Could i get in trouble if i would to attach a debit account/card that isnt in the same name of the owner of the paypal account?
No, you wouldn´t! Because this is not possible (only in case they have the same surnames but are different persons). The names must match, otherwise the card will be denied so there is no chance to get in trouble.
Well, ask yourself this, is it possible for you to use your father's passport to travel overseas ? It's pretty much the same here.
Sorry, I don´t get this! What you mean by this post? Of course it wouldn´t be possible I think but there is absolutely no problem with using my fathers CC in my PP account. 100% legit, has nothing to do with CC theft nor is it against PP´s TOS because they give you the option to add a CC with another first name then the accountholders. Only the lastname must be the same.
Let's bring back to the main question, what is the purpose of verification ? From the word 'verification', it means to determine by a 3rd party validation that the person is who he say he is. If you use someone's else Credit Card then it does not verify you are who you say you are. You are using someone else's information as if it is your own, like using someone's else passport to travel because the passport must be in your name and be yours and not someone's else. https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=xpt/UserAgreement/ua/USUA-outside#eligibility-policy If the purpose is just to go through motion and have a total disregard to the purpose of verification then go ahead, it may work. However if you understand the reason for verification and do care about the contractual obligation then it would indeed not be the proper thing to do. Because it would be in violation of the following https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=xpt/UserAgreement/ua/USUA-outside#restricted-policy
Sorry, but please go to the first post and read! There is nothing written about verification. Just if he could get in trouble when using someone elses CC. So from the question asked by the OP the account can already be verified by any other source, a bank account or another CC for example. There is no problem and I wouldn´t get any problem if I would add a second CC (my fathers for example) if the lastnames match. And again to your view of the verification: maybe (or better said for sure) that´s how it should be. But there is no violation of any TOS using a VCC which comes only with cardnumber, CVV and exp. date because they work with ANY name and there has nothing to be faked or something similar. Also there is nothing "illegal" in buying the VCCs (possibly it is against HDFC´s customer agreement but even if this is the case it is not the buyers fault, just the sellers) and then of course use them in the customers name to verify the account. It can´t be the customers problem if PayPal let´s them add the card at first and they later get their accs limited by PP. If it is possible to add a V(irtual)CC then PayPal can´t limit their accs and only unlimit them again if a statement to the VCC is provided. One very specific feature of a V(irtual)CC is: it is Virtual and there exists no paper statement and because of this feature it is not possible to provide the statement which PayPal wants. It´s not that hard to block the BINS of the most known VCCs so they can´t be added to verify anymore and they wouldn´t not have to "force" their users (from who they earn money) to provide anything what is IMPOSSIBLE. But it´s so easy why they don´t do this easy step which would save them and their customers a lot of unnecessary trouble: it´s the money they claim hold back legal but there is NOTHING legal in holding back the money if a verification can be done through an ID finally or similar. And at last I have to ask this question which I wanted to ask so often before but never did till now: how come you "love" PayPal like you do? You can´t have sold anything worth some more $$$ by PP, otherwise you wouldn´t defend the methods this way (or are you an important employee of PP?). Please don´t take what I write as an "attack" on you. I think we both know we have two views of this which couldn´t be more different from the other ones. And I don´t have any problem with you: you are a high reputed member here and I respect this. All I do is "discuss" those things and I hope you see this like me (only this). Thanks
I never said that I love Paypal that much, it is just that I get sicked to the bone that people here just have total disregards to the rules and to the contractual agreement. Such as people who says it is okay to use fake details, to sign up from a country that is not supported, to perform chargebacks and all that. I am not an advocate for Paypal, I used to sell through Paypal but no longer do so. Well, the main reason is because like you, I got cheated and by people who were technically 'verified' but aren't because they used VCC to do so. And like you, they did those numerous dispute and got away with it. I don't blame Paypal because unlike you, I have a minor training in corporate and financial law and thus I go through every single word of the contacts and appreciate what Paypal has done and the terms of the contracts. I mean overall the one that cheats are the 'buyer' or 'seller' and not so much Paypal. They are just protecting themselves through all the law and I mean you agreed to them so you are bounded by them. In my dealings with Paypal, I have not been limited or anything and I do everything by the books. I still believe in the Paypal platform, I just want to see the members be honest for once and thus been advocating that they use their local bank-issued credit card for verification and do not sign up if they are not supposed to sign up. Because in the past, before all this nonsense about VCC, Paypal was a really nice place to be in. VCC just spoils the whole purpose of verification and now you cannot trust the next person you deal with. I mean I know you been cheated before. In the end, Paypal is just a payment platform. It does not sell anything for you or is a buyer. You as a seller have the final say to the transaction and you should do the due diligence. If the buyer does not play fair and use fake details, you cannot blame paypal. I know sometimes even with the best procedures, those who cheats may just go ahead and foil the system. I use credit cards and accept credit card payments for my business and there are at least several times a year when I got cheated. So the problem isn't just isolated to Paypal, the problem is that there are people who intends to cheat around. In short, Paypal platform works if only people who uses it complies to the contract they agreed to. If everyone was honest, the paypal platform would probably be the best around. If you read my other post, I have stop selling through Paypal and simply hate it that people say it is okay to use fake details and to use VCC or to use someone's else information or do those account sharing. And when they are found out and Paypal limits their accounts, they started blaming Paypal for it. It seems that they just have no conscience and cannot see what they have done wrong.
