Andy Pandy wrote:

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Andy Pandy wrote:
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Andy Pandy wrote:

No it's not, it's indirect. Just like, say, if I owe you £100 but I
can't pay you cos someone's nicked my money. I'm the direct victim,
you're the indirect victim.

Agreed, but I wasn't talking about some other person, I'm talking
about the same person.

It's not the same person. In all likelyhood the retailer has been been
defrauded by someone using someone else's card details.

In that case the direct victim is still the cardholder, because he's the
one lumbered with either the loss of money (if he fails to notice
[actually
this is a bit like the tree falling in the forest where there is no-one
to
hear it - does it make a noise? If you don't notice you've lost money,
are
you a victim? :-) but I digress] or if, having noticed, he decides
against
taking any action because he can't face the hassle for such a small
amount)

Yes, but then as well as being a victim of fraud (or of a mistake) he's
also a victim of his own carelessness or apathy.

Irrelevant. The root cause was the fraudster or the committer of the
mistake. But for his account being incorrectly debited in the first
place, he wouldn't be a victim at all.

or with the hassle involved in getting it back (which as you variously
say can be hard to sort out or could take just one phone call).

If he then does manage to get the loss transferred to the retailer, then
the retailer is the indirect victim.

Erm, no, the retailer (I suspect) loses the money and therefore clearly is
the direct victim. There might be circumstances where it's the bank which
loses the money.

You clearly don't use the same definition of direct as I do. I probably
should never have mentioned directness (in fact I'm not sure I was first
to do so) since it really matterns not a jot whether any victim is direct
or indirect, what matters is that there is a victim, or more than one.

To my mind the direct victim is not the one who suffers the ultimate
loss, but the one who suffers the first loss. That is the cardholder.
He may, through some action, offload the loss of money to retailer/bank,
but that offloading is a redirection, an indirection, and that makes the
retailer/bank indirect victims. Even if he thus manages to avert loss
of money, he remains a victim in terms of loss of time and bliss, and
that is clearly direct too.

Remember that the retailer's victim
status is conditional on the cardholder taking action, whereas the
cardholder's victim status is unconditional.

The one who suffers the loss of money is clearly the direct victim of the
fraud.

Not clear. Depends on definition of direct. See above.

Does it happen often?

I shouldn't think defamation of customers by their banks happens often.
But in a way, any attempt by them to fob you off can, if successful,
leave you the victim of fraud. That makes the accomplices after the
fact. I understand it happens very often.

That banks attempt to fob you off when you report an unauthorised
transaction? In that case I'd agree with you - but that's not what
happened in the OPs case

I thought it was, why else would he (see subject line) accuse them
of assisting fraudsters?

and I very much doubt it's commonplace. Do you
have any evidence that this happens "very often"?

Luckily I've so far escaped being a victim of such a mistake never mind
such fraud. So obviously I have no evidence, but I thought it was generally
accepted that departments which handle such complaints did in fact usually
first try to fob you off. I'm sure somebody mentioned it on this very
thread.

Andy Pandy wrote:

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Andy Pandy wrote:
"Peter Saxton" wrote
Tell you what, go to the police and ask for a crime number. See what
they say.

They'll go to their trusty manual "How to reduce the crime statistics
and do as little work as possible" and then say that no crime has
been committed and it's a civil matter.

Go to the police complaints committee (or whatever they're called). Or
your MP. Let them laugh at you.

Can you explain what the purpose of that stupid comment was? Is it
related to your protestations that when somebody has money taken from
their account unauthorised they are not a victim?

There's a incorrect charge on the account. That's all you know.

Wrong. You also know there has been a victim: You.

You know
nothing else, not why, not that it even was a fraud (rather than a
mistake), and no evidence as to where the problem occurred.

Even if there was no crime, there was a victim.
You can be the victim of a mistake too, you know.

The issue was about reporting it to the police. Do you go to the police
and says "I've been a victim of a mistake"??

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.

and even that would be pretty pointless
because the first port of call should be the financial ombudsman and if
they rule against you it's unlikely the police would consider there is
any evidence to pursue a criminal charge.

