Escrow.com Is Now Asking For Photos of Personal Docs

[Cdomains]

Escrow/com Is Now Asking For Photos of Personal Documents.

I just logged in to Escrow/com and they are now asking for extensive verification including Photos or scans of ID's and other personal and business documents to be stored on their servers.

I have used them for years for all my transactions.

With all the hacks of servers happening around the world and security breaches exposing us to identity theft I have refused to give photos of my ID's and other documents to companies who request it.

I will not do business with Flippa for this reason.

I recently had my account frozen at a registrar that asked me for this and I refused.

Will you give photos of your personal ID's, bank records, etc to Escrow/com or will you use another service?

Personally, I think I am going to take my business somewhere else.

I am really disappointed about this after all these years.

---

Related:

• New Escrow.com Account Verification Process

 

[mad409]

I don't have an issue with doing this but I'm thinking an end user isn't going to like the process much.

 

[Jackson Elsegood]

Just uploaded mine, says 24 hours to approve.

Thanks, Mad. 24 hours is the max but the verification team is typically much faster. Any feedback?

 

[korganian]

Very happy I learned of all this before ever actually having to use their service. I only signed up for escrow a few months ago and what I liked was the ability to create an instant BUY NOW button. When I started to see all the repeat complaints here, I pulled all my buttons and went back to manual contact. Which is a shame since I think if a buyer clicks buy now and is taken to a payment page, they know they won't have to negotiate or even ever talk to the seller and it's a firm offer..

Out of the alternative options mentioned in this thread, does any other service have this BUY NOW function, to be put on my own lander? Or something similar?

You can do an expedited transfer to Epik and place the domain in your free private marketplace there. Then simply forward the domain to the checkout page for them to buy that domain with a BIN price. All this would only take a few minutes and you are good to go. The checkout, domain transfer and payment to you are all instant and simultaneous. @EPIK is definitely the best solution there is, both in speed and minimal cost.

 

[mad409]

Thanks, Mad. 24 hours is the max but the verification team is typically much faster. Any feedback?

Feedback sure.. Once documents are uploaded it doesn't say received, got it, thank you or anything. I wasn't sure they went through.

I then checked my email later and seen they were received. I'd add something showing that the information sent/uploaded successfully, or something to that effect...

Other than that a very easy process..

 

[SuperBrander]

@Jackson Elsegood I hope you'll be able to answer my question: whether this new policy is something Escrow.com initiated or if it's being enforced on you. Because based on what you wrote and what the rep told me today- it doesn't seem like there's been a new regulatory development that forced Escrow.com to add verification. Other escrow services haven't announced that they were adding one and the US patriot act is from 2001. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I assure you, I have nothing against Escrow.com. On the contrary. I had good experiences with Escrow.com and never used another escrow company up till now. But lately, I've been seeing a lot of negative feedback from many NP users who had bad experiences and now this new verification process seems to make the process more difficult, especially on the buyer's end which could terminate deals. If all escrow companies will now have it, then I guess that's how things are. But if there are alternatives, naturally many people will choose the less complicated option and I too have to consider it.

I'd appreciate it if you could please reply about this matter. Thanks.

 

[mad409]

Just uploaded mine, says 24 hours to approve.

My documents were approved in 30 mins, just got an email. That's quick..

 

[bmugford]

Many buyers use Escrow.com for a one off transaction. They are only buying one domain and will likely never use Escrow.com again.

If a buyer needs to verify their account by providing these documents, that is going to be a major issue going forward. I would expect Escrow.com to lose a lot of business because of this new burden.

Brad

 

[Nerevar]

@Jackson Elsegood
Your company has a niche and a successful business model. Why break something that works? Asking buyers for ID copies raises scam alarm and is a deal breaker.

 

[tonyk2000]

Well, I will not use escrow.com as a seller for any transactions "brokered" (or initiated) by myself anymore (unless they change their mind or mode of operations). I do care about my buyers and do not want to have sales lost or delayed. (In fact, I'm not feeling comfortable with providing them even my own docs. Which is a matter of trust - or lack of 100% trust - seeing so many issues with how are new escrow.com owners running the business they purchased).

Since I have a number of domains under Uniregistry/Domainnamesales brokerage, I just tried to UNLINK my escrow.com account from Uniregistry, to make sure that their brokers would not mistakenly start an escrow.com transaction with myself as seller and uniregistry as a broker. So far, I was unable to locate such an "unlink" option. Uniregistry should add it and ASAP...

 

[carob]

Good question, looking forward to the reply from Escrow.com.

@Jackson Elsegood I hope you'll be able to answer my question: whether this new policy is something Escrow.com initiated or if it's being enforced on you. Because based on what you wrote and what the rep told me today- it doesn't seem like there's been a new regulatory development that forced Escrow.com to add verification. Other escrow services haven't announced that they were adding one and the US patriot act is from 2001. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

This is what section 126 of the 2001 Patriot Act says in full about Verification of Identification
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf

It does not specify photo id, it refers to
"verifying the identity of any person seeking to
open an account to the extent reasonable and practicable".

