Moneygram Problems

[davinciphoto]

Ok, that makes sense. If I say I am sending it to a friend then there is no risk of loss as its a voluntary gift so to speak. Not expecting anything in return. The woman I spoke to from MG was like a drill sergeant ..she did not believe a word I said and I was convincing. Funny thing is, I am a pro photographer and I do in fact by things all the time from forum members all over the world. 

I was afraid of the $1000 limit thing. I should have known better. As for WU, I just got notified my money was picked up so I should be getting an email soon with TN...well, probably tonight. Ill keep everyone posted. Well, I cant really in the Mex Pharm section as I am not at 30 posts yet. I used to be able to post in there but that must have changed on my last hiatus. 

Thanks for the info and answers to my questions.

M

 

[Fargo]

If the receiver is a male, I tell them yes, I know this person, it is my worthless brother-in-law borrowing money again. If it is female, then it's my girl friend visiting her relatives. I even had agent me the state I was sending to did not exist, Jalisco, I double checked and the spelling was correct. I guess WU won that one, so I went to the next town and did MG, same state, no problems.

 

[davinciphoto]

Good news is the WU transfer worked just fine and my order is in process....WOOT! Lesson learned about $$$ value and the reason I am sending if ever asked. Invaluable info here. 

Thx

 

[topshopslanger]

any transaction over $1000 through MG always raises red flags, but they are just protecting you from scams.

 

[Jewbacca]

any transaction over $1000 through MG always raises red flags, but they are just protecting you from scams.

You are correct on the $1000 benchmark, as I posted earlier. However, the truth of the matter is that MG doesn't give a rat's ass about saving us from scams. Their concern is their own financial backside, as they incurred more than ten million dollars in federal fines in fiscal 2011 for being an accessory to fraud as well as international money laundering. The countermeasures now in place are to protect them, not the customer. Have a look at their 2011 SEC quarterly and year end financial reports. The numbers don't lie.

 

[386dc]

anyone else had their mg acct flagged by the government? the person from mg told me to call the fbi lol 

 

[Denise]

Did this happen when you went to send money via MG ?

Or were you notified via some other method?

 

[Nygiantsfan9202]

anyone else had their mg acct flagged by the government? the person from mg told me to call the fbi lol 

After briefly dampening my underparents and placing my heart back into its correct place I would say the first thing to do is to get a free consultation with an attorney and get the lawyer to call the FBI.  They have sneaky ways of friendly interrogations and before you know it you are sharing a cell with Bernie Madoff.  The Feds are no joke and can get warrants with barely probable cause.  Is this a longtime vendor that you use?  I will refer you to @Hooter for the technical aspects of getting rid of computer messages/cloaking IP addresses.  

Funny story is not too long ago and ignorantly my parents left their Wi-Fi open without an encryption key.  Turns  out people used it for not so kosher reasons.  However having that excuse and knowing my parents saved them from prosecution.

 

[Nygiantsfan9202]

anyone else had their mg acct flagged by the government? the person from mg told me to call the fbi lol 

...on second thought, can you try western union and see if the same problem pops up?

 

[386dc]

Did this happen when you went to send money via MG ?

Or were you notified via some other method?

went to send mg 

the reciever's naem was typed wrong on the reciept so i assume it was my name that caused the red flag. 

 

[Jewbacca]

After briefly dampening my underparents and placing my heart back into its correct place I would say the first thing to do is to get a free consultation with an attorney and get the lawyer to call the FBI.  They have sneaky ways of friendly interrogations and before you know it you are sharing a cell with Bernie Madoff.  The Feds are no joke and can get warrants with barely probable cause.  Is this a longtime vendor that you use?  I will refer you to @Hooter for the technical aspects of getting rid of computer messages/cloaking IP addresses.  

Funny story is not too long ago and ignorantly my parents left their Wi-Fi open without an encryption key.  Turns  out people used it for not so kosher reasons.  However having that excuse and knowing my parents saved them from prosecution.

Although I'm not in a position to offer formal legal advice, I can tell you that if I did in fact have a client who came in reporting this circumstance, the last thing I'd do is immediately call the a federal enforcement agency preemptively. I'm not suggesting that having legal counsel lined up and readily available isn't a good idea, because it is, regardless of whether situations like this come up or not. Anyway, my point being is that if this "agency" had an interest in talking to you, they would make contact themselves, and not pass along any request for contact via a 3rd party, particularly your friendly MG agent desk clerk. Additionally, unless the receiver's name was completely different than originally presented, and not just misspelled, I wouldn't assume that it was the sender that was flagged for scrutiny. Common, simple derivations of a receiver's name could generate internal control alerts as well, as system data filters are often configured to allow for "wild card" characters, i.e. "Jumes" as opposed to "James", etc. The reasoning for such is fairly straight forward, as it serves to eliminate simple misspellings as a method of avoiding the internal control mechanisms.

