With No Explanation or Rights: Amazon Decides to Withhold Client Funds
On April 6, 2023, Amazon froze WallProfit’s accounts, cutting off the company’s access to its own funds and goods without explanation or legal basis, leaving us against a wall of Amazon’s corporate “instructions.” What does this mean? It suggests Amazon’s internal policies are being placed above the law, endangering the rights of companies like ours.
Amazon’s actions violate the fundamental right to property, as protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states: “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.” It’s no coincidence that this right takes precedence in the Convention, as the protection of property is essential to any lawful society.
Who Granted Amazon the Right to Place its Policies Above the Law?
Amazon has chosen to disregard these legal norms by holding WallProfit’s funds and goods for over a year and a half based solely on its own “internal policies.” This blatant disregard for the fundamental right to property creates a dangerous precedent, where corporate interests are elevated above international law.
In a lawful society, the protection of private property is inviolable. Believing that any corporation can confiscate assets by citing “internal policies” jeopardizes the very foundation of law. Yet Amazon acts as if its internal rules should override the law, as if they are a new “law” that everyone doing business with Amazon must follow.
How else can we explain why, after a year and a half of multiple legal requests, police reports, and even public protests at Amazon’s offices, the corporation still refuses to release our assets? Amazon remains indifferent to WallProfit’s legal right to property, continuing to place its internal “rules” above its lawful obligations.
Fighting for Justice: The Rule of Law Over Amazon’s “Rules”
WallProfit refuses to tolerate such corporate abuse. We have sought accountability through police actions in Luxembourg and Estonia, ultimately filing an official lawsuit with the Luxembourg Arbitration Court on October 18, 2024. This step represents not only the recovery of our assets but also the defense of principles that underpin every lawful society.
What Do We Expect from the Court?
First, the restoration of the rule of law above Amazon’s “rules.” We expect the court to confirm that the right to property cannot be overridden by arbitrary corporate decisions. Not only will this restore our access to our assets, but if necessary, it will compel Amazon to revise its rules to align with the law. Second, we hope this legal decision will set a precedent that protects other small businesses from corporate overreach.
In a world where one side is a massive corporation dictating terms and the other—a small business or independent seller—is essentially voiceless, questions of fairness arise. Amazon wants its policies treated as law. But what will happen when these “rules” start eroding trust, profiting from withheld assets, and leading to massive financial losses for thousands of clients?
WallProfit Will Not Back Down: Amazon Must Comply with the Law
WallProfit is determined to see this through to the end. This is not just about recovering our funds; it is about justice and the supremacy of the law. WallProfit demands not only compensation for all losses but a complete review of Amazon’s policies, which seem to prioritize corporate interests above the law. “We are committed to defending our right to property as an inalienable right. No corporation, however large, has the right to place its interests above this fundamental right,” says WallProfit’s leader.
Amazon seems to have forgotten that in a civilized society, the right to property is the foundation of both the economy and the rule of law. By ignoring this core principle, the corporation risks not only its reputation but also legal consequences, which will inevitably arise from such disregard for the law.
