잘못된 판매자 카테고리 코드를 사용하는 Curaçao 라이선스가 있는 도박 웹사이트에 대한 질문 (211 페이지)

That does not make sense, if you understand what you just wrote. We have refused the requests of the casino representatives to maintain our objectivity and give all of those players a forum to address this crucial issue. In my opinion, there is no legitimate justification for utilizing an improper merchant code.

Casinos has requested that we look into this thread so that it can be closed. To use your own words, "we bit them"😉

You can also see that we leave his thread unmoderated if you look through it.

Either way, it is totally acceptable if you see things your way; as long as you follow the guidelines, everything will work out.

Response from Santander Credit Card, in the UK - bearing in mind it's illegal for merchants to facilitate gambling in the UK via credit card.

"This is not fraud, you authorised the payments. You gambled the money and we are not taking any responsibility for this."

They're just completely ignoring my claims on transaction laundering, falsifying merchant category codes and money laundering and illegal gambling activities.

They're basically saying it's my fault. What's the point in the UK Gambling Commission making gambling via credit cards illegal if there's no repercussion for any parties?!

Don't know what to do, feeling helpless again!

Has anyone else had any success?

Have you had any joy with ideas pay. All my emails keep bouncing back this was the merchant. I can’t find anywhere.

Grace Helms Nigeria Li, Idimu

You could try an ombudsman, if the casino is operating illegally then it's worth a shot

Pure waste of time.

Reine Zeitverschwendung.

Na. Tried for 5 weeks now. Messaged associated companies at the same address. Associated people. They aren’t even a registered company in Nigeria

Depends which angle you come at it from, if they've offered their services illegally, and have violated mastercards ToS etc, or misadvertised then the ombudsman has something to work with

Just pulled this directly from Visa's T&Cs. Chargebacks can be made via "Condition 12.7: Invalid Data"

We need to make sure we tell banks this. Be open and honest, they can tell we authorised the transaction via our IP addresses. However, we didn't authorise under these incorrect MCC codes.

He works with the things we work with.

In the end, the Ombudsman is not mandatory, and providers will not communicate with the Ombudsman because they do not have to.

I strongly assume that the ombudsmen are already aware of this issue, MCC forgery and the way transactions are processed. They will reject the cases because in the end there is no point in dealing with the providers.

With reference to the bank and rejection of a chargeback and the ombudsman: The ombudsman will say it's your own fault, it's a verified transaction. Everything else is a private matter between the merchant on the credit card and the cardholder 😉 There are already ombudsman decisions on this on the Internet.

The ombudsman is not legally binding, and even if he were, the criminal online casinos don't give a damn about the law 😉

@Wicked243:

I understand what you mean, but YOU have to prove that the payments were made through the casino's website and that the card was charged with crypto purchases or book purchases directly from there. The providers could claim that the purchase was made directly through their website or or or 😉

The important point here is:

Proof that the payments were initiated directly from the casino website. It is best to save a transaction list from the casino account so that the times can be compared.

Er arbeitet mit den Sachen, mit denen wir auch arbeiten.

Am Ende ist der Ombudsmann nichts verpflichtendes, und die Anbieter werden mit den Ombudsmann nicht kommunizieren, weil sie es nicht müssen.

Ich gehe sehr stark davon aus, dass die Ombudsmänner diesen Sachverhalt bereits kennen, MCC-Fälschung und die Art der Transaktionsabwicklung. Sie werden die Fälle ablehnen, weil es am Ende nichts bringt sich mit den Anbieter auseinander zu setzen.

Mit Bezug zur Bank und Ablehnung eines Chargebacks und dem Ombudsmann: Da wird der Ombudsmann sagen, selber schuld es ist eine Verifizierte Transaktion. Alles andere ist eine Private Angelegenheit zwischen Händler auf der Kreditkarte und den Karteninhaber 😉 Im Internet gibt es hierzu bereits Omudsmannentscheidungen.

Der Ombudsmann ist rechtlich nicht bindend, und selbst wenn er es wäre, geben die kriminellen online-casinos ein scheiß auf die Gesetze 😉

@Wicked243:

Ich verstehe was Du meinst, jedoch musst DU nachweisen, dass die Zahlungen über die Webseite des Kasinos gelaufen sind, und die Karte mit Kryptokäufe oder Bücherkäufe direkt von dort belastet wurden. Die Anbieter könnte behaupten, dass direkt über deren Webseite eingekauft wurde oder oder oder 😉

Der wichtige Punkt ist hier:

Der Nachweis, dass die Zahlungen direkt von der Casinowebseite aus eingeleitet wurden. Am besten Transaktionsliste aus dem Casinokonto sichern, damit die Zeiten abgleichen kann.

So you think if you can align payments to these merchants with payments to the casino you could be successful with a chargeback on the grounds of 12.7? Or 13.5 misrepresentation?

The ombudsman might not be legally binding but if they operate in conjunction with the bank and prove the services offered were illegal and in violation of the law then there's grounds for the charges to be reversed, the criminal casinos wouldn't be able to dispute as they're acting illegally so they can't take legal recourse

@ Frewcrew24 Correct, there has to be a connection so that you have something in your hand. The times should be identical, perhaps 1-2 hours ahead or behind due to a different time zone.

@ Gojira7346 The banks are not responsible for private disputes, there are courts for that. The banks did what you wanted, made the verified payment. Banks are not responsible for checking whether a transaction violates the law or not. Furthermore, there is also a violation of the law by the player, participating in illegal gambling.

