fact Goldman Sachs must give sherlock_h the funds in their account) but Marcus is clear on this that this provision is a continuing eligibility (and is legally allowed to put restrictions like this).
The most obvious approach would be to log into their account (from overseas), and transfer the money out.
But seems like you're wanting something else done instead... so what's the something else?
Yes, this is indeed the most obvious way, but most banks would flag that transfer (especially since it is a large amount) because it was done outside the US.
> But seems like you're wanting something else done instead... so what's the something else?
Optimally you would do that before moving, but I'm assuming that this is beyond their control due to COVID-19 so this is understandable.
Probably very unpopular here (downvote away if you prefer) but this by manually contacting Goldman-Sachs by mail and essentially inform them your particular circumstances. This is understandably a long and frustrating process, but short of physically coming back to the US to sort this then this is the closest method possible.
But, "It may not be an appropriate movie for you to watch" is not "you may not watch it".
Different usages.
Of course you're welcome to litigate this if you happen to be in a similar situation as sherlock_h if you insist, but I would not hold my breath.
I don't know why you did that, but I'm unimpressed by you and your lawyer's interpretations
>who simply said "Goldman should probably use "shall not"
should have used that language, but we are not in an a priori situation here.
> but for me it's plainly clear that you can only use Marcus here or in you're currently deployed."
Nor are we arguing Goldman's side, which this lawyer-statement does; we are arguing against Goldman, for the client. That's what an attorney should do. Ambiguities in standard contracts are ruled against the author of the contract and in favor of the other signatory. Legalese is still English, and my interpretation of the English language of these terms is completely accurate, and my interpretation of the wiggle room is a reasonable argument to make.
You and he are cleverly smooshing the two sentences together which we are trying to tease apart to determine the meaning.
>which pretty much solidifies how the sentence is to interpreted. I further asked if legally-speaking there is a wiggle room and he simply said "Accessing Marcus while on vacation would technically violate this provision, so I don't think there is a wiggle room here."
not to me.
Goldman is not asserting this clause. Why the hell would assert it for them? If it comes up, we argue for wiggle room, not against it. Period.
The lawyer is correct that, if OP is deciding what account to open, and planning to follow the geographic trajectory that he followed, no, don't open this account. But that's not where we are. We argue from where we are, not coulda woulda shoulda.
You are weirdly obsessed with this, and not very good at it.
I've worked with very good attorneys before, the top in NYC. They can still use help from the client's perspective, always, and very clever people can think of things that other people can't, for example the numerous Feynmann escapades outside his area of expertise.
Also you might read my other comments to OP which explain how to solve this problem.
Also, in the US, you could achieve your goal by sending instructions to the company with a "notarized" letter. The Notary is a person licensed by the govt to swear that the signature is your signature, and you can send them the written instructions and they have to follow them, it has the same force as you being there.
On an international basis, you can achieve the same "notarization" by visiting a United State Consular office and they will check your local passport etc. and certify under United States law that you are the person sending the letter. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/records-and-authe... (aha! it's called an Apostille)
It's a legally binding thing that, for example, someone with your power of attorney can act on your behalf. Companies have to accept mail, etc. People can be incapacitated, and that doesn't give a company a right not to respond.
I don't understand this part - that would be trivial for anyone to either achieve or fake. ...
In the United States in 2023 you can get a live, mobile SIM-backed phone number registered in any name you like.
Have your brother-in-law buy a used pixel4 ($80) and a USMobile SIM kit ($0) and then install SMSForwarder on the phone after registering service in your name.
Then he just plugs it in and leaves it on the countertop and you receive SMS in your email inbox.
Apart from US laws (if you do not have any interest on the account you are fine), you might have a complex situation at home. The US is not part of the CRS, so they are probably not sharing stuff with your local government. However, if you plan to transfer this money at some point to Europe, you better fix this situation now. Your country might perceive this money as undisclosed income.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=415611&...
Talk to their support and escalate. Complain to as many regulatory agencies as you can, send copies to Marcus and GS legal departments. Make noise and shame them on online forums and social media. Find a lawyer to file lawsuits against both Marcus and GS.