SEC. 326. VERIFICATION OF IDENTIFICATION.
(a) I
N
G
ENERAL
.
—
Section 5318 of title 31, United States Code,
as amended by this title, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
‘‘
(l) I
DENTIFICATION AND
V
ERIFICATION OF
A
CCOUNTHOLDERS
.
—
‘‘
(1) I
N GENERAL
.
—
Subject to the requirements of this sub-
section, the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe regula-
tions setting forth the minimum standards for financial institu-
tions and their customers regarding the identity of the customer
that shall apply in connection with the opening of an account
at a financial institution.
‘‘
(2) M
INIMUM REQUIREMENTS
.
—
The regulations shall, at
a minimum, require financial institutions to implement, and
customers (after being given adequate notice) to comply with,
reasonable procedures for
—
‘‘
(A) verifying the identity of any person seeking to
open an account to the extent reasonable and practicable;
‘‘
(B) maintaining records of the information used to
verify a person
’
s identity, including name, address, and
other identifying information; and
‘‘
(C) consulting lists of known or suspected terrorists
or terrorist organizations provided to the financial institu-
tion by any government agency to determine whether a
person seeking to open an account appears on any such
list.
‘‘
(3) F
ACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED
.
—
In prescribing regula-
tions under this subsection, the Secretary shall take into consid-
eration the various types of accounts maintained by various
types of financial institutions, the various methods of opening
Regulations.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:15 Nov 05, 2001 Jkt 099139 PO 00056 Frm 00047 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL056.107 APPS24 PsN: PUBL056
115 STAT. 318
PUBLIC LAW 107
–
56
—
OCT. 26, 2001
accounts, and the various types of identifying information avail-
able.
‘‘
(4) C
ERTAIN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
.
—
In the case of any
financial institution the business of which is engaging in finan-
cial activities described in section 4(k) of the Bank Holding
Company Act of 1956 (including financial activities subject
to the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commis-
sion), the regulations prescribed by the Secretary under para-
graph (1) shall be prescribed jointly with each Federal func-
tional regulator (as defined in section 509 of the Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Act, including the Commodity Futures Trading Commis-
sion) appropriate for such financial institution.
‘‘
(5) E
XEMPTIONS
.
—
The Secretary (and, in the case of any
financial institution described in paragraph (4), any Federal
agency described in such paragraph) may, by regulation or
order, exempt any financial institution or type of account from
the requirements of any regulation prescribed under this sub-
section in accordance with such standards and procedures as
the Secretary may prescribe.
‘‘
(6) E
FFECTIVE DATE
.
—
Final regulations prescribed under
this subsection shall take effect before the end of the 1-year
period beginning on the date of enactment of the International
Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism
Act of 2001.
’’
.
(b) S
TUDY AND
R
EPORT
R
EQUIRED
.
—
Within 6 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with
the Federal functional regulators (as defined in section 509 of
the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) and other appropriate Government
agencies, shall submit a report to the Congress containing rec-
ommendations for
—
(1) determining the most timely and effective way to require
foreign nationals to provide domestic financial institutions and
agencies with appropriate and accurate information, com-
parable to that which is required of United States nationals,
concerning the identity, address, and other related information
about such foreign nationals necessary to enable such institu-
tions and agencies to comply with the requirements of this
section;
(2) requiring foreign nationals to apply for and obtain,
before opening an account with a domestic financial institution,
an identification number which would function similarly to
a Social Security number or tax identification number; and
(3) establishing a system for domestic financial institutions
and agencies to review information maintained by relevant
Government agencies for purposes of verifying the identities
of foreign nationals seeking to open accounts at those institu-
tions and agencies.

 

[Jackson Elsegood]

Pairing your questions together Stellarname and Nervar:

whether this new policy is something Escrow.com initiated or if it's being enforced on you.

@Jackson Elsegood
Your company has a niche and a successful business model. Why break something that works? Asking buyers for ID copies raises scam alarm and is a deal breaker.

The rules that require customer identification has been a requirement for a long time, but the procedures that online businesses put in place and the expectations of the regulators that issue our escrow and money transmission licenses increase every year. Keeping in mind the number of territories that we operate in, we need to be continually upping our game to keep up with regulators and new rules all over the world.

In the past customer identification was handled over email or fax. With the injection of a lot of engineering talent throughout 2016 we've been able to build out a verification portal that meets the requirements of our security team and handles identity documents properly with the security that they need.

 

[carob]

In the past customer identification was handled over email or fax. With the injection of a lot of engineering talent throughout 2016 we've been able to build out a verification portal that meets the requirements of our security team and handles identity documents properly with the security that they need.

Is this in response to an increase in fraud, and if so, is the increase due to changes you have made since the company was taken over?

As for the requirements of customers, even if they are willing to ignore standard security advice and give you these documents, they need to check whether they are legally allowed to do so - some documents by law cannot just be handed over, and in other cases identity theft insurance or job requirements may mean a person is not allowed to do this.

