Running all transactions through companies subject to foreign laws makes you subject to those foreign laws. And there is no reason US laws should affect e.g. a Canadian in Canada doing business in Canada with other Canadians.
The current situation is extremely unjust, because as German in Germany interacting with other Germans, I'm suddenly subject to US laws on which I can't even vote. Being subject to laws which I can't influence in any way democratically is unacceptable, and needs to end.
Either we as society should go back to cash, build our own payment systems to replace the US-based solutions, or end the US hegemony that even allows the US to spread its laws this way.
I think once the initial tech boom ends and good engineering talent becomes cheaper and more abundant, we're going to see a lot of countries building their own systems for the things that governments typically have control over. Exchange of money and proof of identity will probably be highest among those.
Denmark is an almost cashless society, and the cards I have from danish banks are mastercard - is there a different card system in Germany?
Often they were used in combination with MasterCard/Visa, but in local stores, only Dankort is used, and the transaction stays in Denmark
In practice if you've got no presence in the EU, what can they realistically do? Extradite over GDPR?
This alignment of interests has reduced the transaction costs of building global systems like payments infrastructure, because of the assumption that parties with the technical ability to control their functionality will be constrained implicitly by international norms. I wouldn't dismiss this outright as "hegemony"---it worked well for a long time---but it's natural in the current political context to wonder if assuming good faith from all parties involved will be as reasonable in the coming decades as it was in the past.
This argument could have been made in years past, but now, when sanctions can be reinstated by a single mad man instantly, the argument no longer holds.
Nothing you write is valid anymore, unfortunately. We didn't want it, but have no say in the matters whatsoever. Maybe this isn't so visible to US person, fed daily with strongly biased US news, but outside world sees this pretty clearly and is darn annoyed.
The parent comment is right, we need alternatives that are actually beneficial to (World - US), which is > 95% of the mankind.
"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.
that needs to be a title of the next headline, especially for anyone installing apps under the disguise of "privacy".
In the end, good for US for having the brains and the determination to build all these systems, conspicuously. I'm sure Russia does the same or is striving to do the same. Different methods, same desired outcomes. It will be interesting to see what China will have in store in the coming years.
Countries who depends on US and its companies for technology are very much vulnerable to these type of bullying.
Countries need to look on bigger picture and develop self sustainable technology ventures and US should stop bullying countries with technology to retain the trust.
https://sprudge.com/square-just-increased-their-transaction-...
They've used the industry for good PR like this: https://squareup.com/au/en/townsquare/2018-australian-coffee...
I guess they'd prefer to not have sub $5 transactions any more...
per Wiki: "Domestic distribution is currently limited to two ounces of coffee rations every 15 days for Cuban citizens.[13]
I don’t get why this is being downvoted. I’d rather get a comment on why you disagree
Why do you think that is now?
Ask anyone from one of the countries sanctioned by the US, like Cuba or Iran. This kind of experience is not new and it is not an exception. I no longer get surprised, just more and more disappointed.
International law is wildly complicated and full of landmines. I suspect Square would strongly prefer to just disburse $14,000 and set things right. Unfortunately the cost of doing so potentially involves prison time for anyone who made that happen.
Even something as innocuous-sounding as explaining to the merchant why they can’t release their funds is potentially grounds for an arrest. Whenever you see an article or blog post about Square, Stripe, Venmo, PayPal, or any other financial company having a pissed-off customer who’s owed money and can’t even get a support person to explain what’s wrong, the answer is virtually inevitably OFAC, and there is often literally no legal path forward to make the affected party whole at that point.
Using an American payment company and an American bank, both of which are subject to American laws and aren't going to risk breaking a trade embargo, regardless of whether this particular case is 100% legal or not.
Also not sure why the headline says Square Canada when the article makes it clear that it is JPMorgan Chase which is holding up the payment.
I don't see this as any different. Square took on the responsibility to deliver this woman's money, and it has failed in that responsibility. Exactly how they failed should not be her problem. They need to make it right.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-92-584/p...
The article claims her money is going through a US bank.
Not surprised this happened at all.
Some other commenters have already linked the relevant Canadian law that is broken by the stopped payment: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-92-584/p... .
If you want to try this out yourself (don’t do this...), send money to a friend via Venmo or equivalent, put something blatantly criminal in the description like “Heroin” or “ISIS tuition”, and see what happens.
TL:DR - Funds routed through the US are subject to US laws and regulation, no matter if the origin, and terminating point consider the act legal.
Long: If they held the funds, it's because someone at the ACH saw the business name, and automatically assumed that there was a potential liability (that happens, it's rare, but they will shut you out until you talk to them to prove your innocence).
If they were the more enterprising type, the person who made the call looked up their web site and read how they purchase their beans from Cuba. While fully legal in Canada, if the funds are routed through the US(I can almost guarantee it), JP Morgan can be held liable, and as such they would like to avoid the repercussions of the US government.
Perhaps those cryptocurrency wackos aren't so crazy after all. Perhaps.
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.
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 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!]
The political context and nationalisation of the industry led to much-reduced production."
followed by another whopper: " With the collapse of the Soviet bloc, Cuba lost 80% of its export trade." https://www.perfectdailygrind.com/2018/09/exploring-cubas-co...
The USSR did business with them as a middle finger to the US. The US doesn't do business with them as a middle finger to...the cuban people, the majority of which weren't even alive during the revolution.
For example: How do you expect trade resulting from an end to the embargo would be handled differently, and how would Cuba be less susceptible to the relative economic dependence on the US that affects many other countries in the region?
EDIT: None of this means I'm pro-embargo, or into US meddling into things they have no business in. Just that ultimately these embargoes do little in the grand scheme of things to stop dictatorial regimes. A tyrant has no reason to play by the rules, especially when money is involved.
Yes, the United States is a tyrannical regime. The embargo is an injustice.
1. Not my problem.
2. Fuck you, pay me.
If they can't find counter-parties that let them do their jobs, they should not be in the business of payment processing. I don't get to pick which third parties my bank interfaces with.
If you believe you have a general solution to the problem of incompatible edge cases in international financial regulation, there are many, many companies who would be willing to make you a very rich person in exchange for that information.
That Square Canada has a parent corporation is immaterial. Seize assets from the Canadian company to pay the $1.5 million fine for violating the act.
If this is unacceptable, then Square Canada is no longer a legitimate business and Square can't have a legally operating subsidiary in Canada.
Yes, this solution is probably still not good enough. Maybe Square Canada’s US parent would still have to pay a fine.
I understand the what US law will be broken if JP Morgan Chase releases the funds in that a U.S. entity would be party to a transaction involving Cuban goods. However, right now, said U.S. entity is effectively party to a theft involving Cuban goods and Canadian funds.
I haven't deep-dived on any of them, so those specific ones may not be suitable. But Canadian banks exist, and Canadian payment processors exist. This can't be hard.
If believed, she could just have the funds go to a Canadian bank and the problem is solved.
Doesn’t really have anything to do with Square.
Square screwed up!
Apply OFAC blacklisting extremely overly aggressively ... suffer an insignificant number of pissed off customers (who probably don't even leave you because everyone else is also awful).
Apply it as non-agressively as you think the law permits, or somewhat more than that... and find out that you're facing criminal charges because a prosecutor thinks the line was slightly different where you thought it was.
The situation is made more complicated in part because if prosecution isn't aggressive there are enormous sums of money ready to flow through whatever loophole exists and plenty of _bankers_ happy to help guide clients in blacklisted places through them. [ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/business/standard-charter... ]