Uh, yes? I mean, sure it's not totally unreasonable that it sets off a flag somewhere, but unless one of the parties involved in the transaction is also somehow tied to ISIS it's pretty absurd that the government actually took the money. I know it's not a good idea to overestimate the intelligence of an average human (let alone one who supports ISIS), but how many times has someone used Venmo to transfer money to ISIS and included the word "ISIS" in the memo? you thought you could just name-drop an identified terrorist group in your financial transactions and someone would not pay attention to it?
1) Venmo took the money, not the government. 2) Again, so : You're saying that we should just assume that, because it's patently ridiculous for the average American to actually mean "ISIS" when they type it into a memo identifying a transaction (and why is it patently ridiculous other than because it seems absurd/uncommon?), we should assume "ISIS" is never deliberately used to actually, you know, identify ISIS? That is like saying that every time someone labels a transaction "Door Purchase," we should assume it's not actually for a door purchase, because no one ever purchases doors, of course!how many times has someone used Venmo to transfer money to ISIS and included the word "ISIS" in the memo
1) Why is the author applying to the Treasury to get the money back then? 2) No, I'm saying it's reasonable to investigate such transactions, but not reasonable to take action without some additional evidence of actual malicious intent.