 

[SuperBrander]

@Jackson Elsegood Thanks for your reply and for the link. I understand Escrow.com's position better now. Perhaps from your end it was something that had to be done. However, I'll have to think about it and perhaps experiment with a buyer or two, because frankly- I'll take the risk of sending my own documents. But the buyer's side... as other people have noted... is very tricky. Reaching deals is complicated as it is and till the money is paid- everything is up in the air and fragile. Having to ask buyers to go through this procedure isn't a small thing. Even top-notch security can be hacked, as was proven with Clinton's emails and the Democratic National Committee and Escrow.com is probably a big target for such attempts. Anyway... thanks again. I guess we'll see how this all plays out. Appreciate the time you took to reply.

 

[tonyk2000]

Hope escrow.com staff, including but not limited to mr. Jackson, will carefully read the second similar thread ("Escrow.com Is Now Asking For Photos of Personal Docs") in this forum, as there are definitely a lot of opinions expressed in another thread that they may find to be useful.

 

[Jackson Elsegood]

It does not specify photo id, it refers to
"verifying the identity of any person seeking to
open an account to the extent reasonable and practicable".

You're absolutely right, Carob. The original law is written so that it can be interpreted by regulators like FinCEN in their later regulation. In 2017 the minimum for any financial institution (which is defined broadly enough to include travel agents) is for unexpired government-issued identification evidencing nationality or residence and bearing a photograph or similar safeguard.

 

[carob]

I can certainly relate, and I think everyone can (those who have any sense). Recently Dynadot essentially "hijacked" my account while demanding I provide a photo ID in order to regain access to my domains.

There are known issues with Dynadot locking accounts. They are risking their ICANN accreditation - there is a whole thread on that here: https://www.namepros.com/threads/dynadot-refusing-to-unlock-account-what-are-my-options.824770/

BTW there is a new thread started by escrow.com now https://www.namepros.com/threads/new-escrow-com-account-verification-process.993444/#post-5920695

 

[cipcip]

It is good that you finally added this. I did this with my paypal account in 2007..

 

[forge]

Oh! We met on another thread!



Guess I've softened a bit on Dynadot, but still...

 

[carob]

You're absolutely right, Carob. The original law is written so that it can be interpreted by regulators like FinCEN in their later regulation. In 2017 the minimum for any financial institution (which is defined broadly enough to include travel agents) is for unexpired government-issued identification evidencing nationality or residence and bearing a photograph or similar safeguard.

Will you please supply a link to that? Again, that does not specify photo id.

At the least customers would expect a notice period for the introduction of this, plus a clear statement of your Data Protection policies, plus a procedure for closing accounts and deleting data.

As mentioned in other threads, including the Dynadot one, some customers simply do not have such ID in the first place. https://www.namepros.com/threads/new-escrow-com-account-verification-process.993444/#post-5920697

 

[carob]

Out of the alternative options mentioned in this thread, does any other service have this BUY NOW function, to be put on my own lander? Or something similar?

If a domain is at Namesilo.com and you list it for sale there you can link to a buy now page there. They take 7.5%. If the domain is under 1k transfer is instant, otherwise payment must be by wire and takes a week.

 

[Jackson Elsegood]

Here's a link to the specific requirement
31 CFR 1020.220(a)(2)(ii)(A)(1).
Relevant documentation may include unexpired government-issued identification evidencing nationality or residence and bearing a photograph or similar safeguard, such as a driver’s license or passport.

This used to just be for banks, but from the most recent guidance is now being applied to all financial institutions.

 

[Jackson Elsegood]

Hi Everyone, I've been responding to questions over on this thread - will still be reading here but shoot over for a response
https://www.namepros.com/threads/new-escrow-com-account-verification-process.993444/

 

[Michael123]

GG Escrow

Hugedomains and Sedo are laughing now

 

[tonyk2000]

Jackson, the "most recent guidance" you are referring to says that it is applicable exclusively to
"Banks;
brokers or dealers in securities;
mutual funds;
futures commission merchants;
introducing brokers in commodities;"
- what exact of 5 mentioned business types escrow.com is? (in aspect of your domain-related activities)
Moreover, it says "Covered financial institutions must comply with these rules by May 11, 2018."
Aren't we in the beginning of 2017?

 

[SpareDomains]

But will your customers do the same?

Many buyers use Escrow.com for a one off transaction. They are only buying one domain and will likely never use Escrow.com again.

If a buyer needs to verify their account by providing these documents, that is going to be a major issue going forward. I would expect Escrow.com to lose a lot of business because of this new burden.

Brad

Agreed. To a domainer all the registrars, escrow companies, parking companies etc... are known names. To a one time end user buyer they basically have heard of GoDaddy and maybe a few other brands. There is still a wild west/fear vibe to large internet purchases. I've had end users little cautious on even using Escrow.com in the past, phone call and that was cleared up as a voice on the phone trumps email communication, adding them submitting docs to a one off purchase though and not sure how that will pan out. If a must have domain maybe all good, if a would like it but don't have to have it domain maybe fear will kill off some of those deals.