 

[Nygiantsfan9202]

Although I'm not in a position to offer formal legal advice, I can tell you that if I did in fact have a client who came in reporting this circumstance, the last thing I'd do is immediately call the a federal enforcement agency preemptively. I'm not suggesting that having legal counsel lined up and readily available isn't a good idea, because it is, regardless of whether situations like this come up or not. Anyway, my point being is that if this "agency" had an interest in talking to you, they would make contact themselves, and not pass along any request for contact via a 3rd party, particularly your friendly MG agent desk clerk. Additionally, unless the receiver's name was completely different than originally presented, and not just misspelled, I wouldn't assume that it was the sender that was flagged for scrutiny. Common, simple derivations of a receiver's name could generate internal control alerts as well, as system data filters are often configured to allow for "wild card" characters, i.e. "Jumes" as opposed to "James", etc. The reasoning for such is fairly straight forward, as it serves to eliminate simple misspellings as a method of avoiding the internal control mechanisms.

I have a good childhood friend who is a P.I. and i will ask him, he's a retired officer.  Thanks again for the wisdom.  If it were me however, the sooner you can debunk their case the better.  I once had a case against me but a lawyer caught on early enough that there was a mishandling of evidence (non-violent crime). My advice, for whatever it is worth, is to throw the computer in the field of land mines of another fellow DBG member lol.  Better safe than sorry in these cases.  The disturbing part of this is that I can not find any other thread that discusses any kind of topic like this.

 

[Nygiantsfan9202]

Although I'm not in a position to offer formal legal advice, I can tell you that if I did in fact have a client who came in reporting this circumstance, the last thing I'd do is immediately call the a federal enforcement agency preemptively. I'm not suggesting that having legal counsel lined up and readily available isn't a good idea, because it is, regardless of whether situations like this come up or not. Anyway, my point being is that if this "agency" had an interest in talking to you, they would make contact themselves, and not pass along any request for contact via a 3rd party, particularly your friendly MG agent desk clerk. Additionally, unless the receiver's name was completely different than originally presented, and not just misspelled, I wouldn't assume that it was the sender that was flagged for scrutiny. Common, simple derivations of a receiver's name could generate internal control alerts as well, as system data filters are often configured to allow for "wild card" characters, i.e. "Jumes" as opposed to "James", etc. The reasoning for such is fairly straight forward, as it serves to eliminate simple misspellings as a method of avoiding the internal control mechanisms.

Then again, I may be terribly paranoid so there's always that....lol

 

[Jewbacca]

I have a good childhood friend who is a P.I. and i will ask him, he's a retired officer.  Thanks again for the wisdom.  If it were me however, the sooner you can debunk their case the better.  I once had a case against me but a lawyer caught on early enough that there was a mishandling of evidence (non-violent crime). My advice, for whatever it is worth, is to throw the computer in the field of land mines of another fellow DBG member lol.  Better safe than sorry in these cases.  The disturbing part of this is that I can not find any other thread that discusses any kind of topic like this.

Please don't interpret my comments as a recommendation to NOT seek legal counsel or to NOT take precautionary measures on all matters IT related. Just pointing out that from a criminal defense perspective, making preemptive telephone calls to answer unasked questions is generally not the preferred strategy.

 

[Gator]

The mg clerk was just being a smart ass, I highly doubt the FBI is after you

 

[386dc]

Although I'm not in a position to offer formal legal advice, I can tell you that if I did in fact have a client who came in reporting this circumstance, the last thing I'd do is immediately call the a federal enforcement agency preemptively. I'm not suggesting that having legal counsel lined up and readily available isn't a good idea, because it is, regardless of whether situations like this come up or not. Anyway, my point being is that if this "agency" had an interest in talking to you, they would make contact themselves, and not pass along any request for contact via a 3rd party, particularly your friendly MG agent desk clerk. Additionally, unless the receiver's name was completely different than originally presented, and not just misspelled, I wouldn't assume that it was the sender that was flagged for scrutiny. Common, simple derivations of a receiver's name could generate internal control alerts as well, as system data filters are often configured to allow for "wild card" characters, i.e. "Jumes" as opposed to "James", etc. The reasoning for such is fairly straight forward, as it serves to eliminate simple misspellings as a method of avoiding the internal control mechanisms.

they put the firstname and 1st last name, they forgot the 2nd lastname i said go put the 2nd last name and it was blocked, so you think maybe it was the reciver not the sender? i already requested a new reciever name and got one

 

[Denise]

What about contacting someone higher up at MG, instead of just a sexually-frustrated desk clerk? 

Perhaps MG would give you more info - an "innocent" person would probably  be outraged and want answers.

Just be prepared before call with answers to any possible questions and be careful what is said to MG (they may record calls "for quality" purposes).

 

[386dc]

The mg clerk was just being a smart ass, I highly doubt the FBI is after you

not the clerk...

the clerk called moneygram to ask why the txn was stuck in hold status....the mg person said they need to takl to me...the mg person on the phone gave me the FBI ph# and said to call them

 

[386dc]

What about contacting someone higher up at MG, instead of just a sexually-frustrated desk clerk? 

Perhaps MG would give you more info - an "innocent" person would probably  be outraged and want answers.

Just be prepared before call with answers to any possible questions and be careful what is said to MG (they may record calls "for quality" purposes).

they said they cannot answer questions when the FBI puts a hold only the FBI can answer the questions 

 

[99 Luftballons]

Sent you a PM 386