They moved offices, informed wise of a change of address. Wise asked for proof of address. They sent a phone bill. Wise rejected it because the terminology of bills in New Zealand is different to the US (i.e. here bills are usually labelled Tax invoice rather than Bill). Wise support agent also made a barmey suggestion on how to get around it that they didn't follow. Another Wise agent called them back agreeing that the document should be accepted and resubmitted on their behalf. Later the document was rejected again and then their account was closed without any further communication from Wise. Later the author's personal wise account was closed just for being associated with the company.
I hope this is a very brief overview of the article, which I would encourage people to read. In speaks to the huge imbalance in power and accountability in dealing with some companies
Until it isn’t.
This is our story – a sobering, frustrating, and frankly appalling experience that ended with our business and personal accounts being shut down, without any meaningful reason, support, or recourse.
And all we did? We updated our address.
A Routine Change Turned Nightmare Like many businesses, we recently moved into a new office. Alongside the usual updates to suppliers and records, we updated our physical address with Wise. Not long after, we received an email requesting us to verify the new address.
Fair enough – we had no problem with that.
Wise provided a dropdown list of acceptable documents: a lease agreement, rates notice, tax document, utilities bill, or telecommunications bill. Due to our company structure, most of those documents are in the name of our parent company or show our PO Box (which NZ Post requires, since they won’t deliver to our street address). But we had a telecommunications bill that ticked every box:
Correct entity name Correct physical street address Even detailed our fibre connection at the new premises So we uploaded it – and assumed that would be the end of it.
We were so wrong.
The Call That Made No Sense Days later, we received an email: our document was rejected.
No clear reason. So, I called Wise and explained the situation to the customer service representative.
Her response left me stunned.
“The document was rejected because it was a tax invoice, not a bill.”
Wait… what?
I paused, trying to process this. I politely explained that in New Zealand, a “tax invoice” is a legal form of a bill – even down to the name “tax invoice” being a legal requirement by IRD, and that’s how telecommunications companies issue invoices here. But she refused to accept it.
“It needs to say Telecommunications Bill at the top,” she insisted.
“A tax invoice isn’t acceptable.”
This is simply not true, and completely out of touch with New Zealand’s business documentation standards. The rep wouldn’t budge.
The “Solution” That Was Beyond Belief Still trying to find a solution, I asked: what do you recommend I do then?
Her answer?
“You should find a local shared workspace, lease a desk under your company name, change your registered office to that address, and use that lease document to verify your address with us.”
Yes, you read that right.
Wise’s advice was to artificially lease a desk we didn’t need, change our registered address, and use that document – just to verify an address we actually operate from.
I asked to speak to a manager. That request was refused. She told me, flatly:
“I am providing you with the correct information.”
A bit more back and forth… then the call was disconnected.
A Glimmer of Hope – Then The Hammer Falls Later that day, I received a call back from Wise – not from a manager (because apparently, Wise doesn’t have managers), but from a more “senior” representative.
This rep was more empathetic and agreed the document should have been acceptable. She escalated the issue, resubmitted the document herself, and said she’d personally follow up if it was rejected again.
Progress, I thought.
Until the next morning.
“We’ve Restricted Your Account” I woke to an email with a stunning subject line:
“We’ve restricted your account”
Just like that, our entire business account was locked. No warning. No reason. No discussion.
We could no longer send or receive money, use our Wise cards, or even contact support. The email stated:
“Due to our current risk policies, your account will be closed in a few months. You will not be able to use support channels.”
Even worse? My personal Wise account was locked too. The same personal account which did have its address fully verified, by a rates invoice for my personal address.
Both had funds inside.
Edit: Someone posted a copy of the article below, and it seems to be a similar issue with no satisfactory resolution.
After making the first payment, Wise decided that they had to see my passport before I could make any other payments, so I had to call my wife at home in another city, have her scan in my passport so I could upload it for verification and then still had to wait overnight until they unlocked my account. I asked customer service if they could allow my second payment while they verified my ID, but they said they said I had to wait but "it won't be long".
If you're too far off on either side, you either get fined by whatever regulator you fall under, or you get fined by the stock market because your competitors are more profitable.
It’s baffling to me that these types of (usually unsigned in both the electronic and the ink way, not that the latter would prove anything in a scan) PDFs are still somehow the gold standard for “proofs” of address.
Things like tax numbers with addresses associated to them, official address registers... hell, a lot of ID cards in many jurisdictions just have your address printed on it!
Now, again, fraud is possible, but "I registered my drivers license to a fake address" is a bit of a higher hurdle than "I edited my utility PDF to show the right address".
Though there's a bit of a blessing in things like PDFs being easily editable, in that many badly organized criminals will likely do it haphazardly, leading to messy metadata, or even more amateur hour stuff around just having the font be wrong or the like. More opportunities for a fraudster to trip up, so to speak.
Why not? In my country the company registry is public, anyone can pay a small fee to get an official certificate of a company's address and company number.
For other things there are notaries public.
