Credit card companies "assisting" fraudsters. Can I do anything more?

More directly the issue was about whether there was a victim. At least that's what PS asked. But if you didn't mean it that way, that's fair enough.

Their co-operation would be mandatory if the police were involved in investigating an offence.

I'm not sure they would pursue it with the same vigour.

I disagree. There are two aspects to fraud because it's both a civil and a criminal matter. Only the victim can pursue a civil claim for damages, but anyone who knows and has evidence that someone is a habitual fraudster has an interest in making sure there are no new victims.

But I agree about the being sure part. At least fairly sure. You don't need to be absolutely sure. After all, investigating is the police's job, not yours.

That's not a proper crime. And if you made it 40 instead of 31, well, let's just say it's a crime I'd condone.

Isn't copyright a civil matter?

That's lamentable. I can understand this course of action if the victim were an essential witness and had indicated a refusal to testify, but if the remaining evidence is good, it's disgraceful conduct on the side of the authorities (and the victim too of course).

Why? I was talking in general terms, without reference to specific cases.

What makes you think that?

Nor would the retailer, or the bank, etc.

What loss? If it's on a credit card then he's suffered no loss until and unless he pays the amount (or any interest on said amount). The disputed amount should be held in limbo and no interest should be charged on it and if he normally pays in full he should be able to pay in full minus the disputed amount and get treated as if he paid in full.

As does the bank. That's just as direct - it'll take them time and effort to sort out.

His point was they won't put a block on future transactions. Not that they won't refund the current ones.

He wrote "They tell me that the process is that they will go back to the fraudsters credit card company and query it. If no response or proof of purchase is provided then they will refund the amounts. But they will do nothing to prevent future fraudulent debits. "

Well I've reported bad transactions several times with different banks including cash machine problems, and have never had an attempt at a "fob off".

OK, but in this case there clearly isn't sufficient evidence. Who is the fraudster? It's unlikely to be the retailer as I wrote earlier, it's likely to be someone defrauding the retailer.

They'll want some evidence that a crime has actually been committed.

Oh I see, so it's only crimes that you consider "proper" which should be reported ;-)

Do you think more people get killed as a result of speeding or of fraudulent credit card transactions?

Is it? The term "copyright theft" is used regularly. I thought it was considered "stealing" intellectual property.

It wasn't a particularly bad assault (it looked far worse than it was as there was a lot of blood from a nose bleed but in the end the victim didn't even end up with a bruise).

In general terms, the police will want reasonable evidence that a criminal act has occurred. A line on a credit card statement and a statement from the cardholder that "I didn't authorise that" is a laughable level of evidence.

Well if it's crime then there should be cases of criminal charges being brought by cardholders.

There must be sufficient evidence, if you think it likely that at least

In any case the retailer is not the one being defrauded in the first instance, it's the OP.

The OP's impression was that it's the retailer defrauding him, though your suggestion that the retailer is an innocent instrument and thus potential secondary victim, is plausible.

Of course. After all, we were talking about them being reported by me.

People don't get killed as a result of speeding. People get killed as a result of being hit by fast moving cars. When there's no-one there to be hit, it doesn't matter how fast the car is going. :-)

You know what they say, most people hit at 30 survive, most people hit at 40 don't. So if you do 50 in a 40 zone, that's speeding too. If you didn't speed there, and went at 40 like a good boy, people getting hit would get killed too, despite no speeding being involved. Just goes to show how artificial a crime speeding is.

I know, but that's just publishers' spin.

Does that make it all right? So if you reckon it's OK for someone who assaults someone, drawing a lot of blood, not to be prosecuted because the victim doesn't want to bother, you presumably also agree that speeding is OK provided no-one gets badly hurt?

Yes but if you add that the bank is being obstructive about getting the money back, that would be a bit less laughable.

But what I asked was what makes you think I should be able to provide examples? If cardholders are reporting such cases, how should I get to know of it? I didn't claim to have knowledge of it actually happening, I just said it could happen.

It might be a debit card. Even if it's a credit card, he might have a standing arrangement to pay the full balance each month by direct debit. There might not be enough time inbetween the bill arriving and his noticing the dubious charge in time to notify the card company, them sending a paper form to be completed, him to return it, and thus for the amount to be put into "disputed" status before the DD goes through.

If he does notice and contacts the card company, he has immediately suffered the loss of free time needed to deal with this.

Grr. It's *NOT* direct. The fact that a party suffers a loss makes them a victim, but not necessarily a direct one. Directness is to do with flow of causation. If event A causes event B and this in turn causes event C, then B is a direct consequence of A, and C is an indirect consequence of A.

Not completely true. He did have a gripe about not blocking future transactions, but he *also* said they wouldn't refund.

He also wrote "It seems reasonable to me that if I alert the credit card company to what is a fraud that they would have a simple mechanism to check my story (they have found the Google links and agree it appears to be fraud) refund the amounts and stop further debits. But they tell me that this isn't possible."

Read his lips: ".. refund the amounts .. isn't possible".

The reason why I object (I'm the op) to the lack of action is that if the bank suspects fraud whilst you use the credit card whilst abroad - they immediately freeze your card. However in this situation they allow the "fraud" to repeat itself.

So what';s the difference?

In one case they are concerned that they will have to reimburse from their own "profits" if it is fraud but in the other either the customer pays or it's a chargeback. So one fraud hits their pocket - they are therefore concerned - the other doesn't affect them - so they don't bother.

