WU, are they that bad

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:14 am

I've never heard a lot of bad things about western union, but I ran upon
some Shocked

ing stories, cant believe some of those post I've read,
are they really that way, I do know that when I was scammed, western
union did stop to of my payments, but they never gave me a reason, but
did tell me to write a letter to receive an explanation, so I started using
money gram, after all that, thats when I discovered I was scammed as
some of ye mates know, all this happened before I found eater... Very Happy

http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/__show_article/_a000010-001689.htm

So is WU still that way, you send money but cant receive it back or
they hold it back for days or weeks?

Please take note, me being scammed does not bother me anymore,
I have talked with my mother about and we chat about every once in
awhile, she figured as much as know about a lot of things, I would be
the last person to be done this way, My reply, mother, I do know a lot
but when that happened, I didn't no what scamming was, and we learn
new things everyday, she does know what I do now, I have explained
a lot to her, and she says, Bait safely. Very Happy

Just a few thoughts...

Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:32 am

crossfire wrote:

So is WU still that way, you send money but cant receive it back or
they hold it back for days or weeks?

It always happens to me. Each time I'm trying to send some money to a lad it won't work Confused

Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:45 am

crossfire wrote:

you send money but cant receive it back or
they hold it back for days or weeks

Sounds like my bank Rolling Eyes

Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:29 pm

Quote:

It always happens to me. Each time I'm trying to send some money to a lad it won't work

So it's not just me then? Rolling Eyes

Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:00 pm

Is it just me, or does the story at the link make sense? The person seems to be wiring money to himself. Er, I might be just a smidgen suspicious of someone wiring money to themselves, too. You would probably figure someone might be up to something shady, there, since there are better ways to get at your own money.

And maybe the commenter is dialing a different 800 number, but there are real live people at 1-800-325-6000. I've talked to a few.

I've not heard widespread stories of senders having problems with WU accepting their transfers , really. The only exception being the stopping of transfers to suspected "terrorists" with Arab names, which was in the news a while back. I did notice most of these complaints seem to be from people who tried to send money online, not from a physical WU outlet, though. That could explain the over the top "jackboot" security. I think if you send a certain amount in a certain period, that also triggers some federal laws about money laundering to come into play. They have to collect and report some additional information, best I recall.

Mind, I bet these same people would have been screaming twice as loud if someone with unauthorized access to their credit card or bank account had gotten by with sending a transfer using their information...

Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:04 pm

mrsbean wrote:

does the story at the link make sense?

No it doesn't , sounds like bunch hype now, nothing to do so blame WU for
their mistakes, CC, online etc...

Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:08 pm

I meant more in the "Wouldn't it make sense for the fraud department at WU to be suspicious of someone wiring money to himself?" sense. Not the narrative sense sense.

Make sense? Wink

Not quite a Newb Joined: 02 Nov 2006 Posts: 24

I noticed a few weeks ago that at a WU in Sears Homegoods (Formerly K-Mart) that all of the pamphlets they had on the counter and everything were about sending money to Africa, I just can't see that many people having the legitimate need to send money to Africa, so the way I took it was that basically WU was supporting 419s, which seems really unethical to me Evil or Very Mad

Western Union · Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:57 am

StewG wrote:

I just can't see that many people having the legitimate need to send money to Africa

Plenty of people from Africa (and anywhere else, for that matter) live and work abroad and send money home to support family there.

Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:58 am

@mrsbean, yes

419Eater is my life Joined: 26 Jan 2007 Posts: 356

StewG wrote:

I just can't see that many people having the legitimate need to send money to Africa

What Mr. Fishe said, and also some people do send money to [legitimate] charities in Africa.

Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 8:07 am

As for the question of whether people have a legitimate need to send money to Africa, you may (or may not) find some of this information on worker remittances interesting. Simply put, there are many good reasons for individuals to send money to Africa and the amounts are surprisingly large.

Quote:

Official statistics recorded US$ 80 billion in migrant remittances to developing countries in 2002. Taking into account informal flows and underreporting of official data, estimates put the value much higher, at between US$ 100 and 200 billion.

Remittances have become the second largest capital flow behind Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and ahead of Overseas Development Assistance (ODA). In 2001, remittances represented 42% of total FDI flows and 260% of ODA; remittance flows have surpassed ODA since 1995. Today remittances constitute the fastest growing and most stable capital flow to developing countries. Remittances have more than doubled in value in the past decade and also grown faster than migration - a trend which is likely to continue. Thus, while FDI and ODA have occupied the limelight of development finance to date, remittances have made a quiet yet substantial contribution to international capital flows as well as to national balance of payments, forex reserves, and, especially, to the welfare of receiving households in developing countries.

Regionally, Latin America and the Caribbean received the lion share of remittances in nominal terms with $25 billion followed by South Asia with $16 billion (2002). Relative to GDP, however, South Asia was the largest recipient with remittance receipts amounting to 2.5% of GDP. Flows to East Asia and Pacific with 14% of global remittance receipts and Sub-Saharan Africa with 5% are dwarfed by those to the other regions. Especially for Africa, however, this picture is heavily skewed by underreporting or complete lack of data; close to two thirds of Sub-Saharan African countries lack data.

Report prepared for the UK Department for International Development (DFID), June 2002.
http://www.bannock.co.uk/PDF/Remittances.pdf

And more specifically on Africa:

Quote:

A recent study on the importance of remittances to Africa concluded that the continent received 15 percent of all remittances (US $80 billion) sent to poor countries in 2002. This is a significant sum of money, yet fewer than two-thirds of African countries (and only one-third of sub-Saharan countries) actually report remittance data and the true value is likely to be much higher.

"For a capital-poor continent like Africa you can't ignore this source of income - it's a stable flow of income, unlike private capital inflows, which can be volatile," said researcher Mills Soko. "In Africa it's not accorded the attention it deserves. Countries like Brazil and India have done a lot to make inducements available to expatriates to invest in [their home countries]." Yet, "a key problem [in African countries] is that they either have weak or non-existent financial systems and can't absorb remittance inflows" through the formal sector.

IRIN News (UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs), 18 May 2005.
http://www.irinnews.org/S_report.asp?ReportID=47161&SelectRegion=Southern_Africa