-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Chargebacks and Checks
- Thread starter skinny27
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
And I suppose he also immediately posted an alert to his bank to protect his account, posted alerts to the Big Three CRAs to protect his credit cards and took all other precautionary measures that we all know to do when confronted with identity theft. He did, didn’t he?
My guess is that he sat back and did nothing more – happy that he thought he cheated them.
Skinny, this has been going on for more than 12 hours. Your buddy either thinks everyone’s stupid or he’s scared and hoping for any rationale that will get him out. My guess is both. Everybody isn’t and I don’t think a law firm or CA would involve itself, if it thought he could slide like that.
Now I’ve given you all that I have that’s relevant to the questions posted. If there are substantive issues to discuss, I’ll try to post back and others have always been welcome to join in. But, with due respect to you, I have no intention of remaining as a sounding board, while your buddy tries out a litany of possible excuses. I said I had no particular feelings about online gambling, if it wasn’t so excessive as to be injurious. I didn’t say that I felt neutral about cheating on legitimate debts.
My guess is that he sat back and did nothing more – happy that he thought he cheated them.
Skinny, this has been going on for more than 12 hours. Your buddy either thinks everyone’s stupid or he’s scared and hoping for any rationale that will get him out. My guess is both. Everybody isn’t and I don’t think a law firm or CA would involve itself, if it thought he could slide like that.
Now I’ve given you all that I have that’s relevant to the questions posted. If there are substantive issues to discuss, I’ll try to post back and others have always been welcome to join in. But, with due respect to you, I have no intention of remaining as a sounding board, while your buddy tries out a litany of possible excuses. I said I had no particular feelings about online gambling, if it wasn’t so excessive as to be injurious. I didn’t say that I felt neutral about cheating on legitimate debts.
I told you what I think and that’s to start taking to the people now tracking him and try to make arrangements to pay the debt. So far, it appears they’re the only ones tracking and the debt is small – certainly compared to the costs of litigation – so they may be predisposed to work out a reasonable arrangement, if he can’t pay immediately and in full. Make arrangements to pay and they’re not going to care that he lied. They’re used to it.
I haven’t even checked your state for statutory bad check penalties that can be added on. Many states, including my own, allow them. Avoid them if they’re there and it’s another plus.
A civil judgment has many collateral costs associated with it, and it lasts a long time.
There could be only phone calls or he could get sued just so that Larry, Curly and Moe can prove something to a new client. It could and probably will end up on his credit report. That, in itself, could cost him more over time than the amount in contention. I don’t know the dynamics at work and neither does he.
I’ll add one thing more, so the ground rules are fair and the basis for advice is clear and can be given consideration when making a decision.
I’m an attorney. More than that, I’m a commercial creditors’ rights attorney. If your buddy was a business or even if the amount in contention were just a whooole lot more, I could be the person sent to sue him. The excuses that he’s tried so far wouldn’t work on me. That’s not to say he can’t keep trying them.
I haven’t even checked your state for statutory bad check penalties that can be added on. Many states, including my own, allow them. Avoid them if they’re there and it’s another plus.
A civil judgment has many collateral costs associated with it, and it lasts a long time.
There could be only phone calls or he could get sued just so that Larry, Curly and Moe can prove something to a new client. It could and probably will end up on his credit report. That, in itself, could cost him more over time than the amount in contention. I don’t know the dynamics at work and neither does he.
I’ll add one thing more, so the ground rules are fair and the basis for advice is clear and can be given consideration when making a decision.
I’m an attorney. More than that, I’m a commercial creditors’ rights attorney. If your buddy was a business or even if the amount in contention were just a whooole lot more, I could be the person sent to sue him. The excuses that he’s tried so far wouldn’t work on me. That’s not to say he can’t keep trying them.
Last edited:
But....
but his plan is to not admit that he ever authorized those charges to begin with.....what will most likely happen is this occurs??? My thoughts are that they will not go after him because the amounts are smaller compared to litigation as you said....but they will use collection agencies, emails, and phone call...but I think he can live with that.
but his plan is to not admit that he ever authorized those charges to begin with.....what will most likely happen is this occurs??? My thoughts are that they will not go after him because the amounts are smaller compared to litigation as you said....but they will use collection agencies, emails, and phone call...but I think he can live with that.
