[EU/SEPA Only] If you have signed a B2B SEPA Direct Debit (SDD), it's enough to revoke it on your banking portal as you have mentioned. Your bank is required for a signed Mandate to be able to debit your account. If you have been debited already for a B2B SDD, you only have 3 inter-banking business days to try to Reject the payment (if your bank offers that as a service), afterwards the bank that has issued the SDD is not legally bounded to return the money.
If it's a Core SEPA Direct Debit, there is not the concept of a "signed mandate" but according to the rulebook [1] you have up to 13 months [2] to ask for a Return.
[_sigh_] I've spend so much team reading those rulebooks
[2] "If the request for a Refund concerns an Unauthorised Transaction, a Debtor must present its claim to the Debtor PSP within 13 months of the debit date. [...]"
Shameless plug; I've been playing with a [Redis Server implementation in Go](https://github.com/jan-carreras/ddia) for the past weeks. Mainly as a way to try out things explained in Designing Data-Intensive Applications book (favourite of mine!). Those are the [commands implemented](https://github.com/jan-carreras/ddia/blob/master/commands.md), + TTL + AoF files (for state replication) + config file, ... The "challenge" was to do it without any external dependency other than go stdlib.
> I actually build minimal Redis clones in every new language or runtime, or when I want to explore threading models.
100% agree with your advice; I'll definitively try to implement other parts of the Redis service in Go (eg: pub/sub, replication, clustering...) and probably repeat the same exercise when learning any new language.
Yeah, thought the same. The AML team on a bank cannot disclose that the account is being investigated by the regulator, nor give any information to the client about it.
Of course, if the bank wished to do so, they could give information or unblock the funds. But the fines that the regulator can impose to the bank are disproportionate (hundreds of thousands, per individual case) to "convince" the bank to comply.
Thus, is not "the bank" who is doing that to you, it's the regulator, and the agreement between the bank and them. And this "agreement" is a requirement in order for the regulator to give a banking license, so...
Let's be clear, the bank is not gaining anything out of this, quite the opposite: they are at risk of bad reputation, having an angry customer at their offices or calling daily, etc...
It's a very frustrating situation, tho. I do understand that.
For me the use case is: someone leaves a comment that's ambiguous, someone asks for clarification, some people respond _what they think that original commenter meant_, finally originally commenter solves the doubt.
I find myself Control+F the name of the original commenter to see if he/she has replied, because I'm interested in _that_ response — not so much of the interpretation of others.
If it's a Core SEPA Direct Debit, there is not the concept of a "signed mandate" but according to the rulebook [1] you have up to 13 months [2] to ask for a Return.
[_sigh_] I've spend so much team reading those rulebooks
[1] https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/what-we-do/sepa-payme...
[2] "If the request for a Refund concerns an Unauthorised Transaction, a Debtor must present its claim to the Debtor PSP within 13 months of the debit date. [...]"