What

Currently, suspending an account for tos violation suspends user accounts with same PayPal payout address for fraud

Expected Behaviour

Suspending accounts for TOS violation should not change risk state for related accounts (Accounts with same Paypal address)

Original Test Case:

Passes because suspension happens inside a sidekiq job, and the spec runs in fake mode

      it "does not suspend all the others sellers accounts if suspended for tos violation" do
        @user.flag_for_tos_violation(author_id: @admin_user.id, product_id: @product_1.id)
        @user.suspend_for_tos_violation(author_id: @admin_user.id)
        expect(@user_2.reload.suspended?).to be(false)
      end

Failing Test Case:

With sidekiq_inline, the spec enqueues suspension job suspending related account for fraud and resulting in a failure

Additional scope

Ref - #2830 (comment)

If someone was suspended for a TOS violation and then creates or updates another account with the same payment address, should we flag that account for fraud?

We should probate the account and leave a note in Admin that they were probated for having the same payout address as a previously suspended account, along with the UID of that suspended account. This will tell our support/risk staff to look into the account further.

Ref - #2831 (review)

Let's probate related accounts on transition to suspended_for_tos_violation as well to make it consistent.