Skinny, if I don’t admire anything else about your buddy, I have to admire persistence.
I’ve covered this the best that I can, but I’ll to try to detail it, at the risk of redundancy:
1) None of us know what’s motivating the folks who are now asking for payment. Maybe he’s 1 of a 1,000, and it will get passed down the line. Alternatively, maybe he’s 1 of 12, and the pursuers are being tested by the creditor for a larger book of business and it’s no holds barred.
2) Another possibility is that the pursuers have the book of business and are accommodating a client. I deal with folks who have clients who regularly refer 5-6 figure claims. Suddenly, the creditor gets a wild hair and wants to chase one for 4 figures. Money is no problem. They’ll subsidize suit. Do you think they’re told no, go elsewhere? I get it all the time.
3) There’s the creditor who wants to sue “on principle”. Cost-effective? No, but they’re determined and you can’t talk them down off the ledge. They don’t get told no either.
4) But suppose none of these are applicable. The CA makes its calls, sends its letters and reports your buddy to the Big Three. So do the other creditors with the bounced check and the baseless charge-back. Your buddy’s FICO score drops 100 points, further gambling is out of the question and any new extension of credit that he wants for the next 7 years costs him at least 50% more than it does for anyone else. Read today’s newspaper. For the foreseeable future, he probably won’t get it at any price. He’s a credit pariah. I’ll guess that you buddy’s in his 20s to early 30s at most. In a nation that lives on credit, that’s some burden to carry for 7 years at that time of life. And for a possible max of $6,700. Under those circumstances, leaving the planet may be a good idea. You went through a BK. Do you think it’s a good idea? Why should somebody other than a friend have to explain it?
5) The calls and letters won’t stop, even after litigation is time-barred. Hypothetically, they don’t ever have to stop. If anything, if the debt(s) are sold down the line, they’ll get more aggressive, because the debt(s) were acquired for nickels and then pennies, and the profit margin is greater, if you strike gold.
I can continue this list, but I don’t think your buddy is that swift for what he’s done already. If he doesn’t care and he can live with what happens and he doesn’t want to try to clean it up, he won’t have a better chance later as interest accrues.
Almost any member here could have given constructive advice to resolve this long hours ago. We beat around the bush until your buddy’s problem emerges. He doesn’t want anything but an answer he wants to hear, and you’ll keep coming back to try to get it. You won’t. I see no reason to give a tinker’s d**n or to waste more time discussing it. If he can live with it, I know I can. He keeps retail collections in business. Tell him what you know about bankruptcy court. Also tell him fraud is not dischargeable.
I’ve covered this the best that I can, but I’ll to try to detail it, at the risk of redundancy:
1) None of us know what’s motivating the folks who are now asking for payment. Maybe he’s 1 of a 1,000, and it will get passed down the line. Alternatively, maybe he’s 1 of 12, and the pursuers are being tested by the creditor for a larger book of business and it’s no holds barred.
2) Another possibility is that the pursuers have the book of business and are accommodating a client. I deal with folks who have clients who regularly refer 5-6 figure claims. Suddenly, the creditor gets a wild hair and wants to chase one for 4 figures. Money is no problem. They’ll subsidize suit. Do you think they’re told no, go elsewhere? I get it all the time.
3) There’s the creditor who wants to sue “on principle”. Cost-effective? No, but they’re determined and you can’t talk them down off the ledge. They don’t get told no either.
4) But suppose none of these are applicable. The CA makes its calls, sends its letters and reports your buddy to the Big Three. So do the other creditors with the bounced check and the baseless charge-back. Your buddy’s FICO score drops 100 points, further gambling is out of the question and any new extension of credit that he wants for the next 7 years costs him at least 50% more than it does for anyone else. Read today’s newspaper. For the foreseeable future, he probably won’t get it at any price. He’s a credit pariah. I’ll guess that you buddy’s in his 20s to early 30s at most. In a nation that lives on credit, that’s some burden to carry for 7 years at that time of life. And for a possible max of $6,700. Under those circumstances, leaving the planet may be a good idea. You went through a BK. Do you think it’s a good idea? Why should somebody other than a friend have to explain it?
