Let's talk about US EMI's requiring US Operations

[yngmind]

You've probably noticed that for the past year or so, US EMIs such as Mercury have started requiring their customers to prove US operations.

Don't you find it suspicious?

Don't you feel they force you to create a nexus in the US so the IRS will tax you?

 

[daniels27]

Having US operations most often does not create tax issues if you year a warehouse for shopping, especially not with any tax treaty.

What I have noticed on the other hand is that many US LLCs are set up from residents of countries with strict banking regulations (I think we recently discussed that Indian and Moroccan companies are not allowed to bank outside India without a special permission). And then due to the cheap costs, even more are set up for complete scams and other illegal objectives.

With the high number of abusive cases, it is no surprise that banks with reputation don't want to deal with it. There are still enough alternatives in Puerto Rico that charge for their administrative costs accordingly and are open to such businesses.

I personally feel sorry too for all honest business. But I totally understand the view of the banks. It would be nice of all of you if you could do honest business and abstain from selling fakes, luring people into scam subscriptions etc. This way, those who need it have access to banking for their business. It is always sad to see things go just because some have been abusing banking for what it was not meant for.

 

[yngmind]

Having US operations most often does not create tax issues if you year a warehouse for shopping, especially not with any tax treaty.

What I have noticed on the other hand is that many US LLCs are set up from residents of countries with strict banking regulations (I think we recently discussed that Indian and Moroccan companies are not allowed to bank outside India without a special permission). And then due to the cheap costs, even more are set up for complete scams and other illegal objectives.

With the high number of abusive cases, it is no surprise that banks with reputation don't want to deal with it. There are still enough alternatives in Puerto Rico that charge for their administrative costs accordingly and are open to such businesses.

I personally feel sorry too for all honest business. But I totally understand the view of the banks. It would be nice of all of you if you could do honest business and abstain from selling fakes, luring people into scam subscriptions etc. This way, those who need it have access to banking for their business. It is always sad to see things go just because some have been abusing banking for what it was not meant for.

But how will the US operations help with this problem?

I think that if a scammer or an illegal business owner is making substantial revenue from their business, they will find a way to prove the US operations.

I have a bad feeling about this, and I don't like the direction in which everything is going.

 

[aniglo22]

I think the compliance costs just grew too big in relation to the revenue/profit , so it's just not worth for them to serve towards Indians etc.. As they are spending more on compliance than getting money . And as already mentioned the fraud and the potential reputation/image loss because of it

 

[daniels27]

F

Thread 'Card Processing Solution for Subscription Payments (Individuals)'

Oct 17, 2024

Hi everyone,


I'm looking for a card payment processor for a subscription-based site (like first charge is €1, followed by €49 after 3 days).

I need a processor that accepts individuals (not just businesses) and startup clients with no transaction history, as I plan to create multiple accounts to manage a higher chargeback rate (3-5%).

It’s also preferred if the payout can be in cryptocurrencies, to avoid the need for creating bank accounts for each processing account.


I'm willing to pay for a good solution.
Any recommendations?

Thank you!

• frodo92
• #paymentprocessor card processing payment processing
• Replies: 8
• Forum: Credit Card & Crypto Currency Payment Processing

I have a bad feeling reading such topics. Of course he can open 100 US LLC for his scam. And trust me, there were enough who did this. Finding a new warehouse to rent for each company makes the scam much less attractive.

I prefer then banning clients who cause nothing but compliance costs rather than introducing fees to cover those costs.

 

[uplana]

I think the compliance costs just grew too big in relation to the revenue/profit , so it's just not worth for them to serve towards Indians etc.. As they are spending more on compliance than getting money . And as already mentioned the fraud and the potential reputation/image loss because of it

That may indeed be the truth about the increasing requirements.

 

[diatessaron]

Having US operations most often does not create tax issues if you year a warehouse for shopping, especially not with any tax treaty.

What I have noticed on the other hand is that many US LLCs are set up from residents of countries with strict banking regulations (I think we recently discussed that Indian and Moroccan companies are not allowed to bank outside India without a special permission). And then due to the cheap costs, even more are set up for complete scams and other illegal objectives.

