[JPT III]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're kidding, right? I would proffer that the moment a party entrusted with another's money refuses to return such money to its rightful owner -- after demand for the return of the money has been made, the custodian of the money has "run off with the money." Moreover, some might argue that here, Neteller's admission that its retention of US customers' money remains indefinite, further emboldens this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing devil's advocate here....

If this is what your main argument will be then I think this will fail. Neteller has not denied money to anyone. They continue to say the money is safe. They also tell you to go ahead and request checks of EFT. Then the status goes to pending and they say it will take a while. But, in no way did they ever say someone was not going to get their money. Now, if there is some law the forces them to return money by a certain date and they do not comply then I think it can be considered a "run off with the money" situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate your devil's advocate position, but I disagree. I agree with you that they have not stated an intention to keep the money forever, but that does not absolve Neteller of liability for its current refusal to turn over the money.

Neteller's assurance that "the money is safe" does not suffice. They HAVE denied withdrawal of the money. Stating that they INTEND to comply, at some INDETERMINATE future time, with an obligation that is CURRENTLY OWED, is no defense.

Should they return it in the future, then we can talk about precisely what the measure of damages is. That is not the case right now, and by Neteller's own admission, will not be for quite some time. At the very least, assuming they turned over the money today, US customers should be entitled to the interest on the money held by Neteller after those funds were requested to be withdrawn. Also, see my earlier post about the Neteller up-front fees charged for services that it failed to provide.