5) The calls and letters won’t stop, even after litigation is time-barred. Hypothetically, they don’t ever have to stop. If anything, if the debt(s) are sold down the line, they’ll get more aggressive, because the debt(s) were acquired for nickels and then pennies, and the profit margin is greater, if you strike gold.
I can continue this list, but I don’t think your buddy is that swift for what he’s done already. If he doesn’t care and he can live with what happens and he doesn’t want to try to clean it up, he won’t have a better chance later as interest accrues.
Almost any member here could have given constructive advice to resolve this long hours ago. We beat around the bush until your buddy’s problem emerges. He doesn’t want anything but an answer he wants to hear, and you’ll keep coming back to try to get it. You won’t. I see no reason to give a tinker’s d**n or to waste more time discussing it. If he can live with it, I know I can. He keeps retail collections in business. Tell him what you know about bankruptcy court. Also tell him fraud is not dischargeable.
One More Thing
I know I am most likely driving you nuts replying again, but what did you mean by "as interest accrues." How can they charge interest on a debt like this. No credit card is involved here and there is no place in the terms that talks about interest. Also, what do you mean that litigation is time-barred. You also said that you could continue the list......please do.
Also, what if this really was identity theft and if he really was a victim of fraud, what would he have to do to have it not effect his credit? Can they really do this, I thought it needed to be proven first that the debt was really his before it effected his credit?
I know I am most likely driving you nuts replying again, but what did you mean by "as interest accrues." How can they charge interest on a debt like this. No credit card is involved here and there is no place in the terms that talks about interest. Also, what do you mean that litigation is time-barred. You also said that you could continue the list......please do.
Also, what if this really was identity theft and if he really was a victim of fraud, what would he have to do to have it not effect his credit? Can they really do this, I thought it needed to be proven first that the debt was really his before it effected his credit?
Last edited:
Not nuts originally, but let’s not overwork this. I have obligations too.
Interest will certainly run on the bounced check. The charge back and e-check are of another nature, but the fact that “the boys” are asking for payment leads me believe that they’re not treating the $2,100 as a legitimate dispute and there is a reason (unknown to me) why it won’t be treated that way.
If I make a purchase and receive non-conforming goods, or a credit card reflects an unauthorized charge, or I receive and am charged for unsolicited goods, I can promptly correct that and dispute the charge. Likewise, if I tender a check as payment for goods or services and there is some problem, I can issue a “stop order”.
Now I have to stretch an analogy, because I don’t know enough about exactly the way those e-checks were handled or all the facts about the chargeback. What I do know is that, while GoodieGalore may be unhappy about the chargeback or stop order, there is nothing they can do about it, if I acted promptly, exercised care and had legal cause for my actions. That rules out grumbling from GoodiesGalore, much less the intervention of Larry, Curly and Moe. Unless that’s a new name for Guido and the Kneecappers, somebody thinks they have some legal right to recovery that wouldn’t exist in my scenario.
I suspect that he was given an account against which a could draw and checks to use and he authorized them. If he won, he won, but he didn't. Casinos aren't in business to lose. I think it's a nasty practice, but it appealed to your buddy. (A recent poster had gotten "free checks" - the OP's term - that became a "loan" when cashed. It took several posts to determine they came from a mortgage bank and included terms of endorsement.)
One other way to look at the checks and another analogy: originally a “stop order” (and I’m thinking you can add chargeback here too), was thought to represent a legitimate response to a valid dispute between buyer and seller. It was treated differently from a NSF or “account closed check”, which were not negotiable at time of tender, and it was not subject to civil or criminal penalties for that reason. But the bad guys were the first to catch on to that and, rather than get nabbed for check kiting, they started to immediately place a stop order, as soon as they issued bad paper. (You starting to see where this is going? This was a long time ago. Your buddy’s updated version is still antiquated.)