Going to the FOS or the courts to pursue a civil claim is one thing, it
may
get you your money back, and compensation on top. But if there is reason
to suspect a crime has been committed, you should *also* involve the
police, and as soon as possible.

Which is pointless without the co-operation of the bank/retailer/VISA etc.

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

You may as well leave it to them.

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

Andy Pandy wrote:

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Andy Pandy wrote:
"Jonathan Bryce" wrote
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), 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.

If that were the case, nobody could ever report a murder to the police.

This isn't a murder. The retailer and bank are still "alive".

JB did not suggest a murder had been committed. He illustrated the
absurdity of what you said by pointing out that if it were the case
[that the victim of a crime is the only person permitted to report
a crime to the police] then nobody could report murders.

I didn't say it was only up to the victim to report *any* crime. I
specifically mentioned fraud. There might be circumstances even in fraud
cases where someone who's not the victim reports it - but in general it
wouldn't be someone who can't even be sure there has even been a fraud.

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.

In general
where the victim survives it is up to the victim (or someone on behalf
of the victim) to report the crime,

That's utter tosh. Where a crime has been committed, *ANYONE* can *AND
SHOULD* report it, since it is obviously in everyone's interests that
crime should be fought.

So if someone gives you a lift and they drive at 31 in a 30 zone, I hope
you'll report that crime immediately.

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.

Or if someone at works photocopies a copyrighted map.

Isn't copyright a civil matter?

and if the victim wants to drop charges
that's up to them (I know there are some exceptions).

In general it is not up to the victim to decide whether charges should
or should not be dropped.

But in reality the authorities will be reluctant to press charges if the
victim doesn't want them to. I (along with several other people) witnessed
someone getting assualted and the police were called, but the charges were
dropped because the victim didn't want charges pressed, despite the
evidence being very good (lots of witnesses).

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).

Nowhere does it say that only the victim can report an offence to the
police.

But the police would want evidence that it is a fraud.

OK, they'll want evidence that it was a crime. It doesn't have to be
fraud. It could be plain old theft. It could be criminal negligence
on the part of the bank to fail to assist the victim properly.

So can you give me some examples of such criminal charges being pursued
having been instigated by the customer, rather than the bank, retailer or
financial authorities?

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

The customer will
not be able to provide that evidence. The bank and/or the retailer are
in a far better position to be able to provide that evidence.

That's as may be. However, where an unauthorised charge has been made
and,
despite efforts to have what could have been a mistake corrected, nothing
happens, that's pretty good prima facie evidence of a crime.

So you'll be able to provide examples of such criminal charges being
brought then.

What makes you think that?

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

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Andy Pandy wrote:
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Andy Pandy wrote:

No it's not, it's indirect. Just like, say, if I owe you £100 but I
can't pay you cos someone's nicked my money. I'm the direct victim,
you're the indirect victim.

Agreed, but I wasn't talking about some other person, I'm talking
about the same person.

It's not the same person. In all likelyhood the retailer has been been
defrauded by someone using someone else's card details.

In that case the direct victim is still the cardholder, because he's the
one lumbered with either the loss of money (if he fails to notice
[actually
this is a bit like the tree falling in the forest where there is no-one
to
hear it - does it make a noise? If you don't notice you've lost money,
are
you a victim? :-) but I digress] or if, having noticed, he decides
against
taking any action because he can't face the hassle for such a small
amount)

Yes, but then as well as being a victim of fraud (or of a mistake) he's
also a victim of his own carelessness or apathy.

Irrelevant. The root cause was the fraudster or the committer of the
mistake. But for his account being incorrectly debited in the first
place, he wouldn't be a victim at all.

Nor would the retailer, or the bank, etc.

or with the hassle involved in getting it back (which as you variously
say can be hard to sort out or could take just one phone call).

If he then does manage to get the loss transferred to the retailer, then
the retailer is the indirect victim.

Erm, no, the retailer (I suspect) loses the money and therefore clearly
is
the direct victim. There might be circumstances where it's the bank which
loses the money.

