Western union Complaint - Western union fails their responsibilty - money transfer between crooks

Posted by Hugh_Jorgen on 2010-06-12:

And as soon as they tighten up their requirements to protect people from themselves, they would have people here complaining that their standards were too high and therefore a legitimate money transfer didn't go thru.

Western Union is in the business of transferring money - that is all. They are not financial advisers or consumer protection advocates. That is the responsibility of the person sending the money.

Sorry you got taken advantage of, but it wasn't WU's fault.

Posted by LinusOno on 2010-06-12:

If you sent money to someone via WU, I agree that WU should be able to show you who collected that money on the other end since you are the initiator of the contract/process.

I also agree that WU should have some process in place to help ensure the correct person receives the money, even if it is only checking a valid photo ID of the person receiving the money.

I'm actually surprised they are not doing this anyway. If that's the case, I agree with the OP and it is WU's fault if my transactions are not executed per our contract. (Contract being that I am sending money through WU to a named person.)

The big ol government is all over the place in checking IDs for booze and slapping rules on Payday check-cashing places, seems they would love getting involved in this, if they haven't already.

Posted by sanfordP on 2010-06-13:

Hugh Jorgen, I am sorry to say this, but you are twisting the discussion, much like the Western Union employees and attorneys.

Let's cut through your smoke and talk about what I actually said: First off, we can ignore any reference to me saying anything about my expectation for WU to be a "financial adviser". You sound like you're trying to characterize me as simple-minded, to discredit my argument. I know what a financial adviser is, and what they do, and I don't expect that service from anybody but my financial advisers. Or maybe you don't know what a financial adviser is. In any case, that's a non-starter, so let's drop that from the discussion.

Next: You seem to have the mistaken belief that we all have a "right" to convenience. We don't. We have an obligation to do what is right, convenient or not. And that is the core issue here. You and WU seem to think that holding businesses to a REASONABLE standard of the existing laws is too much to ask. If you look past your so-called right to convenience, you will see lurking there the issues of security, honesty, and the need to catch thieves (and killers). And I am not hyper ventilating here. WU is THE channel through which most of the world's dirty money flows and that dirty money is hurting our society.

Furthermore, I did not say anything about WU's duty to be a "consumer advocate". Again; this sounds like a WU employee or an attorney. Adhering to agency law and consumer protection law is not "advocacy", it IS the law. Plain and simple. "Fiduciary responsibility" to the client is not a "premium service". It is a basic tenet of agency law. By any legal standard, WU has a legally prescribed duty to protect the interests of their client but they skirt that requirement because it is easier and more profitable. Otherwise, they would have to screen and monitor their agents (my GOD!), and they might lose a highly lucrative customer: The guys who WANT to operate in the shadows.

Doing what I've asked and what our government and other businesses have asked would not hurt honest dealings. Quite the contrary, it would make transactions more secure and make honest people feel more secure in doing business with WU. WU would probably see an increase in business. Sadly, WU chose the low road, and is getting away with skirting agency law by choosing to operate under the laws of the state with the most lax consumer protection laws, and that is not a coincidence. That choice --and the fine print on the back of their contracts-- makes it easier for WU and for everybody from terrorists to tax evaders to internet scammers to operate in the shadows; and WU knows this but chooses profit over responsibility. They cut corners and avoid the little bit of work (that they should do anyhow), just like BP and so many other big businesses avoid their duty to the public. It is simply easier for them to do business in a lax manner.

Because big business means big mistakes, I fear that there will be more and more people hurt, more and more tax dollars lost, and maybe even a gigantic disaster if WU doesn't clean up their act.

WU knows this is a huge problem because our government has told them. And law enforcement officials have told them how easy and inexpensive it is to do a better job. WU already has the capacity to do a better job, but they chose not to--only to keep the transactions opaque. Not more "private". And there is a big difference between "privacy" and "opaqueness". The only people who need opaqueness are the bad guys.

Ordinary citizens know that billions of dollars goes overseas AND comes into the USA via WU to highly dubious receivers. And government knows this because individuals such as myself, the local police, state attorneys general and district attorneys have said that they want WU to apply the readily available and inexpensive technology AND apply some fiduciary responsibility at the time of transfer--by simply getting (reasonable) identification and quit being obstructionists and hypocritical about "protecting the personal information of our customers". REMEMBER: In my case, we are not talking about "spying" on you. We are talking about a sender having access to information about the designated receiver, when the designated receiver turns out to be a crook. Why do they protect THAT person, when they don't protect ME? Profit.

As I stated earlier, WU sells all MY personal information, almost indiscriminately. Everything, including my name, my financial information, my home phone, my cell phone, my address, the amount I sent, how I paid, where I sent it from, my email address, etc., and they SELL that to other financial institutions, to credit card companies, retailers, merchandisers, telemarketers and any other WU "partner" they chose. So it is highly hypocritical and highly disingenuous of WU to talk about their principled position on protecting anybody. They protect only Western Union.

Remember this Hugh: I sent money to a specific person, I designated a specific address, and WU will not tell me if they even tried to deliver to that address, who received the money or how they got it. They will give only very general information such as a city, and the local WU office name. No names of the person who suposedly delivered or handed over the funds, no information on the person who picked up or received the money, no indication on how they identified them self, or if the WU agent even bothered to ask for proper ID. How in the world is THAT an execution of fiduciary trust?

Please, let's drop the baloney about me having unreasonable expectations for financial advice and consumer advocacy. WU should be held to a reasonable standard-- because nearly everybody (except the bad guys and WU) agrees that WU's laxness is unsafe, if not down right dangerous for individuals, businesses and the security of our country. Again--this goes WAY beyond just me and victims of Internet crime. This is a big deal, and instead of doing the right thing, WU is hiding behind a dubious claim of "government intervention"...while they are knowing facilitators in a huge crime problem.

Posted by Laurie on 2011-11-14:

whoever wrote the opening article about Western Union not taking social responsability, I want to talk to him/her. I have had a very very impleasant experience with WU and when I asked them to show to me the proof that the money was handed over to the person named on the ticket and proved that they had performed ID Check,I got the answer that they could not trace the transaction. I am far from being done with WU as subsquently I found out a lot lot more therefore I would like for those who feel the same way to provide me their contact emails and so I can contact them. There is a big issue within WU and it needs to be resolved so I am looking to create a Union to go after WU.