All this only shows why governments typically have to monitor and regulate such services. I don't have a full grasp of what happened here but from what I gather transactions were reversed from Party B and Party C because of a fraudulent transaction from Party A. I think the reversal from Party B would be expected but the reversal from Party C is potentially a problem.
Party A > Party B > Party C
It seems wrong for Paxum to reverse transactions and take funds from Party C due to what happened with Party A when Party C has had no business dealings with Party A. Further by what process does Paxum use to decide which third parties who did business with Party B will get their transactions reversed? For instance maybe Paxum is reversing transactions for affiliates first to cover losses but taking from sponsors and other service providers last. Or maybe it's being done based on who has the most money in their account to take at the time. Or dare say it might even be based on who Paxum likes the best.
So we see where it can all be a problem and there can be a conflict of interest and it seems we need some kind of regulation here. Which entity is it again in Canada which is regulating Paxum? I think when they first started they mentioned they were regulated in some way over there. It may be worth contacting that entity and asking them to confirm that Paxum is following all applicable regulations. There are reasons for certain regulations being in place. Personally at some point I think Paxum should be the one's to take the loss rather than innocent third parties. This then provides some incentive for Paxum to be more careful in regards to processing fraudulent transactions.
Another question here is when Paxum changed the procedures for handling this were they required to publish this anywhere and give notice and did they? It almost appears they decided how to handle this on-the-fly. Is that legal?
