ADVCASH very bad onboarding service

[VoletCom]

When a financial service provider does not offer services to a particular⁣ client, it's usually for serious KYC/AML/anti-fraud/similar reasons. These things are usually not disclosed for security⁢ reasons, and are not up to debate.

You being the sole director and the shareholder︀ does not automatically entitle you to being onboarded. Many other things are reviewed, including your︁ website, your business model, your flow of funds, etc etc etc.

We process tens of︂ millions every month in payments for large merchants including some of the largest crypto exchanges︃ in the world, and nobody ever reported any issues with funds. Your allegation is a︄ little ungrounded, with all due respect. We do apologize for any inconvenience though.

 

[JohnnyDoe]

ADV said:
When a financial service provider does not offer services to a particular client, it's usually for serious KYC/AML/anti-fraud/similar reasons. These things are usually not disclosed for security reasons, and are not up to debate.

You being the sole director and the shareholder does not automatically entitle you to being onboarded. Many other things are reviewed, including your website, your business model, your flow of funds, etc etc etc.

We process tens of millions every month in payments for large merchants including some of the largest crypto exchanges in the world, and nobody ever reported any issues with funds. Your allegation is a little ungrounded, with all due respect. We do apologize for any inconvenience though.
Click to expand...

1. I already have a verified personal account
2. I already have a verified business account (estonia)
3. I am fully tax compliant in my country of residence (but you never asked my tax returns)
4. This UK company has a simple and clear business, it has a bunch of accounts with other (real) banks (but you didn't ask for account statements).

All what you supposedly did was to check the company's documents (also available on the UK Companies House website) and perhaps the website. You never asked for “flow of funds” information.

This sounds like the typical rejection done just because you must reject some applications, otherwise you would not look good.

As it is a fact that there are no”serious reasons” for rejecting the application, you could at least answer my questions by email and let me know why the application was rejected.

Toggle signature

@JohnnyDoe ”“ Your #1 Source for Guidance in Different Offshore Fields​

 

[VoletCom]

Once again, and with all due respect, but you are not owed any information regarding︄ the reason of rejection, just like it's not provided by banks and other financial service︅ providers. It may or may not be provided depending on our evaluation of the situation.︆

Excuse me, 'not look good'? For whom? Somebody forces us to reject perfectly good applications︇ so that we lose legitimate business? Sorry, but this makes just about as much sense︈ as your initial groundless allegation that we may mishandle any money (of which you do︉ not and can not have any evidence).

Sorry if all this made you sign up︊ here and try to make us look bad, but we are not the only ones︋ rejecting applications when it comes to finance. These things happen.

 

[JohnnyDoe]

ADV said:
Once again, and with all due respect, but you are not owed any information regarding the reason of rejection, just like it's not provided by banks and other financial service providers. It may or may not be provided depending on our evaluation of the situation.

Excuse me, 'not look good'? For whom? Somebody forces us to reject perfectly good applications so that we lose legitimate business? Sorry, but this makes just about as much sense as your initial groundless allegation that we may mishandle any money (of which you do not and can not have any evidence).

Sorry if all this made you sign up here and try to make us look bad, but we are not the only ones rejecting applications when it comes to finance. These things happen.
Click to expand...

I am not “owed” anything, it would be courteous from your side to provide an explanation, instead of repeating again and again the same story.
There are many real banks that do provide an answer when they receive a question, including about the reason for account rejection. It is, at a minimum, a matter of courtesy to answer a question.

I consider this rejection unjustified, and your refusal to provide an explanation strengthens my impression. It is your behavior that makes you look bad, not me disclosing it.
You have the time to argue with people on a forum, why not to answer privately a legitimate question of a client?

Sorry but this doesn't seem a serious and honest approach to business. I would not trust a company that behaves this way with my money.

If other people are fine to deal with a company that handles a simple question this way, then good for you.
You might be the best financial service provider of Belize, but you are not the champion of customer service and marketing.

Toggle signature

@JohnnyDoe ”“ Your #1 Source for Guidance in Different Offshore Fields​

 

[VoletCom]

No marketing and customer service are supposed to make us (or anyone else)︅ onboard a client we do not want to onboard.

It would be courteous of you︆ to not sign up on public forums to post ungrounded allegations about us mishandling any︇ funds when you have zero reasons to make such claims, but here we are.

The rejection is perfectly justified as far as we are concerned, based on the analysis of︈ your personal data, the information you submitted for our review, and the public records of︉ your previous business, legal and other activity done internally and by our external KYC/AML providers.︊ That's basically the same thing that we sent you, just in more words.

If it's︋ still not good enough, sorry, that's the best we can do, and we wish you︌ good luck with other platforms.

 

[Sols]

@ADV is going above and beyond here. Financial institutions are required to reject clients that‌ do not fit their licensing and onboarding conditions, and they have an obligation to not‍ disclose why to the client, at least not in much detail.

