[ThePhysicist]

These companies aren't public utilities, no one would complain about a US bank not doing money exchange business with entities in the Ukraine or Belarus, why would that be different for US companies offering donations over the Internet? The fact is that all platforms that facilitate cross-border money transfers between two parties without clear services or good being exchanged are used for all kinds of money laundering, and governments try to contain that for good reasons. In the end they probably don't care much about the revenue they make in these countries as it's probably negligible. Again, their good right to do so, I don't see any issue with this at all.

[elric]

The article claims that funds were held after being donated. That certainly goes way beyond "not choosing to do business". The claims were refuted by BuyMeACoffee, which changes things.

But if I, as a donator, donate money to someone using your service, and you then don't give that money to its intended recipient, you've effectively defrauded me. Had you said in advance "I can't do that, because you're trying to give me money to $foo which I don't support", then that is your right as a business.

[throwaway2037]

What's wrong with a US bank sending money to Ukraine? Sure, they might ask for an explanation, but I doubt they will reject. Example: You need to send money to a family member (immediate or extended), or want to donate directly to the national treasury (yes, you can do this), or another war-related non-profit. These are all legit. There is probably more risk in money transfers to Bulgaria or Romania, due to online scammers. Belarus is a wholly different matter. They are one step away from Russia-level sanctions, due to aiding Russia during the invasion of Ukraine.

[kevin_thibedeau]

The occupied parts of Ukraine are under sanctions and presumably banks are concerned they can't differentiate the precise destination in country. Safer to just blanket deny everything.

[berdario]

> What's wrong with [...] You need to send money to a family member (immediate or extended),

I tend to agree, but the same applies if one family member is in Belarus or Russia, and the other one is in the USA.

I.e. just because it's morally ok, it doesn't mean that it's without risk (if you lie about the purpose) and that the banks will facilitate it.

OTOH, before EO2022, I know that transfers between Russia and countries in Europe were sometimes still happening. Disappointintly (but it's not very surprising), sending small money to family would usually be impossible, but if you had to transfer substantial amounts of money, and you could prove that it was from e.g. sale of a home, that could still happen.

On one hand, that makes sense: the bigger the amount, the more it makes economic sense to allow extra time and effort to check that all the i are dotted and all the t ate crossed.

But OTOH, the people with lots of housing property are sometimes precisely using housing to launder the provenance, and they are also not necessarily the honest workers whose family end up split across borders.

[jonathanstrange]

Of course, people would complain about a bank not doing money exchanges with Ukraine or Belarus. Moreover, payment system providers, money transfer systems, and banks are to some extent public utilities, especially when there are no viable alternatives. They are essential for business.

[growlNark]

> no one would complain about a US bank not doing money exchange business with entities in the Ukraine or Belarus

Frankly, it's none of my state's damn business who I exchange money with. Their beef with other states is their problem—why are they dragging us through their bullshit?

If they want to collect taxes on it, at least that has the veneer of doing their job properly, and I'm happy to pay it.

[passivegains]

if someone, for example, exchanges funds with a foreign nation to evade sanctions while they illegally occupy another, it really is their state's business.

[growlNark]

Only because the state asserts their existence with violence. We certainly have little-to-no say in how the states in which we live behave, but we're all subject to their whims.

Personally, I have little patience for the pretense that the geopolitical theatre we're all subjected to reflects the people who live in the states represented in such theatre. Baudrillard had it right all along.

[passivegains]

Only because the state asserts their existence with violence.

I'm comfortable saying if a foreign nation rolls military vehicles across a border and starts shelling apartment buildings, those buildings' residents have every right to assert their existence with violence.

We certainly have little-to-no say in how the states in which we live behave, but we're all subject to their whims.

I can't say for certain how much my state listens to me specifically, but if they do, I'd tell them their whims should be such that other states can't do the roll-across-border-blow-up-apartments thing. (to anyone, not just me.) Those are good whims. Everyone should be subject to those whims.

[growlNark]

> I'm comfortable saying if a foreign nation rolls military vehicles across a border and starts shelling apartment buildings, those buildings' residents have every right to assert their existence with violence.

Of course, I have nothing against sovereignty. I just think states greatly overestimate what they're owed for simply not mowing down their own citizens. If my state causes another state to invade me, of course I'll side with the invader—my own state has failed me.