You clearly don't use the same definition of direct as I do. I probably
should never have mentioned directness (in fact I'm not sure I was first
to do so) since it really matterns not a jot whether any victim is direct
or indirect, what matters is that there is a victim, or more than one.

To my mind the direct victim is not the one who suffers the ultimate
loss, but the one who suffers the first loss.

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.

That is the cardholder.
He may, through some action, offload the loss of money to retailer/bank,
but that offloading is a redirection, an indirection, and that makes the
retailer/bank indirect victims. Even if he thus manages to avert loss
of money, he remains a victim in terms of loss of time and bliss, and
that is clearly direct too.

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

Remember that the retailer's victim
status is conditional on the cardholder taking action, whereas the
cardholder's victim status is unconditional.

The one who suffers the loss of money is clearly the direct victim of the
fraud.

Not clear. Depends on definition of direct. See above.

Does it happen often?

I shouldn't think defamation of customers by their banks happens often.
But in a way, any attempt by them to fob you off can, if successful,
leave you the victim of fraud. That makes the accomplices after the
fact. I understand it happens very often.

That banks attempt to fob you off when you report an unauthorised
transaction? In that case I'd agree with you - but that's not what
happened in the OPs case

I thought it was, why else would he (see subject line) accuse them
of assisting fraudsters?

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. "

and I very much doubt it's commonplace. Do you
have any evidence that this happens "very often"?

Luckily I've so far escaped being a victim of such a mistake never mind
such fraud. So obviously I have no evidence, but I thought it was
generally
accepted that departments which handle such complaints did in fact usually
first try to fob you off. I'm sure somebody mentioned it on this very
thread.

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".

--
Andy

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

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Andy Pandy wrote:
"Jonathan Bryce" wrote
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), 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.

If that were the case, nobody could ever report a murder to the
police.

This isn't a murder. The retailer and bank are still "alive".

JB did not suggest a murder had been committed. He illustrated the
absurdity of what you said by pointing out that if it were the case
[that the victim of a crime is the only person permitted to report
a crime to the police] then nobody could report murders.

I didn't say it was only up to the victim to report *any* crime. I
specifically mentioned fraud. There might be circumstances even in fraud
cases where someone who's not the victim reports it - but in general it
wouldn't be someone who can't even be sure there has even been a fraud.

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.

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.

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.

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

In general
where the victim survives it is up to the victim (or someone on behalf
of the victim) to report the crime,

That's utter tosh. Where a crime has been committed, *ANYONE* can *AND
SHOULD* report it, since it is obviously in everyone's interests that
crime should be fought.

So if someone gives you a lift and they drive at 31 in a 30 zone, I hope
you'll report that crime immediately.

That's not a proper crime.

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

And if you made it 40 instead of 31, well,
let's just say it's a crime I'd condone.

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

Or if someone at works photocopies a copyrighted map.

Isn't copyright a civil matter?

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

and if the victim wants to drop charges
that's up to them (I know there are some exceptions).

In general it is not up to the victim to decide whether charges should
or should not be dropped.

But in reality the authorities will be reluctant to press charges if the
victim doesn't want them to. I (along with several other people)
witnessed
someone getting assualted and the police were called, but the charges
were
dropped because the victim didn't want charges pressed, despite the
evidence being very good (lots of witnesses).

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).

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).

Nowhere does it say that only the victim can report an offence to the
police.

But the police would want evidence that it is a fraud.

OK, they'll want evidence that it was a crime. It doesn't have to be
fraud. It could be plain old theft. It could be criminal negligence
on the part of the bank to fail to assist the victim properly.

So can you give me some examples of such criminal charges being pursued
having been instigated by the customer, rather than the bank, retailer or
financial authorities?

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

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.

The customer will
not be able to provide that evidence. The bank and/or the retailer are
in a far better position to be able to provide that evidence.

That's as may be. However, where an unauthorised charge has been made
and,
despite efforts to have what could have been a mistake corrected,
nothing
happens, that's pretty good prima facie evidence of a crime.