@Frewcrew24 Korrekt, es muss eine Verbindung geben, damit man etwas in der Hand hat. Die Zeiten dürften identisch schein eventuell wegen einer anderen Zeitzone 1-2 Stunden voraus oder hinterher.

@Gojira7346 Die Banken sind für keine privaten Streitigkeiten zuständig, da gibt es Gerichte für. Die Banken haben das gemacht was Ihr wolltet, die verifizierte Zahlung ausgeführt. Banken haben nicht zu prüfen, ob eine Transaktion gegen Gesetze verstößt oder nicht. Ferner steht hier auch noch ein Gesetzesverstoß vom Spieler im Raum, Teilnahme am illegalen Glücksspiel.

True on the players part, but there's also plausible deniability, there's multiple sources advertising the websites as a legal UK option when in fact, it is not, the average gambler doesn't know about gambling laws, banks also have a duty of care, if there's illegal activity they have a responsibility to protect the customer and inform the relevant authorities. Not to mention on the websites part they (if legitimate) have a responsibility to act in accordance with the law in various territories, if they fail to do so there are heavy sanctions (some have received fines already)

You must understand the following:

They are criminals, they do not respect laws accordingly

Did the providers also pay the fine? There is always a lot written on paper.

In Germany, the providers do what they want. There are players who have sued and invested a lot of money in a lawsuit, they won in court but still haven't received any money, and why haven't they received any money? Because the casino operators are clever and change their names or simply declare bankruptcy. There are also countries that do not recognize a judgment from abroad, so enforcement is impossible, and the providers who have an office somewhere do not care because they are based somewhere abroad.

Lawsuits against payment service providers in Germany or against banks:

Also unsuccessful. The bank carried out the payments as we requested. Banks have a duty of care, but does the bank know that a payment to Mydates violates a law? This must be proven; it is very difficult to prove that the bank had prior knowledge of this.

One approach would be money laundering, but here the bank must be aware that payment XYZ to provider XYZ violates the law. But the player himself is the one who is laundering money because he authorizes the payment. The bank is out of the picture, it only does what you want it to do, execute the payment. Everything else is a private dispute.

The courts also see it as if we authorized the payment, so we were unlucky 😉

Ihr müsst folgendes verstehen:

Es sind kriminelle, sie halten von Gesetzen nichts dementsprechend

Haben die Anbieter auch die Geldstrafe bezahlt? Auf Papier steht immer viel geschrieben.

In Deutschland ist es so, dass die Anbieter machen was sie wollen. Es gibt Spieler die geklagt haben, und viel Geld in eine Klage investiert haben, sie haben zwar Recht bekommen vor den Gerichten, aber noch immer kein Geld erhalten, und warum haben sie kein Geld erhalten? Weil die Kasinobetreiber clever sind, und ihre Namen wechseln, oder einfach Insolvenz anmelden. Ferner gibt es Länder die ein Urteil aus dem Ausland nicht anerkennen, somit ist die Zwangsvollstreckung unmöglich, und die Anbieter die irgendwo ein Büro haben ist es egal, weil sie irgendwo im Ausland sitzen .

Klagen gegen Zahlungsdienstleister in Deutschland oder auch gegen banken:

Ebenfalls erfolglos. Die Bank hat die Zahlungen ausgeführt, wie von uns gewünscht. Die Banken haben eine Sorgfaltspflicht, aber weiß die Bank auch, dass eine Zahlung zu Mydates gegen ein Gesetz verstößt? Dies muss bewiesen werden, dass die Bank vorab Kenntnis davon hatte, ist sehr schwierig.

Ein Ansatz wäre Geldwäsche, aber hier muss die Bank Kenntnis davon haben, dass Zahlung XYZ an Anbieter XYZ gegen Gesetze verstoßen. Aber der Spieler an sich ist derjenige der Geldwäsche betreibt, weil er die Zahlung autorisiert. Die Bank ist raus, sie macht nur dass was Ihr wollt die zahlung ausführen. Alles andere sind private Streitigkeiten.

Ebenso sehen es die Gerichte so, dass wir die Zahlung autorisiert haben, dementsprechend pech gehabt😉

That may be the case in Germany but in the UK the laws, especially when financial things are involved e.g. fraud etc are taken very seriously, more so than violent crimes. If the casino operator changed names then they'd simply go after whoever is a director at the casino or its parent company, i think for smaller amounts the effort they'd have to go through to do these acts wouldn't be worth what the chargeback is for the casino. In regards to the bank if a dispute is raised they have a duty to investigate, regardless of whether the payment is carried out as requested, if the goods and services weren't as advertised there is a very strong case for a chargeback, not to mention the illegal aspect of the services they're offering, as long as you can prove you weren't to know any better and were under the impression that they were operating legally, i'd say you'd have a strong case.

And why is almost every chargeback case rejected by the banks?

Und warum wird so gut wie jeder Chargeback-Fall von den Banken abgelehnt?

Think the lesson I've learned here is not to report as 'Authorised Fraud', just go down the 'Scam' route straight away.

I've now got three credit cards performing an investigation. Fingers crossed it all comes back positive, quoting Visa Condition 12.7 Invalid Data seems to help as well.

Is there a comparable point for Mastercard payments?

Gibt es eine vergleichbaren Punkt für Mastercard-Zahlungen ?

Merchant category codes (MCC) i believe would be the comparable point

I was that smart too 😉

However, Visa describes the problem in more detail.

So schlau war ich auch schon 😉

Visa beschreibt das Problem jedoch etwas genauer.