[zinekeller]

> if you move out of the country they don't get to keep your money.

Oh sure, I'm not disputing that (and I certainly would want sherlock_h to get their life savings), but again Marcus has been so clear in this (including not allowing to input a non-US number and address) that you having to say "oh it's boilerplate stuff" runs against the practicality that, yes, Marcus does not want people outside the US to hold accounts.

Also, "may not" is almost always certainly interpreted in law as equivalent as "shall not". There are edge cases where this is not the case, but both federal and Utah law (where Marcus legally operates) use this meaning.

[fsckboy]

you edited, which doesn't bother me but now i'll edit :)

They are not invoking this clause, they are trying to help him. So the clause is not for the purpose you are suggesting.

I had another realization: they probably need the clause to not violate US laws about money laundering and international money movements. It doesn't mean they don't want to, they're a website, the more customers the better. It means they don't want to deal with regulation

[zinekeller]

Please ask a lawyer on how to interpret "may not" and you will understand on why I'm continually insisting. (Yes, "may" has some leeway, "may not" does not have a leeway. IDK why is this the case, but legalese is legalese.)

[fsckboy]

IANAL but, "Listen young man, you may not cross the street" is a legally binding prohibition from your mother, it does not mean may or may not.

But, "It may not be an appropriate movie for you to watch" is not "you may not watch it".

Different usages.

[zinekeller]

So I have consulted with a lawyer who simply said "Goldman should probably use "shall not" but for me it's plainly clear that you can only use Marcus here or in you're currently deployed.", which pretty much solidifies how the sentence is to interpreted. I further asked if legally-speaking there is a wiggle room and he simply said "Accessing Marcus while on vacation would technically violate this provision, so I don't think there is a wiggle room here."

Of course you're welcome to litigate this if you happen to be in a similar situation as sherlock_h if you insist, but I would not hold my breath.

[fsckboy]

> So I have consulted with a lawyer

I don't know why you did that, but I'm unimpressed by you and your lawyer's interpretations

>who simply said "Goldman should probably use "shall not"

should have used that language, but we are not in an a priori situation here.

> but for me it's plainly clear that you can only use Marcus here or in you're currently deployed."

Nor are we arguing Goldman's side, which this lawyer-statement does; we are arguing against Goldman, for the client. That's what an attorney should do. Ambiguities in standard contracts are ruled against the author of the contract and in favor of the other signatory. Legalese is still English, and my interpretation of the English language of these terms is completely accurate, and my interpretation of the wiggle room is a reasonable argument to make.

You and he are cleverly smooshing the two sentences together which we are trying to tease apart to determine the meaning.

>which pretty much solidifies how the sentence is to interpreted. I further asked if legally-speaking there is a wiggle room and he simply said "Accessing Marcus while on vacation would technically violate this provision, so I don't think there is a wiggle room here."

not to me.

Goldman is not asserting this clause. Why the hell would assert it for them? If it comes up, we argue for wiggle room, not against it. Period.

The lawyer is correct that, if OP is deciding what account to open, and planning to follow the geographic trajectory that he followed, no, don't open this account. But that's not where we are. We argue from where we are, not coulda woulda shoulda.

You are weirdly obsessed with this, and not very good at it.

I've worked with very good attorneys before, the top in NYC. They can still use help from the client's perspective, always, and very clever people can think of things that other people can't, for example the numerous Feynmann escapades outside his area of expertise.

Also you might read my other comments to OP which explain how to solve this problem.

[justinclift]

I looks like the user created the account when in the US, so was legally allowed to do so.

It seems like you're saying they're not allowed to continue using their account after moving overseas?

[zinekeller]

> It seems like you're saying they're not allowed to continue using their account after moving overseas?

Yes. I'm not saying that they're not *entitled* to their money (in fact Goldman Sachs must give sherlock_h the funds in their account) but Marcus is clear on this that this provision is a continuing eligibility (and is legally allowed to put restrictions like this).

[justinclift]

So, what's the process sherlock_h should use to retrieve their funds once they've moved overseas?

The most obvious approach would be to log into their account (from overseas), and transfer the money out.

But seems like you're wanting something else done instead... so what's the something else?

[zinekeller]

> The most obvious approach would be to log into their account (from overseas), and transfer the money out.

Yes, this is indeed the most obvious way, but most banks would flag that transfer (especially since it is a large amount) because it was done outside the US.

> But seems like you're wanting something else done instead... so what's the something else?

Optimally you would do that before moving, but I'm assuming that this is beyond their control due to COVID-19 so this is understandable.

Probably very unpopular here (downvote away if you prefer) but this by manually contacting Goldman-Sachs by mail and essentially inform them your particular circumstances. This is understandably a long and frustrating process, but short of physically coming back to the US to sort this then this is the closest method possible.