NoNoNO! Totally misundersanding: both of the buyers where "long time" PP members and even their Ebay accs where about 5 years old. This I why I HATE PayPal that much (as seller). It was their real info!!! Both accs each (PP and Ebay matched in both cases and the PP accs had something about 100 trades done min. before). And even although I provided the tracking info they decided the other party won the dispute. You are right but also wrong with what you say: yes, I don´t have any training in corporate or financial law. But I don´t need to have this because 3 of my uncles do this for me ;-) And if it would have been possible to take them to court in Germany this would have happen. But because it´s not ruled by German law and to take them to court in UK would have been to much of an effort we didn´t do this If PayPal was only a payment platform like you say then they would would just be the third party between buyer and seller. Buyer pays to PP - PP to seller. And in case of a chargeback they just refund. But what gives them the right to steal users money with limiting their accs and hold the money for 180 days? And one more thing: my case was February last year and this was definitely before this whole VCC selling thing here. And another time about the use of VCCs: it seems in the end we both think it shouldn´t be possible to sign up with those VCCs so easy. But I only always said in case someone signed up with their real info but just used a VCC because he/she doesn´t have a "real CC" (in Germany for example you can´t just easy walk into your local bank and ask for a Visa or Mastercard so not everyone is able to apply for a regular CC) and PP limits the account without any reason or because of a "stupid fault" like loggin in with a different IP PP shouldn´t hold the funds of the accountholders if they finally did an ID verification but just can´t only provide the statement Okay, that´s it from me for now Have a nice day/evening/night
If the other side is honest, they could just send you back the money, instead they requested a dispute and got their money back. Paypal does not pocket the money, it is either the seller or the buyer that does.
another try: they paid the items they bought on ebay. i cashed out the funds because i had to pay my supplier for the mobiles. i sent them the phones (incl. tracking etc.) but the buyers filled a dispute. i could provide the tracking info and that the package was signed by the buyer/scammer. but pp decided the other won the dispute although i had the tracking numbers etc.. so they DEFINITELY ripped me (because of course they had to take their money from someone which they refunded to the scammer) as I could provide the details needed for their "seller protection" (trackable shipping details). but they shit (excuse this but this was what they did) on me. and this what you call "pocketing": if they limit the accs, of course pp is pocketing and noone else
What are you saying here ? It does not make any sense. How are they stealing your money when you can have access to it after 180 days ? I mean how is it stealing when you can get your money back ? Stealing means that they take your money and you cannot have it back ever again. They hold the money for the sales because something is suspicious and they are giving the buyer the right to recover their money if there is a dispute which goes in the buyer's favor. If you can withdraw the money and supposedly that you are dishonest then the buyer buys and gets nothing and have no rights for recourse. No goods is transferred to paypal and they do not know if the product actually goes to the buyer. So it depends on who has a more convincing story. If the buyer does a dispute and a chargeback then there is pretty much nothing Paypal can do because they are sure not going to pay you from their own pockets. When you deal with your buyer, did you use the Paypal generating invoices and shipping documentations ? Did you comply fully to every single conditions under the seller protection ? Is the country that your seller in one of the country which is in the seller protection plan ? Pocketing means that Paypal keeps the money and the buyer or seller does not have access to it. If the buyer gets the money back, you cannot say that Paypal pockets the money, the buyer gets everything back and Paypal does not keep any fees which they could have earned if the seller gets the money. If the seller get the money, paypal cannot be deemed as pocketing the money. Of course unless the meaning of 'pocketing' and 'theft' is different in Germany, you cannot say that Paypal steals your money because the buyer took it instead when they launched the dispute. I know you have a personal vendetta against Paypal but if you want to argue, make sure that what you said makes sense. You cannot go around and ask others to default paypal just to teach them a lesson or anything.