So you'll be able to provide examples of such criminal charges being
brought then.

What makes you think that?

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

--
Andy

Andy Pandy wrote:

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Andy Pandy wrote:

I didn't say it was only up to the victim to report *any* crime. I
specifically mentioned fraud. There might be circumstances even in fraud
cases where someone who's not the victim reports it - but in general it
wouldn't be someone who can't even be sure there has even been a fraud.

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.

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.

There must be sufficient evidence, if you think it likely that at least
*someone* is defrauding *someone*. Who and whom comes later.

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.

So if someone gives you a lift and they drive at 31 in a 30 zone, I hope
you'll report that crime immediately.

That's not a proper crime.

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

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

And if you made it 40 instead of 31, well,
let's just say it's a crime I'd condone.

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

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.

Or if someone at works photocopies a copyrighted map.

Isn't copyright a civil matter?

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

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

I (along with several other people) witnessed
someone getting assualted and the police were called, but the charges
were
dropped because the victim didn't want charges pressed, despite the
evidence being very good (lots of witnesses).

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).

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).

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?

So can you give me some examples of such criminal charges being pursued
having been instigated by the customer, rather than the bank, retailer
or financial authorities?

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

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.

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

That's as may be. However, where an unauthorised charge has been made
and,
despite efforts to have what could have been a mistake corrected,
nothing
happens, that's pretty good prima facie evidence of a crime.

So you'll be able to provide examples of such criminal charges being
brought then.

What makes you think that?

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

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.

Andy Pandy wrote:

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Andy Pandy wrote:

Erm, no, the retailer (I suspect) loses the money and therefore clearly
is the direct victim. There might be circumstances where it's the bank
which loses the money.

You clearly don't use the same definition of direct as I do. I probably
should never have mentioned directness (in fact I'm not sure I was first
to do so) since it really matterns not a jot whether any victim is direct
or indirect, what matters is that there is a victim, or more than one.

To my mind the direct victim is not the one who suffers the ultimate
loss, but the one who suffers the first loss.

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).

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.

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.

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

That is the cardholder.
He may, through some action, offload the loss of money to retailer/bank,
but that offloading is a redirection, an indirection, and that makes the
retailer/bank indirect victims. Even if he thus manages to avert loss
of money, he remains a victim in terms of loss of time and bliss, and
that is clearly direct too.

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

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.

That banks attempt to fob you off when you report an unauthorised
transaction? In that case I'd agree with you - but that's not what
happened in the OPs case

I thought it was, why else would he (see subject line) accuse them
of assisting fraudsters?

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

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

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. "

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.

"Graham Murray" wrote in message
...
"Andy Pandy" writes:

There's a incorrect charge on the account. That's all you know. You know
nothing else, not why, not that it even was a fraud (rather than a
mistake),
and no evidence as to where the problem occurred. The correct procedure
is
to report it to the bank, let them investigate,

Yet in the case under discussion, it was not just a single charge. An
incorrect (apparently periodic) charge was made, the bank notified and
the charge reversed but then the same incorrect charge was accepted for
the following periods despite the bank a) being informed that the charge
was incorrect and that the entity making the charge does not have the
account holder's authority to make it and b) instructed to decline any
further attempts to apply that charge. Surely, at the very least this is
negligence on the part of the bank and at worse (if the charge is
actually fraudulent) making the bank an accessory to the fraud.

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.


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

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Andy Pandy wrote:

I didn't say it was only up to the victim to report *any* crime. I
specifically mentioned fraud. There might be circumstances even in
fraud
cases where someone who's not the victim reports it - but in general it
wouldn't be someone who can't even be sure there has even been a fraud.

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.

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.

There must be sufficient evidence, if you think it likely that at least
*someone* is defrauding *someone*. Who and whom comes later.

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.

So if someone gives you a lift and they drive at 31 in a 30 zone, I
hope
you'll report that crime immediately.

That's not a proper crime.

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

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

And if you made it 40 instead of 31, well,
let's just say it's a crime I'd condone.