The response to the improper use of stop orders (and chargebacks) was to change the law. Now, in most states, if you get called on a stop order, you have 30 days to show it was justified. Fail to do that, and the burden of proof shifts. Then, its legally presumed to be bad paper, just like an NSF or A/C check. I didn’t read your statutes, but I’m guessing you have something similar. You do have a small statutory penalty of $100 on a check, interest (at judgment rate), reasonable attorneys' fees if the amount of a check is over $1,250 and a $15 service charge. That’s for a civil suit on a check. I don’t know that your buddy lives in your state, and I think he committed fraud.
So I don’t think the e-checks stay legitimate chargebacks. If litigated, I think they become something else – theft, conversion, fraud, or maybe something more simple, but something that could earn pre-judgment interest
“Time-barred”: beyond the applicable Statute of Limitations (Google it).
There are too many variables to continue the list. Go to the debt collection forum and ask what motivates a creditor to sue or refrain. I gave you some of the routine reasons for suing. Availability of assets, cost of enforcement are a couple more. And I told you that this was an area where an industry had been reluctant to be “high profile”.
Skinny, with that I bid you a fond farewell.
Interest will certainly run on the bounced check. The charge back and e-check are of another nature, but the fact that “the boys” are asking for payment leads me believe that they’re not treating the $2,100 as a legitimate dispute and there is a reason (unknown to me) why it won’t be treated that way.
If I make a purchase and receive non-conforming goods, or a credit card reflects an unauthorized charge, or I receive and am charged for unsolicited goods, I can promptly correct that and dispute the charge. Likewise, if I tender a check as payment for goods or services and there is some problem, I can issue a “stop order”.
Now I have to stretch an analogy, because I don’t know enough about exactly the way those e-checks were handled or all the facts about the chargeback. What I do know is that, while GoodieGalore may be unhappy about the chargeback or stop order, there is nothing they can do about it, if I acted promptly, exercised care and had legal cause for my actions. That rules out grumbling from GoodiesGalore, much less the intervention of Larry, Curly and Moe. Unless that’s a new name for Guido and the Kneecappers, somebody thinks they have some legal right to recovery that wouldn’t exist in my scenario.
I suspect that he was given an account against which a could draw and checks to use and he authorized them. If he won, he won, but he didn't. Casinos aren't in business to lose. I think it's a nasty practice, but it appealed to your buddy. (A recent poster had gotten "free checks" - the OP's term - that became a "loan" when cashed. It took several posts to determine they came from a mortgage bank and included terms of endorsement.)
One other way to look at the checks and another analogy: originally a “stop order” (and I’m thinking you can add chargeback here too), was thought to represent a legitimate response to a valid dispute between buyer and seller. It was treated differently from a NSF or “account closed check”, which were not negotiable at time of tender, and it was not subject to civil or criminal penalties for that reason. But the bad guys were the first to catch on to that and, rather than get nabbed for check kiting, they started to immediately place a stop order, as soon as they issued bad paper. (You starting to see where this is going? This was a long time ago. Your buddy’s updated version is still antiquated.)
The response to the improper use of stop orders (and chargebacks) was to change the law. Now, in most states, if you get called on a stop order, you have 30 days to show it was justified. Fail to do that, and the burden of proof shifts. Then, its legally presumed to be bad paper, just like an NSF or A/C check. I didn’t read your statutes, but I’m guessing you have something similar. You do have a small statutory penalty of $100 on a check, interest (at judgment rate), reasonable attorneys' fees if the amount of a check is over $1,250 and a $15 service charge. That’s for a civil suit on a check. I don’t know that your buddy lives in your state, and I think he committed fraud.
So I don’t think the e-checks stay legitimate chargebacks. If litigated, I think they become something else – theft, conversion, fraud, or maybe something more simple, but something that could earn pre-judgment interest
“Time-barred”: beyond the applicable Statute of Limitations (Google it).
There are too many variables to continue the list. Go to the debt collection forum and ask what motivates a creditor to sue or refrain. I gave you some of the routine reasons for suing. Availability of assets, cost of enforcement are a couple more. And I told you that this was an area where an industry had been reluctant to be “high profile”.
Prove it.what if this really was identity theft and if he really was a victim of fraud, what would he have to do to have it not effect his credit?
Skinny, with that I bid you a fond farewell.
Last edited:
Disputing Visa Check Card charges
For one thing, if you are disputing visa check-card charges you will probably have no problem getting the charges reversed.