That's my issue.

Slightly worst thatn that. The only reference to this organisation if you google them is that they defraud credit card holders. The credit card company themselves have "no contact information" about them. No address or anything. The "company "(I'm 99% sure) is set up simply to direct debit credit cards until they are noticed.

I gave clear details in my OP. Believe me - it is a fraud.

There is still somewhere there. The driver. Hitting a solid object at high speed often kills occupants of cars. Apart from on motorways people can appear unexpectedly. If you are travelling at high speed you have less time to react (and so do they).

Rubbish. Going too fast for the road conditions is more dangerous.

"Isn't" is not the same as "couldn't be".

Why isn't there one ? Anyone know ?

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Yes, I've seen that more recently. But do you remember them saying a few years ago that: " ... most people hit at 40 don't survive, around half of people hit at 30 survive, most people hit at 20 survive..." ?

When did it change & why?

I'm sure you remember that advert in which a test dummy crashes a car into a wall, whereupon the wife immediately nags: "Why don't you watch where you're going?", and he shrugs and says "It just came out of nowhere.".

Well, in real life walls and trees and other solid objects *don't* just come out of nowhere, you can always see them coming, and the only way you're going to hit them (other than deliberately) is if you lose control of the car. Provided your speed is such that in the conditions prevailing at the time it isn't going to make loss of control likely, there is no reason not to treat the speed limit with the pinch of salt it deserves.

Indeed, but that means you should use your judgement to determine not just your speed but what things to concentrate on. If there is a parked lorry or stopped bus ahead, you should be prepared for someone to come running out from behind it. And when there are no such objects, there is no reason, apart from the law, to curb your speed when it's safe not to.

More than what? I think that statement would sound better without the word "more". I completely agree that if road conditions are poor you should drive more carefully and probably more slowly than when conditions are fine. But I pointed out that if you drive at 40 in a 40 zone, i.e. are not speeding, and assuming conditions are good, then someone could still appear out of nowhere and if hit would likely die

That's why almost everyone treats the limit only as a rough guide, even the police, who ought to be setting a good example to the rest of us. Not many people generally cruise slower than 35 on a main road in a 30 zone, and moreover this is officially tolerated by the ACPO guidelines, which is a great pity because it mocks the law. It would be far better to make the limit 35 and enforce it strictly than to make the limit 30 and allow a 5mph tolerance band.

Statistics show that collisions are more likely the faster you travel. Speed limits are there for a reason and that's not just safety. Drivers going too fast is also a problem for other motorists as cars are travelling quicker than expected.

See above.

More dangerous that not going too fast.

Driving is dangerous in the sense that it is not without risk. Driving faster increases this risk. However most of the risk is not for the driver but for the more vulnarable such as motorbike riders, pedestrians and cyclists.

I wouldn't like to gamble about whether or not someone would die if hit at any particular speed.

People exceed the speed limit because they are impatient and selfish and don't expect to get caught (or don't mind being caught).

I can't explain or defend why procecution only occurs at a speed higher than the limit. Just because a lot of people regularly break the limit does not make it acceptable. Cars have speedometers so there's little excuse for exceeding the limit.

Read the thread title.

Then the CC company have broken the terms of the DD guarantee which require

What about his time posting on usenet?

Erm, yes.

Event A appears to be some fraudster conning some company into parting with goods/services with credit card details which weren't theirs.

Event B is the credit card transaction details being passed to the OPs bank.

Event C is the OP getting a false charge on his credit card statement.

So event C is an indirect consequence of the fraud (event A).

So they're just sending him some forms to fill in for fun?

Read the words and use your logic (which I'm sure you use to have :-).

If (X AND Y) is false, then Y alone can be false to make (X AND Y) false.

So if "refund the amounts" is possible but "stop further debits" isn't, then "refund the amounts and stop further debits" is not possible.

But you don't have a clue as who the fraudster is. If you really think a company can set up merchant facilities and go round making only fraudulent transactions then you really haven't got a clue. A few other people suffering fraud via the same company proves nothing, it probably just indicates they use CNP transactions and are prepared to take the risk of the occasional fraud.

Two main reasons. Firstly, because a lot of the way credit cards work behind the scenes is still based on procedures written when they were first introduced. And changing it isn't as simple as it sounds, as interoperability and consistency are generally considered more important than innovation. And, secondly, because where innovation does take place, it's more likely to be in areas that reduce card operator costs and liabilities rather than increasing customer functionality.

Mark

As if that makes any difference whatsoever, ffs.

That's just a contrived insult - the OP hasn't claimed anywhere to know the method or instrument used.

And you say the OP hasn't a clue...

What absolute twaddle, as if.

The OP raised a matter of valid concern for people who are responsible with their money and you've got nothing better to do than flame him.

You can go in my killfile now and I suggest the OP does the same.

This is one of the major problems with (credit) cards; the cardholder has no control over this. A credit card 'direct debit' is a complete fallacy - it simply does not exist.

Once a continuing authority has been established, it is only the organisation with whom the arrangement has been made who can cancel - not the cardholder; any amount can be deducted at any time. This is unless the cardholder can show that the other party has, for instance, reneged on the agreement, eg. has not supplied the service.

You have to be in a position to trust the organisation and that their accounting is accurate. There are some organisations that I do not even allow (even with the guarantee) direct debit access to my bank account.

A credit card continuing authority (incorrectly and misleadingly referred to as a direct debit) is something to be avoided.

Iain