We emailed Paxum regarding FileFap.com on 17th August, to which we have had three unacceptable responses.

We have only ever gone public on issues where a organisation has broken promises it has previously made, or has refused point blank to deal with the issue.

Paxum made the commitment here on this very forum that they would not process for file lockers, now it appears that unverified accounts can receive payments.

7 days later filefap.com still has Paxum working in it's payment flow.

http://stopfilelockers.com/wp-conten...efappaxum3.jpg

I continued in this thread with this post because Paxum had never actually dealt with the Squillion issue in an acceptable manner and the very same response was received about FileFap.com

That is that unverified accounts can receive payments. That's not making a payment system unavailable to a web site.

see: https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=19140548&postcount=27

:1orglaugh

All quiet from Paxum ?

unfuckingreal

Paxum have replied to us confirming they do not deal with file lockers and stating that after thorough investigation of the account in question that they have terminated the account.

However it appears to us like the payment flow will still work and we were able to progress a transaction stopping short of confirming payment.

We have asked Paxum for clarification.

Bump for the haters and naysayers.

Two semi-related questions to this thread:

What's the rationale behind insisting on a non-watermarked ID scan?

Do they accept an ID scan with the ID number obfuscated?

Interesting, good work OP :thumbsup

The account in question was limited while it was investigated so that if any attempts for verification were successful during our investigation, no funds would be available to the client until our investigation was complete. We never terminate accounts without a proper investigation.

This account was unverified and inactive, and has never received funds. If any funds had been deposited to the account in question for purchases of the on-site membership while our investigation was on-going, then we would have simply held those payments until the result of our investigation, and then refunded any payments to the sender after determining the account was in violation.

Paxum does not compromise on our integrity. We say we do not accept file-lockers, and we do not. We say we will close accounts determined to be file-locker accounts, and we do that.

We do not automatically assume that charges/complaints filed against one of our clients are valid. We take the time to thoroughly investigate any such charges to our fullest capability before reaching an informed decision.

We cannot control the content on any website other than our own, and so we cannot force Filefap to remove our button, however please rest assured that we will not be doing any business with them, and their account has been fully closed as a result of our completed investigation.

AdultKing, I received your latest email and I am looking into it. Thank you :)

Dont post them here, report them to asacp.org please

Thanks for the reply Ruth.

I believe in order to remain consistent that your system should outright reject payment to terminated accounts with a message stating that the account is unable to receive funds, thereby stopping the payment flow.

From a brand risk point of view, it looks pretty bad for the appearance that a payment can be received by Paxum for a site which has copyright infringement and questionable content.

so a non verified account is bulletproof?
sweet to know.

I'm surprised Paxum reps actually disclosed any information about the account of the accused regardless how meaningless or minor it may seem.

I'm sure the people posting against Paxum in this thread would be pretty upset if someone was inquiring about them or reporting them and got some sort of answer about it at all whether its the status of their account or whatever.

Despite being under fire they shouldn't be disclosing any information especially publicly to people with no authority at all. The arrogance in this thread is disgusting as if the OP is someone that should be answered to as if they are a real authority.

[QUOTE=Terrorist;19142185]Hey Ruth

Just for posting that you should get a ban!

oh look its a goddamn fucking idiot

nobody received funds, but people were able to use premium of filefap, right? so now you just collected money and will pay nobody? longer collecting more money for you? are you serious? you said you do not deal with filelockers, so why you now say that you cannot control content on the sites? it is filelocker, shut it down, how they can still process vip? are you really trying to steal all the money? wow, unfuckingbelievable

"We cannot start an in-depth investigation into every single client at the point of signup"
yes you can!!
Duke

No, no you account. That would be like doing an in-depth investigation in to every single person who signed up to your pay site or an affiliate program.

They did the right thing.

no no no yes you can

hm filefap is not filelocker it is a tube excuse me i was wrong like an asshole

The Payment flow through to Paxum is still working on FileFap.com.

I don't understand how this can occur if the account is terminated. With every other payment or e-wallet system you would get an error message stating that the recipient cannot receive funds.

Hopefully Paxum can shed light on this, if I use my own Paxum account to go and pay for a membership on FileFap.com I can get as far as confirming the payment.

Actually it's both a tube and a file locker:

http://filefap.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=273

http://filefap.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=310

That nicely sums it up for people who don't want to read the whole thread. :thumbsup

Fair enough :thumbsup

Paxum has replied to us and informed us that the issue of restricted accounts allowing payment flow to occur is a bug and they are working on fixing it immediately so that it cannot be exploited in the future.

On that note I am satisfied that Paxum have acted properly with regard to this.

On the matter of FileFap.com several people have brought to our attention that there is potentially illegal content on the site.

DO NOT report such material to us, the correct place to report such material is ASACP, NCMEC or the FBI in the case of the United States. Outside the United States please report such material to your local policing agency.

No, it is absolutely not.

hey lucas, no funds were received, and no transactions were completed for this account. No money has been used at all.

I said about controlling content on other sites in relation to our Pay Now button that is currently on display on that site. Sorry for any confusion.

We are not processing for them in any way, we have identified a bug in our system that is causing this error and we have our tech team working on a fix.

We perform due diligence on every single client who signs up. We do have a large volume of accounts signing up each day, and if we were to take the time to do an in-depth investigation into every single client, then our regular 24-72-hour turnaround for account verification would most likely increase to at least a week if not longer.

For practical purposes we have a standard due diligence procedure in place that every single client must pass, and if during that due diligence process we notice anything unusual, we will then take a closer look at that account.

Thanks for pointing this out. Our tech team are investigating since this appears to be a bug in our system, and they will be providing a fix as soon as possible.

Due to the similarities between tube sites and file lockers we do perform a detailed analysis of any site accused of being a file locker before we take any action.

Actually it doesn't. Unverified accounts do not go unnoticed in our system. If we see any activity in an unverified account then we will look into it to ensure everything is in compliance with our TOS. We will not tolerate abuse of our system, and so in your example above, during stages 2 and 3 we would notice the activity and investigate. As a result of that investigation the account would be closed and any incoming funds to the account would be reversed to the original senders of those transactions.

Unverified accounts can receive money, yes, but that doesn't mean we aren't watching.

Why not just move the paxum to a verified account every day and with draw from there?

Hey adultking i think your site is down mate, i am guessing a dd0s attack? I am sure you are not popular with the script kiddies :)

Thanks for that, we're back up now.

What kind of privacy policy do you guys have?

Regardless of whether this account is a suspected file locker or serving illegal content or whatever the case may be, how can you be giving this information in the open? This is the second time you commented on someones account to a public forum. Is this type of information not covered by your privacy policy? If not:

Can you tell me how many transactions the OP has completed within the past 3 months please? Can you also tell me when he became verified?

I'm sure he'd be pretty upset if you actually answered my questions.

I mean this is absolutely unbelievable to me that you can divulge any information about anyone regardless of what they are accused of to people with no authority whatsoever.

You are a company that deals with money. Your customers confidentiality should be a major priority regardless of who they are. You should not be giving out any information to anyone to help maintain your credibility because you are under attack. No one here is an authority that you must answer to. I understand why you want to respond, but these details are not necessary.

In my eyes this shows me your company has many risk factors, and perhaps makes you look even worse than "supporting" file lockers.

Throughout this thread you have given away information about a customers account status, their activity or lack thereof, and also how you handle accounts in general. You obviously don't take privacy seriously at all, when in a business like yours it is of extreme importance.