WHY? Because when the card issuer/bank/visa send either the chargeback notice or investigation notice, they will ask the merchant or payment processor for documentation.
You can bet they won't be sending it unless they want to incriminate themselves. They have filed the charges fraudulently and broke the Visa/Mastercard rules by hiding the true nature of the charges to obtain authorization from Visa. They are breaking a Federal Law.
So all the charges will be credited back to your account. Then they will try to get you through debt collection. But, it may no longer be DEBT since they failed to substantiate the charges, also, the collection agency cannot collect on illegal online gambling debt or they will be "participating in the transfer of gambling money". The casino would have to provide documentation and would again incriminate themselves. The debtor has a right to all documentation. I think it would be pretty easy to get rid of the debt collector .
Remember since you won the chargeback dispute you no longer owe your bank or visa.
I am not a Lawyer but I think due to the Federal Law passed in 10/06, they are screwed when it comes to credit card chargebacks.
Also, technically, the charges they submitted represent fraud. They are not billing for "casino credits", which is what you authorized(or maybe the charges were not authorized by you). They more than likely represented it as "general Merchandise, general services or something non-specific. and that is not what you authorized charges for. Also, the meer fact that they are processing these transactions is a felony. Also, the payment processors deduct the chargeback from the merchants account or try to retrieve it from the Merchant. If they get the money from the merchant, then I would think you are no longer obligated to the Processor or ewallet and only the merchant could seek relief. Which they won't.
For one thing, if you are disputing visa check-card charges you will probably have no problem getting the charges reversed.
WHY? Because when the card issuer/bank/visa send either the chargeback notice or investigation notice, they will ask the merchant or payment processor for documentation.
You can bet they won't be sending it unless they want to incriminate themselves. They have filed the charges fraudulently and broke the Visa/Mastercard rules by hiding the true nature of the charges to obtain authorization from Visa. They are breaking a Federal Law.
So all the charges will be credited back to your account. Then they will try to get you through debt collection. But, it may no longer be DEBT since they failed to substantiate the charges, also, the collection agency cannot collect on illegal online gambling debt or they will be "participating in the transfer of gambling money". The casino would have to provide documentation and would again incriminate themselves. The debtor has a right to all documentation. I think it would be pretty easy to get rid of the debt collector .
Remember since you won the chargeback dispute you no longer owe your bank or visa.
I am not a Lawyer but I think due to the Federal Law passed in 10/06, they are screwed when it comes to credit card chargebacks.
Also, technically, the charges they submitted represent fraud. They are not billing for "casino credits", which is what you authorized(or maybe the charges were not authorized by you). They more than likely represented it as "general Merchandise, general services or something non-specific. and that is not what you authorized charges for. Also, the meer fact that they are processing these transactions is a felony. Also, the payment processors deduct the chargeback from the merchants account or try to retrieve it from the Merchant. If they get the money from the merchant, then I would think you are no longer obligated to the Processor or ewallet and only the merchant could seek relief. Which they won't.
Last edited:
I've been readig this thread with great interest. I am convinced of two things:
1. Skinny and his buds are of low moral character. Karma will get people like that.
2. Rumor has it that some of these off-shore casinos are beginning to outsource collections on a contingency basis to big beefy guys who give you a complimentary spinal adjustment every week until the debt is paid. These "collectors" tend not to care much about niceties as validation of the debt, claims of stolen identity or statute of limitations.
Karma rules!
1. Skinny and his buds are of low moral character. Karma will get people like that.
2. Rumor has it that some of these off-shore casinos are beginning to outsource collections on a contingency basis to big beefy guys who give you a complimentary spinal adjustment every week until the debt is paid. These "collectors" tend not to care much about niceties as validation of the debt, claims of stolen identity or statute of limitations.
Karma rules!
curious4000
Junior Member
online gaming sites will not be able to collect... i've done many chargebacks against these crooks (mainly poker sites). just wait it out and the collections agencies will eventually give up. they can't do anything
divona2000
Senior Member
...just wait it out and the collections agencies will eventually give up...
Think they have given up yet? After all it's been years since the OP posted! (Hint-don't necropost).