há um mês
Thanks hun x appreciate you
Question about Gambling websites with Curaçao license using incorrect Merchant Category code (página 390)
há um mês
Just called the bank the complaint is with the complaints team. I asked so how long will it take ,I was told it can take up 8 weeks for a response .I asked have these transactions been raised as chargebacks, her response i couldn't tell you ,Says it all doesn't it .I will put money on it they haven't or it will be rejected even though I have sent compelling evidence of fraudulent buissness and criminal activity reports to police company house so forth and so on .it's not as if the bank is paying now is it .
há um mês
This is the frustrating Barclays rejected mine saying gambling then did nothing until I complained, same point you make it is not them to reimburse and it’s not gambling either because the merchants sell random stuff. Is Lloyds Visa, let me find what I sent to Barclays if it is, also have you gone MCC or goods not received? And is Lloyds credit card or debit?
há um mês
Docusign Envelope ID: AC5E217A-4FE1-483F-90B5-AB80584F0727
I am writing to formally request a chargeback for recent transactions processed on my account. The details of the transaction are as follows.
Date of Transaction: 13/9/24 and 16/9/24 and 19/9/24
Amount: 104.14, 208.24, 104.54, 104.54 and 100.26, 107.54 (approx amounts as these have increased)
Merchant Name: Balon tech ltd, Newton OS ltd and ZPDG and Wbazar.
As someone struggling with gambling addiction, I had placed a gambling blocks on my accounts several years ago to prevent any gambling-related transactions (debit cards), I also signed up for a credit card because I cannot withdraw cash and all transactions for gambling get blocked.
Unfortunately, I recently relapsed and deposited funds to an online casino. Despite the gambling block in place, the casino employed a fraudulent merchant to disguise the true nature of the transaction, thereby bypassing the block by using an incorrect Merchant Category Code (MCC).
This practice, known as "transaction laundering," is in direct violation of VISA regulations 12.7 and qualifies the transaction for a chargeback. The casino's intentional use of a fraudulent merchant to circumvent the gambling block is a clear breach of VISA rules. If the MCC had been correctly set, the transaction would not have been authorised, please note I know it would have been difficult for you to block an altered MCC, however you should be completing a chargeback/section 75 as these companies have not provided goods or services, I have also found evidence of two recent FOS cases which support a chargeback being initiated.
I took the proactive step of setting up restrictive measures to avoid gambling, but the purposeful and illegal practice of transaction laundering exploited a vulnerability in the system, facilitating this transaction despite the block.
Although I authorised the transaction, I did not receive any goods or services from this merchant. The funds were directed to the online casino, which used this merchant to bypass the gambling restrictions on my account. The expected delivery date for any goods or services, if applicable, would be the same as the transaction date. However, since no goods or services were provided by the merchant, I am requesting a chargeback.
Please also note multiple cash transactions were blocked as these companies tried to bypass any merchant codes at all.
In light of these circumstances, I kindly request that you process a chargeback for the full amount of the transaction. I appreciate your understanding and prompt attention to this matter. Could you also provide contact details of these transactions so I can report to action fraud.
Thank you for your assistance.
insert name
1
há um mês
Just note as its credit card you need to amend.
há um mês
It's debit card
Also for anyone who's interested just recived this
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 at 14:38, LiveCaseTargeting
<Intelligence.Services@insolvency.gov.uk> wrote:
Dear ******,
Thank you for the complaint you have submitted about SKINS ONLY LTD. We have conducted a preliminary review and allocated your case reference PV/0289/2025.
Our powers are discretionary which means that we do not have to investigate everything that is reported to us. We get a high number of complaints and we do not have the resources to investigate everything that is reported. The purpose of any investigation is to protect the general public and/or the business community.
We prioritise the complaints received and target the companies that present the greatest risk of harm to the public.
Due to the confidential nature of our work we will not provide you with any further updates and we will only contact you if we require more information.
If we decide to investigate, we will not contact you to let you know the outcome. We may issue a press release if we present a petition to wind up the company in the public interest and the court makes an order or if a director is disqualified.
Thank you for taking the time to contact us, we treat all reports of potential misconduct seriously and we will look closely at all of the information you have provided.
Regards,
Z El Jaouhari | Compliance and Targeting Team | Investigation & Enforcement Services
The Insolvency Service – Delivering economic confidence | 3rd floor, Cannon House, 18 Priory Queensway Birmingham, B4 6FD
########################### This email is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not an intended recipient then you have received this e-mail in error and any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying is strictly prohibited. You should contact the sender by return then delete all the material from your system. To see how the Insolvency Service uses your personal information please Click Here. www.gov.uk/insolvency-service
há um mês
Did you have a gambling block on? If so keep the majority of my document but remove credit card and section 75. If not you may struggle with incorrect MCC the banks don’t seem too bothered around illegal gambling, only class fraud if you didn’t authorise etc so maybe best under goods not received
há um mês
Yes I had gambling blocks on
há um mês
Make sure you push for it, Lloyds may be different but Barclays complaints and disputes said they have never used that code as it is extremely rare it would ever apply/anyone would chargeback due to it.
há um mês
I think the best way and this is only opinion, is to really force the banks and tell them what the codes are otherwise you get it’s gambling and we won’t help.
há um mês
Ok thank you 😊
há um mês
Same here. Raised the chargeback then the next day Chase said Mastercard rejected the request due to gambling related transactions
há um mês
I learnt that lesson on an earlier one, and then Jokabet refunded directly so no harm done.
Ethically this advice may not be great, but I will leave it up to you. What I would do is go back to Chase and say you have got the information incorrect as you are stressed with it all, the gambling was on another account this one for Chase is goods not received for……
há um mês
man I’m still going back and fourth with jokabet it’s ridiculous.
can u help me?
há um mês
I cannot stress enough that on Mastercard and especially Chase do not mention gambling/fraud, Mastercard will not raise fraud if the cardholder authorised.
há um mês
I can send you what I emailed them but it’s literally you owe me a refund as you are not licensed and using third party’s to bypass gambling blocks. As Paul said earlier this isn’t an exact science, also I would be on at the banks to process chargebacks refunds direct from casinos or merchants are rare.
há um mês
My bank is closed that the transactions were sent on and we’re also bank transfers
há um mês
https://www.csspeople.co.uk/contact-us/head-office
I’ve had a payment under this company css I’ve just rang there headquarters and this is in London: they advised me they have never issued any funds and chase gave me the details. Surely this will be a valid claim once disputed.
wow I can’t believe how these company’s are operating using regular hardworking company’s as cover company’s. Shocking
há um mês
I may be screwed then, currently with an ombudsman but i was honest and mentioned the gambling/fraudulent activity, pretty sure they didn't go through the evidence i sent so i'm hopeful that their lack of thoroughness so to speak may work in my favor, sent them a few FOS reports of similar cases too. I'm on MC and with Chase
