3 ms·

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 th

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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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.

tyingq 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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.