On February 5 the account was temporarily restricted. Santhosh contacted @onlybcfg the same day. That is not someone reaching out about a closed account. That is someone reaching out about a restricted account on the exact same day the restriction happened.
- On febrary 5 when he reached out to me, there was a email regarding a temporary restriction, however following up to that email was a newer email informing Santosh that the account has been closed, as highlighted in my screenshots in the other replies. The account was temporarily restricted, then it was confirmed to be closed in the email which followed that one, which all was recieved before any contact to us.
------------
So the sequence is clear. Temporary restriction on February 5, active involvement from your worker throughout the appeal process, permanent closure on February 18 after a failed appeal that your worker directly participated in. At what point exactly was the account already fully closed before you were contacted?
- The appeal process was for the closed account, not a temporary restriction. The order is as follows, client recieved email of restriction -> client then recieved follow up mail of closure instead of restriction -> client contacted us. In this order the account was closed prior to contacting us, therefor not making it a reverfication that he claims, and even though we provided "active participation" that was out of a friendly attempt to help out, after already stated that nothing much can be done before any attempts, that was a friendly attempt which was not a responsibility and which is what santosh is trying to take advantae of.
-----------
You say you only explained what IBAN was. The group chat shows @onlybcfg responding "You can receive money" and "Correct" to a direct question about whether funds sent to that account would appear in the Wise balance. That is not a definition. That is a confirmation. Can you clarify what exactly was being confirmed there?
- The "Iban allows international bank transfers", and the "correct" regarding if money would show up in wise balance was just simply letting the client know how IBAN works, a google search can provide the same response. However, flagging the account is a different story and is a differet topic entirely. Nothing was being confirmed about flagging or risks, that was simply explaining how IBAN works.
---------
You say the buyer should have known the risks. The buyer did not know that sending from his own name to an account under a different identity would flag the transaction. You operate this type of service regularly. Did you at any point warn him that this specific action could cause a restriction?
- I operate a service where people come to me requesting many different platforms at their own request, Its not my responsibility to warn/educate/inform the client on account abuse, we are not mentors nor teachers, especially for accounts which the client requested on his own, not a account that was reccomended. That is not my obligation.
-----------
You say the client vouched. He did, at delivery on January 20, before using the account for anything. The account was then restricted on February 5 during the first actual use. Do you consider a vouch given before any real usage a permanent sign-off on everything that follows?
- The vouch stands as a satisfaction of the service, satisfaction of product, delivery, and the way the service was handled. The client was satisfied with the service as stated in the vouch they willingly provided.
----------
You say this was not a reverification. Your own message before payment reads "we can reverify as many times u need." When Wise requested new documentation your worker did attempt to respond. He submitted a selfie for the appeal. However Wise rejected it because the image contained a physical impossibility that indicated it was AI-generated. When Wise then asked for a new valid photograph, @onlybcfg told Santhosh to resubmit the exact same documents that had already been rejected. Shortly after he stopped responding entirely. It is also worth noting that back on January 20, the same day the account was delivered, @onlybcfg stated in the group chat: "I use real human drops to pass verifications. I dont use uploaded documents or fullz so I cant do that. I dont have images of the ids or docs." So the worker attempted to help but was working with no valid documents from the very beginning. How does that not constitute a failure to honor your own guarantee?
- In the event that a common reverification was required, wise provides verification link, which then would be sent to the drop who would perform the verification. HOWEVER, this was not a common reverification, it actually wasn't the process of a reverification at all, it was a account CLOSURE appeal, which is entirely different. As mentioned before we were attempting to provide friendly support as just a helping hand, not out of obligation. Before the appeal process was started, the client was informed that because the account is CLOSED, that nothing much can be done, however he still went through with the attempt and out of good faith we tried to help him out with a bit by contacting the drop for documentation and providing it to him, the appeal process required holding a sign with specific numbers, which wasn't possible to provide at that time so we attempted to provide what was available. However, as I stated before, this was not common reverification or practice, this was a CLOSED account which is NOT our obligation, reverification and appeal are 2 seperate things. We lended a helping hand in good faith just to provide some support even after mentioning not much can be done, however that was not our obligation to do so at all and now the client is trying to exploit our attempt to help him when we werent obligated to get a refund of the full amount of the account when we aren't responsible for his abuse to the account, or responsible for the appeal process of a already closed account.
