You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Oanda refuses withdrawal
- Thread starter fmmwabrd
- Start date
Because its a fair requirement and its in their T&C's. If this guy didn't like the terms of his contract he should never have signed up, but having signed up he's bound to comply.
Instead he has decided he signed up to something which now causes him some inconvenience. He has come over to ET to blacken the name of a widely known firm with no justification. I hope he might just mature a little after this experience.
I disagree. Firms can't hold money w/o good reason or they could embed wild items in the small print. The general idea I think is fine which is to show the closed statement. He says he doesn't have one and as a result there is no plan B? Oanda can satisfy their due diligence by obtaining an abundance of documentation, written attestations or whatever but in the end, they have his money and should be working with the client for a way to get it to him.
I disagree. Firms can't hold money w/o good reason or they could embed wild items in the small print. The general idea I think is fine which is to show the closed statement. He says he doesn't have one and as a result there is no plan B? Oanda can satisfy their due diligence by obtaining an abundance of documentation, written attestations or whatever but in the end, they have his money and should be working with the client for a way to get it to him.
There is a Plan B. Oanda told him what Plan B is. Probably Oanda's T&C's told him what Plan B was before he even started trading. They have never stated its not his money or that it is now their money. Its not a wild item, its perfectly reasonable. Small print is binding even if its small. If the guy didn't like the small print he didn't have to sign up for a trading account.
Have you read your own T&C's?
I'd love to hear what the regulator has to say.
If this guy contacts a lawyer, I'd love to hear what he had to say.
Or for that matter the Secretary General of the United Nations.
Good luck with the "it was in the small print" defense the negates all established contract law! What legal theory or precedent are you resting that argument, such that it is, on exactly?I disagree. Firms can't hold money w/o good reason or they could embed wild items in the small print. The general idea I think is fine which is to show the closed statement. He says he doesn't have one and as a result there is no plan B? Oanda can satisfy their due diligence by obtaining an abundance of documentation, written attestations or whatever but in the end, they have his money and should be working with the client for a way to get it to him.
Oanda should certainly work with the client from a customer service perspective, but they're in no way legally obligated to do something contrary to the contract the client agreed to.
Good luck with the "it was in the small print" defense the negates all established contract law! What legal theory or precedent are you resting that argument, such that it is, on exactly?
Oanda should certainly work with the client from a customer service perspective, but they're in no way legally obligated to do something contrary to the contract the client agreed to.
In my understanding they are working with the client. Yet the client is failing to prove the account was closed. They even offered to pay for the clients attempts to receive the necessary documents.
If you close a bank account you will always receive some kind of document to confirm the closure the account.
Yeah, I can see having lost it but it makes no sense they'd never have provided confirmation of closure or would refuse to provide it.If you close a bank account you will always receive some kind of document to confirm the closure the account.
Good luck with the "it was in the small print" defense the negates all established contract law! What legal theory or precedent are you resting that argument, such that it is, on exactly?
Oanda should certainly work with the client from a customer service perspective, but they're in no way legally obligated to do something contrary to the contract the client agreed to.
Courts and regulators and arbitration are different matters. They have his money. They certainly look like they are trying to do something to get it but if they can't get that statement and it goes to arbitration assuming he can prove who he is with uncertainty (ie. satisfy all reasonable AML requests), I think he'd win. Point is - do all you can to get the statement but if that fails, go to other reasonable steps.
Unless the guy can prove that his original bank account has been closed and there are no financial liabilities outstanding from it, he will not get his money from Oanda. The firm has applied these constraints on him as a client because of the regulator's requirements and not just for their own amusement or enrichment.
Therefore I suppose its possible that the regulator, if he can prove that he cannot get the verifications needed, but that he does nevertheless meet the two main requirements (the bank account is closed and there are no financial liabilities from it) will grant an exemption for Oanda, allowing them to release the funds even though they have not complied with the usual procedure.
But considering how it is easy for a former bank account holder to get the verifications required from the bank, its also possible the regulator will tell him Oanda has done nothing wrong and they're not prepared to get involved. Especially as he himself has the solution to the issue in his own hands.
I start to wonder if the client wants some kind of ex gratia compensation from Oanda, simply to leave them alone and stop stirring up trouble as a spurious victim and wasting their time.
Therefore I suppose its possible that the regulator, if he can prove that he cannot get the verifications needed, but that he does nevertheless meet the two main requirements (the bank account is closed and there are no financial liabilities from it) will grant an exemption for Oanda, allowing them to release the funds even though they have not complied with the usual procedure.
But considering how it is easy for a former bank account holder to get the verifications required from the bank, its also possible the regulator will tell him Oanda has done nothing wrong and they're not prepared to get involved. Especially as he himself has the solution to the issue in his own hands.
I start to wonder if the client wants some kind of ex gratia compensation from Oanda, simply to leave them alone and stop stirring up trouble as a spurious victim and wasting their time.
So first off arbitration follows the law and the law is crystal clear here, no fine print exceptions. And second it's almost inevitably biased toward the entity that gets to choose the arbitrator. So if I was to put money on it I'd give him about a 5% chance of winning anything at arbitration.Courts and regulators and arbitration are different matters. They have his money. They certainly look like they are trying to do something to get it but if they can't get that statement and it goes to arbitration assuming he can prove who he is with uncertainty (ie. satisfy all reasonable AML requests), I think he'd win. Point is - do all you can to get the statement but if that fails, go to other reasonable steps.
Which isn't cost free, in money or time. The OP appears to have put far more time into bitching about getting his old statement then actually trying to do so, and would waste far more pursuing this through arbitration. If there's any arbitration to be had or threats to be made they would be much more productively directed toward getting the bank to provide confirmation they closed the account rather than attempting to break a contract the OP agreed to.
So first off arbitration follows the law and the law is crystal clear here, no fine print exceptions. And second it's almost inevitably biased toward the entity that gets to choose the arbitrator. So if I was to put money on it I'd give him about a 5% chance of winning anything at arbitration.
Which isn't cost free, in money or time. The OP appears to have put far more time into bitching about getting his old statement then actually trying to do so, and would waste far more pursuing this through arbitration. If there's any arbitration to be had or threats to be made they would be much more productively directed toward getting the bank to provide confirmation they closed the account rather than attempting to break a contract the OP agreed to.
interesting, thanks