4 ms·

Just checking you know that many banks would take the same stance.

by DanBC 6y ago

toomuchtodo 6y ago
American Express has never denied a chargeback I've initiated. When you say "many banks", of course don't bank with someone who is going to screw you, like Paypal or Wells Fargo (and Bank of America or JP Morgan Chase, to a lesser extent). This should be common (US centric) knowledge by now.
- tluyben2 6y ago
  Amex doesn't but visa/master/etc depend on the issuing bank and they can (and do) refuse. More in other countries vs USA as far as I understand.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    Agreed, but if your time has value, (if you can) structure your financial transactions in a way and with service providers that derisks you having to spend hours chasing down your own money when you shouldn't have to (or going through the motions and being told you're SOL). And never use Paypal!
klmadfejno 6y ago
On some services. You would almost certainly be able to recoup the money if it was paid for via credit card.
starfox64_ 6y ago
I doubt many banks would refuse a charge-back considering this transaction obviously didn't use 3DSecure since it went through PayPal. You'd probably get your PayPal account shutdown if it went through though.
- DanBC 6y ago
  If the money left your account because you did a thing, even if you did the thing because you were defrauded, a bunch of banks are going to decline to repay you. Here's news about a new protection scheme in the UK. But this is new (only came in last year), and it doesn't cover all banks. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48385426 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48385426 > New protection for individuals tricked into transferring money to fraudsters has now taken effect - but not all banks are signed up to the scheme. > Some 84,000 bank customers lost money - sometimes tens of thousands of pounds - last year after being caught out. > Only a fraction of the amount lost was refunded by banks. Now a new code should mean more will be reimbursed. > The refund will come from a central pot in cases when neither the bank nor the customer are to blame. See especially this bit: > Some of the more elaborate frauds see the con-artists using social media and other avenues such as data breaches to gather information about their victim, making it more likely that potential victims believe they are genuine. > In all these cases, the individual authorises the payment. Banks have often refused to refund these frauds as a result.

Just checking you know that many banks would take the same stance.

by DanBC 6y ago

Just checking you know that many banks would take the same stance.

American Express has never denied a chargeback I've initiated. When you say "many banks", of course don't bank with someone who is going to screw you, like Paypal or Wells Fargo (and Bank of America or JP Morgan Chase, to a lesser extent). This should be common (US centric) knowledge by now.

tluyben2 6y ago
Amex doesn't but visa/master/etc depend on the issuing bank and they can (and do) refuse. More in other countries vs USA as far as I understand.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Agreed, but if your time has value, (if you can) structure your financial transactions in a way and with service providers that derisks you having to spend hours chasing down your own money when you shouldn't have to (or going through the motions and being told you're SOL). And never use Paypal!

klmadfejno 6y ago

On some services. You would almost certainly be able to recoup the money if it was paid for via credit card.

starfox64_ 6y ago

I doubt many banks would refuse a charge-back considering this transaction obviously didn't use 3DSecure since it went through PayPal. You'd probably get your PayPal account shutdown if it went through though.

DanBC 6y ago
If the money left your account because you did a thing, even if you did the thing because you were defrauded, a bunch of banks are going to decline to repay you. Here's news about a new protection scheme in the UK. But this is new (only came in last year), and it doesn't cover all banks. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48385426 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48385426 > New protection for individuals tricked into transferring money to fraudsters has now taken effect - but not all banks are signed up to the scheme. > Some 84,000 bank customers lost money - sometimes tens of thousands of pounds - last year after being caught out. > Only a fraction of the amount lost was refunded by banks. Now a new code should mean more will be reimbursed. > The refund will come from a central pot in cases when neither the bank nor the customer are to blame. See especially this bit: > Some of the more elaborate frauds see the con-artists using social media and other avenues such as data breaches to gather information about their victim, making it more likely that potential victims believe they are genuine. > In all these cases, the individual authorises the payment. Banks have often refused to refund these frauds as a result.