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

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.

Or if someone at works photocopies a copyrighted map.

Isn't copyright a civil matter?

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

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

I (along with several other people) witnessed
someone getting assualted and the police were called, but the charges
were
dropped because the victim didn't want charges pressed, despite the
evidence being very good (lots of witnesses).

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).

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).

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?

So can you give me some examples of such criminal charges being pursued
having been instigated by the customer, rather than the bank, retailer
or financial authorities?

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

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.

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

That's as may be. However, where an unauthorised charge has been made
and,
despite efforts to have what could have been a mistake corrected,
nothing
happens, that's pretty good prima facie evidence of a crime.

So you'll be able to provide examples of such criminal charges being
brought then.

What makes you think that?

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

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.

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


"Andy Pandy" wrote in message
...

"Dan Charette" wrote in message
...
As the OP, I just want to further clarify. Firstly thanks for the
interest in the issue.

1. I fully understand that the majority of chargeback queries probably
result in the requestor subsequently recognising that it is a forgotten
transaction. This isn't the case here. It is a company that secures
credit
card details and places a regular charge on the account until the account
holder notices it and invokes the chargeback process. Probably it makes
it's
money on the people that fail to notice.

Do you have proof of this? If any company actually did this regularly
they'd have their merchant facilities stopped (for the cynics it'd cost
the banks far more to deal with chargebacks etc than they make out of
transaction fees for those who don't notice incorrect debits). The
likelyhood is that the company accepts cardholder-not-present transactions
and is willing to take the risk that the occasional few will be made
fraudulently. Unless the vast majority were kosher they'd soon have their
card facilities terminated.

2. The chargeback process itself is not completely customer-centric. I
cannot simply report the fraud online or over the telephone and then
leave
them to get on it with it. They insist on a written form be completed
for
each transaction separately. They insist that unless they receive the
form
back within 14 days of them sending it then they will "assume I do not
wish
to proceed" and drop the chargeback process which must be then started
again. The post has been bad, it's taken 10 days for the forms to arrive
with 4 left for them to receive them. I suspect I must start again going
through the telephone process to get the forms. Trivial I know, but the
customer must even pay for the return postage.

Way OTT - when it happened to me it was simply a case of reporting it over
the phone and that was that. You could try asking for compensation for
your time and expense once the whole matter is settled.

3. The core of my concern is that even though my own credit card company
may
be convinced that it is a fraudulent charge that there is no mechanism
for
them stopping future charges. They must accept any charge from any other
credit card company.

There probably isn't a mechanism to selectively reject charges from a
particular retailer to a particular card.

4. Even if I cancel the card and a new card is issued my credit card
company maintain that further charges on the old card remain my
obligation
until they are notified and the chargeback process is completed every
time
it occurs. I guess even if I were to unexpectedly die then my estate -
unaware of the fraudulent nature of the card will continue to be depleted
until the fraudster feels he has taken enough. The only hope they hold
out
is that the fraudulent company "gets fed up" with the chargebacks, or
recognises that the constant chargebacks brings himself into higher
attention and therefore might compromise his continued fraud - and
cancels
it himself.

You keep going on about the "fraudulent company", what proof do you have
that the company is fraudulent? They are more likely to be victims of the
fraud themselves where a fraudster is using other peoples' card details to
order products/services from them.

5. I am most certainly the victim as I have already paid my credit card
bill and have not yet been refunded and have had to "pay" for the
chargeback
process with my time and paid a permanent charge because of the cost of
the
stamp and apparently have a permenent forward obligation if I want this
fraudulent debit refunded in the future.

You're a victim of your bank's bureaucratic process for reporting
unauthorised transactions. As that's all you know it is, at the moment.

The whole complaint therefore is that it seems that a customer in this
situation isn't afforded the same protection he has with the direct debit
guarantee and the ability of the customer to cancel it.

DD is a separate issue, there you have authorised something and want to
cancel your authority. Here someone appears to be claiming you authorised
a transaction when you didn't.

--
Andy