What do you want,⁠ @JohnnyDoe ? They literally can't tell you why. If you want to complain and expect⁤ an outcome, this ain't it. Take it to the regulator if you believe you have⁣ been discriminated against.

 

[JohnnyDoe]

Sols said:
@ADV is going above and beyond here. Financial institutions are required to reject clients that do not fit their licensing and onboarding conditions, and they have an obligation to not disclose why to the client, at least not in much detail.

What do you want, @JohnnyDoe ? They literally can't tell you why. If you want to complain and expect an outcome, this ain't it. Take it to the regulator if you believe you have been discriminated against.
Click to expand...

Financial institutions do not have an obligation not to disclose the reason for rejection. It is their own choice not to do so. That's unless Belize has a specific rule in that regard that I am not aware of and ADVCash is legally required not to do so.

This thread is titled “ADVCASH very bad onboarding service”: I reported my experience on their very bad onboarding service. End of the story.

Toggle signature

@JohnnyDoe ”“ Your #1 Source for Guidance in Different Offshore Fields​

 

[VoletCom]

There is nothing bad about onboarding if the client is un-onboardable. That's literally the⁢ point of the process, to select the clients that meet the criteria. Some of them︀ do not and that's OK.

It's your subjective evaluation of the outcome, not an objective︁ review of the process.

Also you didn't just report your experience, you made allegations that︂ we somehow mismanage money or reject applications for no reason. Both of these things are︃ false.

 

[Wellington]

Recently signed up for Advcash, there was an issue sending funds (intermeditary wanted more information),‌ provided response, and also a notarised document.

Resolved within 24hrs.

Can't complain.

 

[Sols]

Every single jurisdiction in the world which⁤ has implemented modern AML laws have laws against tipping off and similar, whereby financial institutions⁣ are prevented from disclosing in too much details why an applicant was rejected if the⁢ the applicant was rejected on grounds related to AML, KYC, and DD procedures, since doing︀ so can help criminals.

That leaves it up to the financial institution to either give︁ a generic decline for everyone, or give specific declines when it's for other reasons such︂ as business simply being too small or in a business sector for which the financial︃ institution has chosen not to open account for. Some do, some don't.

 

[Wellington]

Advcash openly tell you that your transaction is delayed with 'technical' partner for AML reasons.‌

Another thing to consider for those︂ CRS avoiding bros.

Advcash isn't a bank... it uses money transmitters/banks/corresponding etc to move funds︃ from a-through-z.

Those entities surely do carry through with CRS filing of some sort, same︄ as they carry out AML checks via Sumsub: KYC/AML Compliance | Online Identity Verification Service︅

 

[VoletCom]

You were told that a transaction was delayed for AML‍ reasons? Sounds unusual, what kind of transaction was it about?

We have⁣ never done and are not currently doing any reporting.

KYC/AML is a given, of course.⁢

 

[Wellington]

Simple transaction small sum from‍ account to bank.

Surely your technical partners would do such.

 

[VoletCom]

Nothing to‌ do with reporting though. Exceeding a certain monthly transfer limit is also an AML alert,‍ so additional information may be requested. Most users do not experience this.

Not really. They receive very limited⁠ customer information, if any, during processing, which is not sufficient for CRS.

 

[Wellington]

There's a monthly limit equivalent to a couple⁤ grand?

 

[VoletCom]

Not just the amounts matter, number of transfers per month too.

Not sure why we would‌ get into this much detail about your local bank transfers here tho.

You are wrong‍ to suggest there is any reporting going on, this is what's important here.

 

[Wellington]

1) I'd admittedly fail to see how the number of transactions⁤ could flag up (i mean it was a first).

2) I am only responding to⁣ your commentary, like i said above (or elsewhere), its likely professional common practices for your⁢ organisation.

3) I didn't state Advcash did reporting for CRS (not entirely sure why there's︀ such strong responses to commentary discussing between users), but that the intermediary may or would︁ likely have to file something somewhere.

 

[VoletCom]

The support operator mentioned AML to you (which⁣ was not a great idea in the first place, admittedly) only meaning things like purpose⁢ of payment, source of funds et cetera. Nobody involved is doing any reporting, third party︀ processing gateways never have enough customer info for that. Just trying to clear this up︁ finally.

 

[Wellington]

Have to admit it's enough to‍ make you sit up in your seat and peer out the windows for a police⁠ ramming block, thinking WTF have i done ?!?!?!

BUT like i said it was resolved⁤ promptly.

As for the CRS aspect, ok great (i'll be honest this doesn't worry⁣ me, prefer CRS is done because then you can't be accused of hiding income etc)⁢.

 

[VoletCom]

The way things work now, we do not get involved⁠ in these things. It is up to every client to settle these matters on their⁤ own in their respective jurisdiction.