- On febrary 5 when he reached out to me, there was a email regarding a temporary restriction, however following up to that email was a newer email informing Santosh that the account has been closed, as highlighted in my screenshots in the other replies. The account was temporarily restricted, then it was confirmed to be closed in the email which followed that one, which all was recieved before any contact to us.
------------
So the sequence is clear. Temporary restriction on February 5, active involvement from your worker throughout the appeal process, permanent closure on February 18 after a failed appeal that your worker directly participated in. At what point exactly was the account already fully closed before you were contacted?
- The appeal process was for the closed account, not a temporary restriction. The order is as follows, client recieved email of restriction -> client then recieved follow up mail of closure instead of restriction -> client contacted us. In this order the account was closed prior to contacting us, therefor not making it a reverfication that he claims, and even though we provided "active participation" that was out of a friendly attempt to help out, after already stated that nothing much can be done before any attempts, that was a friendly attempt which was not a responsibility and which is what santosh is trying to take advantae of.
-----------
You say you only explained what IBAN was. The group chat shows @onlybcfg responding "You can receive money" and "Correct" to a direct question about whether funds sent to that account would appear in the Wise balance. That is not a definition. That is a confirmation. Can you clarify what exactly was being confirmed there?
- The "Iban allows international bank transfers", and the "correct" regarding if money would show up in wise balance was just simply letting the client know how IBAN works, a google search can provide the same response. However, flagging the account is a different story and is a differet topic entirely. Nothing was being confirmed about flagging or risks, that was simply explaining how IBAN works.
---------
You say the buyer should have known the risks. The buyer did not know that sending from his own name to an account under a different identity would flag the transaction. You operate this type of service regularly. Did you at any point warn him that this specific action could cause a restriction?
- I operate a service where people come to me requesting many different platforms at their own request, Its not my responsibility to warn/educate/inform the client on account abuse, we are not mentors nor teachers, especially for accounts which the client requested on his own, not a account that was reccomended. That is not my obligation.
-----------
You say the client vouched. He did, at delivery on January 20, before using the account for anything. The account was then restricted on February 5 during the first actual use. Do you consider a vouch given before any real usage a permanent sign-off on everything that follows?
- The vouch stands as a satisfaction of the service, satisfaction of product, delivery, and the way the service was handled. The client was satisfied with the service as stated in the vouch they willingly provided.
----------
You say this was not a reverification. Your own message before payment reads "we can reverify as many times u need." When Wise requested new documentation your worker did attempt to respond. He submitted a selfie for the appeal. However Wise rejected it because the image contained a physical impossibility that indicated it was AI-generated. When Wise then asked for a new valid photograph, @onlybcfg told Santhosh to resubmit the exact same documents that had already been rejected. Shortly after he stopped responding entirely. It is also worth noting that back on January 20, the same day the account was delivered, @onlybcfg stated in the group chat: "I use real human drops to pass verifications. I dont use uploaded documents or fullz so I cant do that. I dont have images of the ids or docs." So the worker attempted to help but was working with no valid documents from the very beginning. How does that not constitute a failure to honor your own guarantee?
- In the event that a common reverification was required, wise provides verification link, which then would be sent to the drop who would perform the verification. HOWEVER, this was not a common reverification, it actually wasn't the process of a reverification at all, it was a account CLOSURE appeal, which is entirely different. As mentioned before we were attempting to provide friendly support as just a helping hand, not out of obligation. Before the appeal process was started, the client was informed that because the account is CLOSED, that nothing much can be done, however he still went through with the attempt and out of good faith we tried to help him out with a bit by contacting the drop for documentation and providing it to him, the appeal process required holding a sign with specific numbers, which wasn't possible to provide at that time so we attempted to provide what was available. However, as I stated before, this was not common reverification or practice, this was a CLOSED account which is NOT our obligation, reverification and appeal are 2 seperate things. We lended a helping hand in good faith just to provide some support even after mentioning not much can be done, however that was not our obligation to do so at all and now the client is trying to exploit our attempt to help him when we werent obligated to get a refund of the full amount of the account when we aren't responsible for his abuse to the account, or responsible for the appeal process of a already closed account.
![[Image: uWztodn.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/uWztodn.gif)