NETELLER , JUST ANOTHER HOOP TO JUMP THRU!

[colin]

Journeyman- To answer the question on why both parties must be certified, has absolutely nothing to do with any ACT.
For one, it is to curb false identities. It was implemented mostly for International clients. To certify their account, they are unable to sign up a bank account. We require personal identification to be mailed in. By requiring International clients to do this, we are seeing less and less fraudulent accounts in the p2p area. This idea started when we had an International client sign up and took a large p2p transfer for merchandise. The sender never received any merchandise for their $$. If we would have required the receiver to be certified, we would have at least had identification and possibly a phone contact. This would have possibly detered the receiver from attempting this if this would have been implemented sooner.

Now for US clients, it encourages them to sign up a bank account to become certified. For larger limits, you will need to become certified.

 

[GringoinCR]

The 911 act doesn't have to say anything about international banks.

It's real simple. How long do you think it takes any bank to comply when the US says they will cut off all wires/USD to and from US banks? What do you think that does to any country's economy?

The US waves their whipping stick around and others ask, "what information did you want again?"

 

[THE SHRINK]

Thanks Colin for taking the time to come in here on behalf of Neteller and keeping all of us informed...

 

[Ninja]

Colin,

For US residents I still don't understand why you require a member to be certified before he can receive a p2p transfer. Why would you penalize someone who didn't want to give you their bank account information? That doesn't make sense for Neteller or the individual.

How do you handle members who have received p2p transfers before, but are not certified? I assume they would be grandfathered in since there is no security issue to deal with.