Been party to more than a couple situations with large banks who decided that you violated some hidden AML related policy and with zero recourse. You are lucky to even get your money out of those accounts without lengthy litigation.
Might happen more with fintech, but traditional banking does not remotely make you immune to this. Start doing anything interesting not “normal” and you’ll find out the hard way.
I agree in the sense of FDIC insurance and being nominally operating under the banking regulatory system - but those typically offer exactly zero protection to a whole category of not-crimes.
A bank can decide you are suspicious and simply freeze your accounts indefinitely - and stonewall you at the customer service level. It’s not like they are required by any law to respond to you or anything like that.
There is likely more recourse if you have enough funds worth perusing legal action to its final conclusion - if you win then you can be more assured the bank will exist six years later when your judgement finally hits. Enjoy paying those legal bills though.
Having witnessed this happen and seen six figure losses due to absolutely zero crime being committed, I basically operate under the mental model that any money within a bank or financial institution is their money and not yours.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YS8FLnSz2eP-nXp7FJR7Gsef...
And does this seem like AI automation gone mad?
As a heuristic, using TransferWise is traditionally associated with Russian money laundering scams.
In my case, it was totally my fault because I foolishly used Wise on my work email. Why would I even do that? It did start this half-Kafkaesque nightmare but I managed to eventually get the account back. I'd compounded the problems by also trying to make a new account so I could get customer support and promptly ended up being banned for trying a duplicate account. Fantastic.
But at least you know there is some flow that can get you out of this temporarily restricted state - which seems far less severe than the flow they got stuck in. Being unable to actually get their money out seems crazy. I would have rented the damned WeWork and been done with it to be honest.
I have an archived copy here if you want to see https://archive.roshangeorge.dev/archive/1761866967.0412/ind... (hopefully the Cloudflare cache isn't misconfigured)
EDIT: The Wayback Machine has a copy as well, so you don't need mine https://web.archive.org/web/20251030232647/https://shaun.nz/...
It seems as though Wise had noticed payment patterns that seemed outside of what Wise is comfortable facilitating. I hope the author can get their funds, but this behaviour is consistent with all banking services.
If they make a mistake they say... "your activities exceed our risk tolerance". It's legal boilerplate that covers all possible situations.
NZ banks also have no depositor protection. No equivalent of the US FDIC. Note below from 'jemmyw depositor protection added the past couple months.
After the second rejection I hastily transferred all of my business funds to other accounts, and have no intention of returning.
Also, any suggestions on reasonably secure bank accounts one can hold without citizenship / residency? Swiss?
However all of the online companies sell the happy path and your experience will be diminished the farther you deviate from it. The right answer may be for a business to maintain a second-source in this as in all critical supplier relationships.
I have and never will forgive them for this.
Prior HN discussion about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42371476
> Many regular people who get the [bank's] offboarding letter are confused and upset. Most people who get this letter are insufficiently expert in the financial system to understand what is going on. Many of them are (perhaps sensibly) enraged that the bank seems reluctant to offer answers. If they successfully pry answers out of the bank, the answers sound like nonsense or change constantly.
> Here, advocates often say that banks lack fundamental humanity, regard for their customers, or simple competence. I’d tell them that is neither here nor there, but the challenges described in Seeing like a Bank drive far more of this than malice, apathy, or incompetence as such. It is a systems issue.
[...]
> Very soon after making the decision to close your account the bank does not know specifically why it chose to close your account.
> This strikes many people as Kafkaesque. (Me, too!) It is the long-standing practice of banking in the U.S. and allied countries. It is downstream of laws passed by duly elected representatives. It was not capriciously developed as a political tool in the last few years. (We’ll get to those.)
The guy isn't arguing that the outcome is sane or deserved, but rather than most victims mis-identify the motives and causes.
Good in that you never have to speak to a salesperson, bad in that there will be no-one to take care of you if things go sideways.
It seems like that changed somewhere around the turn of the century, whereby businesses started to decide that it was better to cut down on customer service, and in some cases, go so far as to ban customers. The first cases of this I recall reading about had to do with Best Buy, and specifically their policy of banning people from their stores who made a lot of returns.
I'm not really sure how it ultimately maths out - i.e., whether it's long-term optimal to drop troublesome customers or merely short-term optimal, and this was primarily taken from the perspective of retail.
As such, I'm sure the math changes a little for subscription services. However, I also recall my prior employer's support activity followed a power law distribution across its clients, so it wouldn't surprise me if a policy to drop particularly noisy clients is a net savings there as well.
Profit on most goods is low - single digit % typically - and a single return can eliminate the profit margins on a dozen sales. Sometimes cost can be reclaimed from goods providers - i.e. genuinely defective or manufacturer refurbishment programs - and sometimes they can resell the item as new. But if the item has been used, broken by the customer, etc. the loss is significant. It turns out that some people are more honest than others, and some people are directly trying to scam companies.
When one 'dodgy' customer can eliminate the value of 10 'real' sales with every return the maths say to ban people quickly.
