4 ms·

This guy is a scumbag and a criminal but he defrauded banks and card networks, and those banks and networks attempted to pass that liability onto their customer

This guy is a scumbag and a criminal but he defrauded banks and card networks, and those banks and networks attempted to pass that liability onto their customers. It's an important distinction.

tptacek 10y ago
In what sense? The law does not much care how poorly the banks and card networks secured or underwrote their services; it cares mostly about the person who had the intent to defraud and harm people, and then carried that intent to fruition.
- johansch 10y ago
  I guess the argument is that if they should get the profit margin, they should also own the losses. I think I agree. (Doesn't change a thing about this guy's criminal responsibility, of course.)
tyingq 10y ago
Online credit card fraud is paid for by merchant sellers...not banks or credit card companies. The banks and CC companies make money from the fraud, assuming the charge back fees they levy exceed their internal costs. At least in the US.
- ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
  This isn't chargeback-type fraud though, also not limited to card-not-present scenarios (the crooks actually print physical "copies" with stolen card info on the magstripe). If someone buys goods/services with a stolen CC and money between the issuing and acquiring banks exchanges hands, unless there's something very specific there that can shift liability towards the merchant - it's not that easy for the banks to demand the funds from the merchant.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    It is for online purchases. The charge back isn't fraud. It is the end user whose card was stolen reporting the purchase made by the fraudster. The bank then takes the money back from the merchant vendor, throws on a chargeback fee, and done... The only time the bank or cc is left holding the bag is card present. I'm not guessing either. This is how it works for card not present... vendor merchant bears all the cost.
    - ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
      The "I don't recognize this transaction" and "the goods were not delivered as promised" chargebacks trigger different resolution flows and if the merchant can prove they are following the procedure they agreed to when signing up with the payment processor (especially when requesting a CVV to be provided by the end user and signing up for some sort of fraud detection service) they have a decent chance of fighting against the chargeback.
      - tyingq 10y ago
        Sorry that's just not how it works for card not present (all online purchases). Once the buyer files a chargeback indicating the purchase was fraudulent, there's no practical chance of escaping it.[1] The merchant ends up holding the bag (whatever was shipped lost, whatever was paid lost + chargeback fee), and the bank loses nothing...they, in fact, gain a chargeback fee. [1]Maybe some tiny chance, in the sole case that the card wasn't actually stolen, and that the buyer was trying to trick everyone. That doesn't happen much, and you would still need compelling evidence. The entity that decides is the end customer's card issuer. They don't care about merchants. They care about customers.
086421357909764 10y ago
It's also been attributed that businesses had to close due to his actions. I believe one group of restaurants in Seattle in particular attributed his attack as the reason they had to close. It's not a crime that only affects banks. The impact hits everyone with further stresses and issues regardless of whom pays back in the long term.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

This guy is a scumbag and a criminal but he defrauded banks and card networks, and those banks and networks attempted to pass that liability onto their customers. It's an important distinction.

tptacek 10y ago

In what sense? The law does not much care how poorly the banks and card networks secured or underwrote their services; it cares mostly about the person who had the intent to defraud and harm people, and then carried that intent to fruition.

johansch 10y ago
I guess the argument is that if they should get the profit margin, they should also own the losses. I think I agree. (Doesn't change a thing about this guy's criminal responsibility, of course.)

tyingq 10y ago

Online credit card fraud is paid for by merchant sellers...not banks or credit card companies. The banks and CC companies make money from the fraud, assuming the charge back fees they levy exceed their internal costs. At least in the US.

ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
This isn't chargeback-type fraud though, also not limited to card-not-present scenarios (the crooks actually print physical "copies" with stolen card info on the magstripe). If someone buys goods/services with a stolen CC and money between the issuing and acquiring banks exchanges hands, unless there's something very specific there that can shift liability towards the merchant - it's not that easy for the banks to demand the funds from the merchant.
- tyingq 10y ago
  It is for online purchases. The charge back isn't fraud. It is the end user whose card was stolen reporting the purchase made by the fraudster. The bank then takes the money back from the merchant vendor, throws on a chargeback fee, and done... The only time the bank or cc is left holding the bag is card present. I'm not guessing either. This is how it works for card not present... vendor merchant bears all the cost.
  - ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
    The "I don't recognize this transaction" and "the goods were not delivered as promised" chargebacks trigger different resolution flows and if the merchant can prove they are following the procedure they agreed to when signing up with the payment processor (especially when requesting a CVV to be provided by the end user and signing up for some sort of fraud detection service) they have a decent chance of fighting against the chargeback.
    - tyingq 10y ago
      Sorry that's just not how it works for card not present (all online purchases). Once the buyer files a chargeback indicating the purchase was fraudulent, there's no practical chance of escaping it.[1] The merchant ends up holding the bag (whatever was shipped lost, whatever was paid lost + chargeback fee), and the bank loses nothing...they, in fact, gain a chargeback fee. [1]Maybe some tiny chance, in the sole case that the card wasn't actually stolen, and that the buyer was trying to trick everyone. That doesn't happen much, and you would still need compelling evidence. The entity that decides is the end customer's card issuer. They don't care about merchants. They care about customers.

086421357909764 10y ago

It's also been attributed that businesses had to close due to his actions. I believe one group of restaurants in Seattle in particular attributed his attack as the reason they had to close. It's not a crime that only affects banks. The impact hits everyone with further stresses and issues regardless of whom pays back in the long term.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]