Andy Pandy wrote:

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
om...
Andy Pandy wrote:

It's pointless reporting it to the police as for a start the OP
can't
be sure it *is* fraud (it could simply be a mistake),

OK, that's possible. But if so, it should be straightforward to
sort out.

Not necessarily. Depends on where the mistake was made.

Can you expand on this?

and secondly if
it is fraud, it's the retailer or the bank that's the victim so
it's
up to them to report it.

This is not necessarily true. If the bank are being so obtuse and
unhelpful as to make the OP suggest they are actually "assisting"
the
fraudster, then if the cardholder cannot get the charges reversed,
*he* is the victim.

Yes, but until that happens, ie until the bank says "it was a genuine
transaction, the charge stands", the OP is not a victim of fraud.

Wrong. If there is fraud, then the customer is a victim of it from
the outset. It may be that as a result of taking some action (i.e.
disputing the transaction) perhaps followed by some further action
(resisting attempts to be fobbed off), the customer manages to get
the charges reversed, but that just makes him less of a victim, not
no victim. He's still had the hassle. Some people can get really
stressed by this, so much so that it can harm their health and in
extreme cases trigger a fatal heart attack. He might get the charge
refunded in the end, but it'd be a bit of a pyrrhic victory if it
costs him his life.

Also, the matter of fact (of whether the transaction was genuine) is
not for the bank to judge. It is not impossible to imagine the bank
somehow becoming convinced (by the frauster's smoke and mirror tactics)
to declare the transaction genuine when in fact it wasn't.

Moreover, it's not just the fraudster who
would benefit, but the bank and card company too, from the
transaction
fees involved. Thus if there is fraud, and the bank and card
company
are facilitating it by being less than enthusiastically helpful to
the cardholder, they would automatically become accomplices.

If the bank refuse to refund the charges despite knowing that the
transaction wasn't genuine, then the bank themselves are the
fraudsters!

That's more or less what I said, but I'd put it stronger than you:

There is a big difference between "knowing that it wasn't" and
"not knowing that it was", but nevertheless I suggest the bank, if
they refuse to refund, should be considered complicit not only in the
former case (as you said) but in the latter as well!