A little anecdote - I have a distant relative who, circa 2005, would buy a vacuum cleaner use it, and then return it. He rotated stores (hardware stores, supermarkets, electronic stores) until he gradually got banned from them all. Once that happened he moved house. Not only had he almost certainly spent more in time and fuel than a reasonable vacuum would have cost him (which I will note he could afford); but the cost and waste he has incurred on both individual companies and society at large through that and similar schemes is staggering. I don't know if he's still at it - or alive - but the people he was surrounding himself with all saw such behaviour as reasonable.
may be true in the past, but a business cannot scale up good customer service - it's at best a linear scaling, where each new customer costs the same fixed amount due to needing high touch/people to manage that customer.
With the internet, businesses have found scaling to work better by ensuring your fixed costs stay fixed even if you scaled up customer count - this includes support/call centers etc. Without doing this, the business cannot scale up exponentially.
On the other hand, as someone who did customer service in my younger years, 95% of calls were PEBKAC, so it's essentially a giant money drain for things of no real concern to you as a company.
I've often wondered how successful it would be to charge $3 or $5 per call, refunding the money in cases said call was needed.
I think Microsoft tried that at one point, but they didn't stick with it for some reason. Maybe it leads to a lot of knock-down, drag-out arguments about whose fault something is.
At some point enforcement died. It used to be that locking someone out of their money would wind up with people in jail.
Now, it's not just a cost of doing business but also viewed as a positive by state actors.
So this is my word of warning:
Don’t put all your eggs in the Wise basket.
The lesson you should have learned here is: Don't put all your eggs in any one basket.
If you are relying on a single provider for some critical business function, then your business is at risk. Period. I don't care how long you've been working with them and how nice their current sales support rep is. Things change. People leave. Companies get bought by other companies and restructured. If you're relying on any single one for anything mission-critical, that's an existential risk.
I agree that your wise story is ludicrous and terrible and hilarious. I particularly love how your bill was rejected because it was labelled as a "Tax Invoice" (we have the same requirement here in AU).
But TBH this is pretty typical of online services these days, and you should have expected this to happen. Google will happily lock you out of your account for no real reason and give opaque reasons why they won't unlock it. I've seen cases of this happening to google employees. Paypal are notorious for freezing funds during product launches.
IMO there should be regulations requiring businesses to have a way for customers to speak to an actual human with decision-making powers. If I was you, I'd be taking legal action against wise and complaining to the government department responsible for regulating these things.
The process is stupid enough that this will work 95% of the time. Is it fraud? No, not really, I'd argue. You're just conforming the document to an arbitrary standard, but all the relevant details are factual, not fraudulent.
The point is to feed the compliance critters exactly what they want so they can tick their boxes without sticking their necks out.
Tomorrow we'll have a double header featuring people who discover things that aren't hotels don't act like hotels and things that aren't taxis don't act like taxis.
If your business relies on the less-regulated "alternative" you're going to get burned eventually.
Unfortunately, this is still a good thing. As recently as a few months ago, I was in Las Vegas. The cabbie didn't know where to go, I had to direct them using Google maps from my phone, their credit card machine mysteriously wasn't working, and they didn't have change for cash because they "just got on shift". Seriously, all three in one ride?
Don't blame me that it was Uber/Lyft for the rest of my visif. I'll take an eventual possibility of getting burned somehow over a repeat of negative taxi experiences.
On the contrary, this is a case where Wise is acting exactly like a bank.
who disconnected it? were you yelling at support? this seems relevant and you just put "yadda yadda... the call was disconnected" (not to defend Wise, just curious what happened there)
>This isn’t just poor service — it’s unacceptable.
meaningless LLM-addendums don't improve your blogpost
It's a shame because I really love using the Wise website, app, payment system, and even the physical card (esp. in Japan).
Happy to work with anyone over there if they read this and want to dig in.
After that, we transferred the bulk of our funds back to a "traditional" bank and now never use Wise as the main business account. We now use it mostly for operational expenses.
Wise still has something to learn about banking business.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report
in most western countries it is illegal to disclose the nature of the SAR. they will simply end your account with no recourse.
For the actual criminals - if you're already doing crime, what's a little document forgery on top of that?
It's about time we accepted this fact and allowed money transfers, payments and banking to be neutral infrastructure.
When wise ran a KYC, we had quite the confusing back and forth. The only documents I had which they nearly liked were from HMRC - but they didn't like that they were > 1year old.
In the end I rang HMRC and asked for any paper document they could send me with their logo, my company name, my trading address and my registered address on it... the lovely HMRC rep worked out which real document I could trigger. A complete waste of her time obviously.
See https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/debanking-and-debunki...
tecoholic•4h ago
hshdhdhehd•4h ago
stavros•4h ago
koakuma-chan•4h ago
nomilk•4h ago
LambdaComplex•2h ago
rezonant•2h ago
selcuka•4h ago
They've probably forgotten to rotate web server logs.
stavros•3h ago
technion•3h ago
stavros•3h ago
DonHopkins•4h ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yscaDkzHqek
hank2000•4h ago
Also. Well done wise.com. Only having customers who use Wordpress means no vitality on people posting hate for you.