Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service

On XX/XX/XXXX, an individual caused a {$240.00} wire transfer to me via our respective PayPal accounts, after I sent her a " Request '' for the funds. Neither she nor I are in business and the transaction was purely personal, as I was in need of funds. The transfer was completed on XX/XX/XXXX, under confirmation/transaction ID # XXXX. Immediately thereafter, I received an email alert from PayPal informing me of the successful transfer ; but also informing me that an " up to 21 day hold '' would be placed on the funds. PayPal immediately deducted its {$7.00} fee. 
When I inquired as to the reason for the hold, I could not speak to a live person, but only a " virtual agent. '' As an aside, this was only me second ( and VERY FINAL ) transaction with the same individual. The first transfer was without incident, with no undue delay. However, with regard to the transaction at issue, I was told that PayPal needed to hold the funds as a policy, to ensure that there were sufficient funds in my account in the event " the buyer ''??? had an issue with the goods that I was " selling. '' Again, the transaction was entirely personal and involved no business of hers or mine. 

I was then instructed to direct the woman to log into her own PayPal account and report that " the goods were delivered '' or " services received '' which she did. An hour later, I received an email indicating that " your funds are available ; '' however, when I transferred the funds to my bank, a message appeared, " Transfer Pending '' and further, that the transfer would take XXXX hours. Again, vis-a-vis my first PayPal transaction, the transfer was immediate. 

I believe there is sufficient evidence that PayPal 's " hold '' policy is nothing more than an unlawful attempt to earn interest on " held '' funds -- -- funds that should not be held at all. Imagine if PayPal had XXXX other " customers '' like me? That would mean that PayPal would be earning interest on {$240000.00}, for 21 days, without paying its " lenders/customers '' for the use of the customer 's funds. This MUST be a crime. 

Section 1962 ( c ) of the RICO Act makes it " unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in... interstate... commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise 's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. '' Subsection ( d ) criminalizes a conspiracy to violate one of the other subsections of 1962. Section 1964 ( c ) allows a private party, who has been injured in his property from a RICO violation, to sue for damages. To state a RICO claim, a plaintiff must show " ( 1 ) conduct ( 2 ) of an enterprise ( 3 ) through a pattern ( 4 ) of racketeering activity. '' Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 496, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 ( 1985 ) ( footnote omitted ). By this legal standard, PayPal is clearly violating the RICO statute, as well as the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ( " MMPA '' ) and several other statutory and common law torts. 

Please investigate this practice. PayPal 's own internal message board is replete with similar horror stories. Does anyone care?