Talk:Wirecard

Untitled

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/02/24/2154131/zatarra-strikes-wirecard/ 203.218.216.190 (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile there is proof for huge fraud: Wirecard: inside an accounting scandal (Financial Times June 2020) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Aslan (talk • contribs) 15:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Allegations of harassment of short sellers

https://www.npr.org/programs/invisibilia/876582613/trust-fall
41m45s: "Wirecard did admit sending Private Investigators to Matthew's house but they said they didn't intend to harass him"

June 2020 updates

€1.9 billion in cash missing. "Oops".

Wirecard’s future in doubt after missing cash sparks investor flight. https://www.ft.com/content/149cd24c-7a0d-4ef0-a46c-fece79124322

Payments Giant Wirecard’s Shares Plunge on $2 Billion Audit Deception. https://www.wsj.com/articles/payments-giant-wirecards-shares-plunge-on-2-billion-audit-deception-11592474551 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonycat (talk • contribs) 23:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I have read a lot of books about org. crime and also experienced several events in my life where we really scratched our heads. But of course, proving something escapes most people because it is set up to make proof impossible. I would not be surprised if this company was set up with the purpose to 'hoover' up. You don't switch on the hoover until you know you get enough in. 2001:8003:A02F:F400:25AF:A995:4629:1652 (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Company now saying that upon closer examination, the, "prevailing likelihood," is that the missing €1.9 billion doesn't exist. https://ir.wirecard.com/websites/wirecard/English/5110/news-detail.html?newsID=1985593 NotJim99 (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Tide edit

Please remove Tide from the article as they’ve never been a client of Wirecard and worked instead with PrePay Solutions (as documented by TechCrunch and This is Money). -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

LIST OF PROPOSED CHANGES

Current text	Replace with
===Finance technology=== Many FinTech companies work with Wirecard, for instance, using their banking licence. Some well-known partnerships include: Curve, Funding Circle; start-up banks such as Atom and Tandem; money apps including Revolut, Monese and Pockit; spending management apps such as Loot, U Account and Soldo and business accounts like Tide.	===Finance technology=== Many FinTech companies work with Wirecard, for instance, using their banking licence. Some well-known partnerships include: Curve, Funding Circle; start-up banks such as Atom and Tandem; money apps including Revolut, Monese and Pockit; spending management apps such as Loot, U Account and Soldo.

References

@Bbarmadillo:  Done! GoingBatty (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thanks! --Bbarmadillo (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"Was"

Since they've filed for insolvency according to a company press release and The Wall Street Journal says Wirecard Files for Insolvency After Revealing Accounting Hole, they are as dead as dead can be. Everything should be in the past tense. "Bankruptcy" would allow the possibility of a resurrection. "Insolvency" does not. The only things left to do are sign the final papers, lock the doors and give the landlord (or the police) the keys. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

That's not very factual. Companies still exist after filing for insolvency. Some can even recover. --2A0A:A543:CE4B:0:76D4:35FF:FE03:2B7E (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

That's pure fantasy. Insolvency means that they can't pay their debts, even if they sold or cashed in all their assets. It's essentially the end of the road. Some people always claim, "it's just a technical insolvency" and they are always wrong for private companies. Since they they are in the business of making payments for other people and can't even make their own payments, they are certainly done. The numbers appear to be about 8 billion euros owed now, and 6 billion in assets - i.e. it's not even close. They've never even made a profit, why would anybody now step forward and say "here's a gift of 2 billion euros". It's over. End of story. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I stand corrected - the difference between assets and money owed (all of it due immediately) is 3.5 billion euros (almost $4 billion) according to Reuters "'The money's gone': Wirecard collapses owing $4 billion".

"Creditors have scant hope of getting back the 3.5 billion euros they are owed, sources familiar with the matter said. Of that total, Wirecard has borrowed 1.75 billion from 15 banks and issued 500 million in bonds.

“The money’s gone,” said one banker. “We may recoup a few euros in a couple of years but will write off the loan now.”

GRAPHIC: Wirecard goes bust in a week - here"

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(moved to keep above comment intact)

Wirecard still exists, hence the use of past tense is not backed by reality. They have filed for insolvency, not bankruptcy (see: [1]). By German law (Insolvenzrecht (Deutschland)), this means the company' directors or an administrator will try to preserve it and continue its operations. Whether they'll succeed in the long term remains to be seen, but that are just the facts, whereas your claims are contradicted by these facts. Also Wirecard is still part of the DAX-30 index (see: DAX). 2A02:2028:C1C5:FD00:25:A8BD:D007:1CD6 (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)HH

The de Wiki article mentioned above de:Insolvenzrecht (Deutschland) is a form of bankruptcy. In the US "insolvency" would simply mean that a statement came from management or the Board that would almost certainly lead to bankruptcy or liquidation. It shouldn't be a surprise to anybody that a company that just invented 1.9 billion of cash deposits from thin air (per management statement) whose former CEO was arrested for fraud is in bankruptcy with liquidation the major option. We need to say "was" - everything in the past tense - simply because the normal assumption of an ongoing business is now very, very doubtful. Whereas 2 weeks ago we could say that Wirecard offers payment services and have a reference for that, now we cannot with a straight face say that they offer payment services unless there is a new independent reference. It's just not credible anymore that anybody would use payment services from a bankrupt company. So we have three choices here:

• just remove all statements about what the company actually does other than those documented with sources independent of the company from the last 2 weeks.
• find new independent sources, or
• make everything past tense (other than text with new sources) - since our sources *were "correct"* (as then documented in reliable sources).