With the high number of abusive cases, it is no surprise that banks with reputation don't want to deal with it. There are still enough alternatives in Puerto Rico that charge for their administrative costs accordingly and are open to such businesses.

I personally feel sorry too for all honest business. But I totally understand the view of the banks. It would be nice of all of you if you could do honest business and abstain from selling fakes, luring people into scam subscriptions etc. This way, those who need it have access to banking for their business. It is always sad to see things go just because some have been abusing banking for what it was not meant for.

Scammers get US citizens to work for them so I don't know what Mercury is trying to achieve here. This is suspicious and has nothing to do with scammers.

 

[daniels27]

Scammers get US citizens to work for them so I don't know what Mercury is trying to achieve here. This is suspicious and has nothing to do with scammers.

I have seen enough people here with scammy business ideas that are far from going to hire US citizens.

Mercury is not suspicious. They are just fed up with all those come and go companies which only have been set up to be able to use their service for free. Why would they open accounts for foreigners living abroad with no ties to the US not clients from the US? If your countries banking it too bad, go vote or protest.

 

[diatessaron]

I have seen enough people here with scammy business ideas that are far from going to hire US citizens.

Mercury is not suspicious. They are just fed up with all those come and go companies which only have been set up to be able to use their service for free. Why would they open accounts for foreigners living abroad with no ties to the US not clients from the US? If your countries banking it too bad, go vote or protest.

What you just said makes no sense. Mercury is the one chasing profit, not me. If they were so concerned with scammers they wouldn't allow Pakis and Indians to use them in the first place. Mercury wouldn't care if they didn't get a tap on the shoulder by whomever oversees them.

And if you believe in the free vote, I have a story to tell you.

 

[daniels27]

What you just said makes no sense. Mercury is the one chasing profit, not me. If they were so concerned with scammers they wouldn't allow Pakis and Indians to use them in the first place. Mercury wouldn't care if they didn't get a tap on the shoulder by whomever oversees them.

Yes. I agree. But somehow they decided not to ban them but ask for presence. I don't know why either.

And if you believe in the free vote, I have a story to tell you.

Yes, please tell me.

 

[diatessaron]

Yes. I agree. But somehow they decided not to ban them but ask for presence. I don't know why either.

Let me tell you why. They know US presence can be faked, and to satisfy their pocket and regulator both at the same time, they came up with this US presence bs. Mercury is a for profit entity, not an anti scam non profit.

 

[cyprusbanker]

What you just said makes no sense. Mercury is the one chasing profit, not me. If they were so concerned with scammers they wouldn't allow Pakis and Indians to use them in the first place. Mercury wouldn't care if they didn't get a tap on the shoulder by whomever oversees them.

Maybe it’s like with most startups; you allow much more at the beginning to get the business off the ground, and once you’ve reached a certain scale, you tighten the rules and filter out a group that is less attractive.

 

[yngmind]

What I've learned so far is that you have to make your bank a profit, just buy some kind of $20-30 subscription and pay them extra money every month, even if you don't need the features, that way, you will be profitable for the EMI/Bank, and the chances to close you down will be lower.

 

[diatessaron]

Maybe it’s like with most startups; you allow much more at the beginning to get the business off the ground, and once you’ve reached a certain scale, you tighten the rules and filter out a group that is less attractive.

Startups allow more at the beginning because they fail to understand how bad it can get. It's done out of ignorance, not profit chasing, because if they were chasing profits they wouldn't risk getting fined millions.

 

[cyprusbanker]

Startups allow more at the beginning because they fail to understand how bad it can get. It's done out of ignorance, not profit chasing, because if they were chasing profits they wouldn't risk getting fined millions.

Sometimes the end justifies the means, and I believe startups often have a lot to prove to their investors and creditors. That’s why they tend to take in everything they can and clean up later, hoping it will all work out in the end.

I’ve been involved in countless startups where this was one of the reasons. For some, it worked out well; others had to shut down.