ADVCASH very bad onboarding service

[VoletCom]

Try to explain why you reject an application. For example the one for my UK company of which I am the sole director and shareholder

Stay away from ADVcash! If this is how they handle such a simple task, imagine what they can do when you have an issue with your funds!
Thanks god they rejected my account.

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.

 

[JohnnyDoe]

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.

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.

 

[VoletCom]

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.

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.

 

[JohnnyDoe]

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.

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.

 

[VoletCom]

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.

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 you to not sign up on public forums to post ungrounded allegations about us mishandling any 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 of your personal data, the information you submitted for our review, and the public records of 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's still not good enough, sorry, that's the best we can do, and we wish you 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, @carlo39 ? 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]

@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, @carlo39 ? 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.

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.

 

[VoletCom]

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.

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 them do not and that's OK.

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

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

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.

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 doing so can help criminals.

That leaves it up to the financial institution to either give a generic decline for everyone, or give specific declines when it's for other reasons such as business simply being too small or in a business sector for which the financial 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.

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 doing so can help criminals.

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

Another thing to consider for those CRS avoiding bros.

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

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

 

[VoletCom]

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

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

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

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

KYC/AML is a given, of course.

 

[wellington]

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

Simple transaction small sum from account to bank.

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.

Surely your technical partners would do such.

 

[VoletCom]

Simple transaction small sum from account to bank.

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.

Surely your technical partners would do such.

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

 

[wellington]

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.

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

 

[VoletCom]

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

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]

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.

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's such strong responses to commentary discussing between users), but that the intermediary may or would likely have to file something somewhere.

 

[VoletCom]

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's such strong responses to commentary discussing between users), but that the intermediary may or would likely have to file something somewhere.

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 party processing gateways never have enough customer info for that. Just trying to clear this up finally.

 

[wellington]

The support operator mentioned AML to you (which was not a great idea in the first place, admittedly)

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]

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).

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.