Anything else misleads our readers that Wirecard is an ongoing business. It isn't. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Obviously everyone can edit in Wikipedia, even if they don't have any knowledge in a particular topic and it is also not necessary to have an education in law or finance to contribute to this topic. But the thing is, it just adds additional work for others to explain it to you over again: Once a company ceases to exist we are going to change it to past tense, until then present tense is the only correct form. (Just some other examples: did you check the articles of two other recent cases, Hertz or Intelsat, do they use past or present tense?). It is actually a bit ridiculous to discuss that while I'm looking at the Frankfurt stock exchange page where Wirecard is still actively trading at this moment and the Wirecard employees are still sitting in their offices. Give it a week or a month and whenever the facts are out that the company is liquidated and closed we are going to change it to past tense. --Nepenthes (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• • @Nepenthes: You needn't be ashamed that your education and experience in these matter is not equal to mine, I'm certain in any case that your relevant educational qualifications are not superior to mine. I also have written quite a lot on Wikipedia on similar matters, see, e.g. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-02-06/Special report, or the very first edits on Bernard Madoff. Wirecard is "one of Europe’s biggest corporate frauds of recent years" according to The Financial Times. The scam is now as obvious as Madoff's was and recorded in official documents in the same way. In both cases the people in charge have said that they just invented billions of (dollars or euros). Don't pretend this hasn't happened. Let's not pretend that there is any chance of Wirecard being an ongoing business. To allow any of that in this article would be helping Wirecard or its partners to continue the fraud. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that Wirecard has absolutely no chance of recovery - but at this very second, they still exist as a company and should not be given as a "was". Their stock is technically still traded and the company has not been dissolved. A fraudulent, about-to-collapse company is still a company until it's dissolved. Juxlos (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's not a question of whether there is some technical legal existence of the company. Wirecard will likely exist (perhaps with a change of name) as the object of lawsuits for 5-10 years, but they will never operate again. It's not a question of whether it is still part of the DAX index - they will be removed before this discussion section is finished. But the issue is a question of whether the company is still doing anything - is the company operating in any way? The current first sentence says "Wirecard AG is a German payment processor and financial services provider[citation needed] that is listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange as part of its DAX index,..." I don't think it is currently a payment processor, and probably hasn't been for a week. Get a current reference if you want to say that. But you can't, can you? The current situation, with anons adding in "is" is helping perpetuate the fraud. @TonyBallioni: Let's please semi-protect this article to stop the nonsense. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, the technical existence of the company is the only question if it comes to present or past tense. If they can't do business anymore, they are a defunct company, but they are still a company. Maybe someone will buy the assets, probably not. You don't need the past tense to accurately convey the status of Wirecard. --2A0A:A543:CE4B:0:76D4:35FF:FE03:2B7E (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Smallbones -- please stop getting ahead of the actual events. Filing for insolvency is a process for companies to survive, for not going out of business. I'm sure you won't have any problem to find sources once Wirecard has stopped processing payments. --2A0A:A543:CE4B:0:76D4:35FF:FE03:2B7E (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile Wirecard intends to continue with it's business. https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN23Y0QQ --2A0A:A543:CE4B:0:76D4:35FF:FE03:2B7E (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

First sentence

Since the scandal no one is really interested in the location of the Wirecard building -- how about putting the insolvency in the first sentence?

Wirecard AG is a German payment processor and financial services provider that is at the centre of a financial scandal in Germany. --05:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the location is material and mentioned by RSes. Zezen (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Main article: Wirecard scandal

I base the new page by significantly expanding events mentioned in this page. However there may be still content missing on the scandal page that is present here. Efforts still needed to make both this and the scandal page more cohesive such that this page contains a summary and contains all contents that can be expanded on Wirecard scandal. --Egawaryuki21 (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

"Offered"

Somebody keeps reverting material like "Wirecard offered payment services" to "offers payment services". The news is full of stories now how people can't access their cash thru Wirecard. The British regulator on Friday afternoon (3.5 days ago) closed down the British subsidiary from moving cash. I believe this was the main cash moving operation. It should also be clear that the German bank can't do money transfers now, but I haven't seen that specifically spelled out now. Against this in support of the position that Wirecard currently offers payment services are a few very old references, some directly from Wirecard itself. Since the company has declared that they made up 1.9 Billion euros of cash, their default on payments and declaration of insolvency (effectively bankruptcy), their auditors failure to certify that the company is an on-going business, the old refs are simply meaningless about the current question of whether the company offers payment services. Get a current reference that says they are currently offering payment services, or leave in "offered". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

You missed an update of the CNN article.--Bob Smit (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"Defunct"

As of today, the company continues operations and its stock is being actively traded. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 07:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Correct, and a press release issued on 25 August 2020 by the court-appointed administrator, Dr. Michael Jaffé, says the same. I added a small section about this and also changed the attribute "defunct" in the very first sentence to "insolvent". HH 2A02:2028:C1C2:9500:9DD:1C27:6671:8C3B (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)