Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Tell HN: Marcus.com' automated fraud detection locked me out of life savings
73 points by sherlock_h 10 months ago | hide | past | favorite | 46 comments
Long story short, Marcus.com' automated fraud detection system flagged one of my transactions. Account got locked, since I don't live in the U.S. anymore and have no U.S. phone number there is no way for them to ascertain my identity. Now stuck adding higher-ups on LinkedIn to see if I can get some personal support.

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?




- Start by filing a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau[1]

- 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...


+1 to file a complaint with CFPB. Chase closed my account and for two months I was visiting local branches and calling them, and nothing happened, just end less calls and explaining the situation again.

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


> Start by filing a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

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...


Just did! Thanks for the advice. The core issue seems to be that kyc is really hard to do virtually in the US.

Will keep you posted, appreciate it.


KYC is much more involved outside the US. Have you tried opening an account in the EU or South Asia?

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


In some countries though once you open with one in person you can do so online with other banks


The root of the problem seems to be that the account has a non-functional phone number and you don't actually reside at the address listed on it (or even in the same state or country). I'm not surprised that it is raising red flags in their system. I'm pretty certain that they are running afoul of plenty of reporting and tax regulations by letting you continue to bank there.

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.


I wish the OP a speedy return of their money but this sounds spot on. This is an edge case the Marcus customer support state machine does not handle and it will need the assistance of someone empowered to make Serious Decisions to resolve.

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.


Yea that seems about right. My situation is similar to a US citizen living abroad though. They would face the exact same issues.

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.


He’s only running afoul of a skittish company interpretation of reporting and tax regulations. That neither you can cite or anyone at the company because they don’t exist in that form.

All banks that inconvenience you “for security reasons” are like that.


Just because one doesn't know or understand all the banking regulations doesn't mean they don't exist. Tell me, did the OP file form W-8BEN with Goldman when they left the country, and was it forwarded to the IRS?


W-8BEN doesn't appear to have anything to do with this. AFAICT it's a form to qualify for a lower withholding rate for US income.


Nope, every foreign resident with a US bank account has to file it with their bank. E.g. https://www.bbamericas.com/en/forms/w8-form-instructions/


There are no rules/laws that prohibits non-us persons from opening an account. Offshore banking is a thing in the US.

This is a tech problem where banks have very local support only. (ie: only US phone numbers).


That’s not the core problem. OP accepted that fact and travelled to the US to fix it. The core problem is that the bank won’t send him a damn letter in the US.


Commenting here for sympathy.

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.


It sounds like theyve flagged you, you're not really going to get anywhere using people on linkedin.

You'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.


Have you had experience doing this? I am pretty sure they cannot withdraw to a European acct. The acct details have been up to date for a while, you obviously cannot enter an address outside of the U.S.

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.


You have zero transparency because they suspect you of fraud and are trying to protect your funds. From their point of view they're not going to tell a fraudster what is going on (their point of view).

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)


Someone at Bogleheads forum had issues with Marcus too. Looks like Goldman Sachs Marcus are doing everything possible to stop bleeding funds.

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.


have your brother in law add an old cellphone to his family plan with a new line/number, and put that into your name. I'm a gadget freak, I have half a dozen phones, easy to rename one.

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'm sorry if this is blunt, but it is clear from the terms that your use case is explicitly not allowed:

  Any natural person using the Service must be at least 18 years of age. The Service may only be used in the United States, including its territories, or on a United States military base. The Service is controlled or operated (or both) from the United States, and is not intended to subject us to any non-U.S. jurisdiction or law. The Service may not be appropriate or available for use in some non-U.S. jurisdictions. Any use of the Service is at your own risk, and you must comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations in doing so. We may limit the Service’s availability at any time and without notice, in whole or in part, to any person, geographic area or jurisdiction that we choose.
Especially that since you're in Europe most US banks won't service most Europeans (directly) because of mutually-incompatible laws between the US and EU. In Marcus' case this has always been clear at the terms you have agreed to (I have to trawl through old versions of the agreement and that exact paragraph is always there).

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).


that legal boilerplate seems intended to protect the company from foreign laws (is not intended to subject us to any non-U.S. jurisdiction or law). They don't actually care if you use the service from other places ("The Service may not be appropriate or available for use in some non-U.S. jurisdictions"), they just don't want to be on the hook for a foreign jurisdiction enforcing any consumer rights, taxes, etc.


Sorry, but the second sentence is clear as day:

  The Service may **only** be used in the United States, including its territories, or on a United States military base.
(emphasis added)

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).


>Please state which word/s that allow you to use it in another country

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.


> if you move out of the country they don't get to keep your money.

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.


you edited, which doesn't bother me but now i'll edit :)

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


Please ask a lawyer on how to interpret "may not" and you will understand on why I'm continually insisting. (Yes, "may" has some leeway, "may not" does not have a leeway. IDK why is this the case, but legalese is legalese.)


IANAL but, "Listen young man, you may not cross the street" is a legally binding prohibition from your mother, it does not mean may or may not.

But, "It may not be an appropriate movie for you to watch" is not "you may not watch it".

Different usages.


So I have consulted with a lawyer who simply said "Goldman should probably use "shall not" but for me it's plainly clear that you can only use Marcus here or in you're currently deployed.", 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."

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.


> So I have consulted with a lawyer

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.


I looks like the user created the account when in the US, so was legally allowed to do so.

It seems like you're saying they're not allowed to continue using their account after moving overseas?


> 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).


So, what's the process sherlock_h should use to retrieve their funds once they've moved overseas?

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?


> The most obvious approach would be to log into their account (from overseas), and transfer the money out.

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.


Beyond CFBP, you need to determine the consequences of transitioning from a US person to a non-US person. There are tax and reporting consequences and the possibility of bad support. This should have been done before but do not worry about “losing” your money, just maybe not being able to access it at the moment.

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.


Apologies for sneaky off-topic, but I can't resist to think I can fall victim of situation like this with my Wise account. I live in Europe and have Wise accounts in United Kingdom and in Australia. I'm currently contemplating if I can use these to receive money from my customers in these countries. Since I have not built a substantial savings yet, a delay longer than a month will quite literarly kill me. Somebody mentioned here, that to offer bank account for non-residents is very complicated thing to do, I wonder if Wise is doing this well enough to take the risk...


Maybe brother in law can help you find a local lawyer, and vouch for you to secure a one on one phone interview. The lawyer only has to be in your brother-in-law's state. This sounds like an identity issue with broken promises. It will cost some money, but if your 'life savings' doesn't amount to a great deal (except to you) you might be able to secure a cheap resolution. Lawyers love to make threatening noises and if there is documented hardship to you a good one might even smell added 'damages'.


"The only way they can prove my identity is by sending a text to a phone number registered in my name."

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.


Why not get a number from google voice or us mobile and use that?


Most banks won't send text messages to VoIP numbers.

Google voice numbers are regularly banned.


Either you wait for the bank, or you talk to a lawyer.

The employees they'll let you talk to on the phone are probably telling the truth that they can't do anything.


You can purchase and activate a US esim and then receive texts over wifi globally, no need to be in the USA Many providers do this, I use Tello. It’s us$7.50 a month


right when it happened you should have had bil open a local us line and ported ur number back and then done 2fa. maybe that would have avoided this?


Goldman never had any business running a consumer bank.


Calling a lawyer in the state where the opposing party is headquartered/organized seems like it would be a good start.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: