Just want to start by saying that it's only for a $17 transaction, so financially it isn't a big deal. I'm more concerned about letting a potentially sketchy buyer go unchecked.
Had a chargeback opened yesterday, for a transaction at the end of December (as I said, $17). "The buyer stated that they didn't authorise the purchase".
So I do a quick transaction history check and find that the same buyer has purchased from me prior to December - in 2015 and 2016, in fact - with a different account, but with the same name, address, and the username almost the same as the chargeback username (the only difference being a full stop).
Not knowing exactly what the buyer is claiming (eg: whether or not they're claiming that their eBay was also hacked, and so forth) I messaged the buyer.
To summarise, my message was, "I see you've filed a chargeback. I can also see that I have previous transactions with your name, address, and similar username from 2015/2016, so I'm confused. Please advise, otherwise I'll need to send all relevant information, including the above, to Paypal regarding this case."
This was a bluff: I have no intention of contesting the case because I don't have tracking and I am not paying a $15 fee.
Buyer replies and says that he let his friend use his eBay and Paypal accounts to make purchases, and that his friend put his card on to his (the buyer's) Paypal. The buyer said that he didn't realise that his friend's card was set as default payment method on the Paypal account still, and that he had inadvertently made purchases and used his friend's card to pay. He said he was "sorting it out" with his friend.
Hmmm. So if this is true, then technically it IS an unauthorised transaction ...
I have until the 14th of March (next Thurs) to contest it.
I have messaged the buyer. I told him that I will give him and his friend until Monday to sort it out, otherwise I'll be taking it further (because honestly, I don't want to ring Paypal if I can avoid it ... it's like having teeth pulled isn't it ...)
I also said in the message that it was a fraudulent claim because his friend knowingly put his financial information on someone else's account and that, in order to qualify for bank protection against unauthorised transactions, you can't have done anything to have compromised your financial information (such as sharing it on someone else's account). Then I said that, given all that, I, other sellers, the bank and/or Paypal have grounds to report his friend to ACORN and/or other law enforcement (thanks Digi )
Hopefully that will be enough to spur some action. If not, I will follow up with Paypal on Monday. I'll post here if the buyer replies.
(I'm having a GREAT few days though . . . someone's 6 year old just bought 3 items, requested total, paid, and then the mother messaged me wanting to cancel! Fancy that?)
Right, well ... it took all of 10 minutes for the buyer to respond to the message I detailed in my last post (funny, that)
He wants to know if there is anything he can do because it was his account that was used, and he said that his friend is "going ahead with it".
I don't even know what to believe any more ... on one hand, why would you admit to everything he has admitted to? On the other hand, this friend doesn't sound like much of a friend. He files unauthorised transactions without even asking the buyer, says he's going ahead with the claim, etc ... maybe the buyer really did steal the "friend's" credit card ... or they had a falling out ... or the buyer is refusing the pay the friend for the items so the friend is going ahead with the claim ... take your pick.
Whatever. I'm going to advise him to call Paypal and explain the situation, and reiterate that I will call Paypal on Monday if it's not sorted.
The story has a few holes in it as it stands. If the friend actually entered his card details into your buyer's PayPal account, as your buyer describes, then what your buyer is saying is substantially that the use of his friend's c/c was accidental, and that the friend should understand that it was accidental (if the scenario's as described). A one-time mistaken use of his c/c for a small dollar value purchase in circumstances where it could very conceivably have been unintentional on the buyer's part, and where the actual entering of the c/c details was done by the friend. ...? It's hard to believe that in such a case the buyer wouldn't say to the friend, "I am so sorry - my fault, and I'll give you either the cash or make a bank transfer straightaway so that you can tell the bank to close the chargeback immediately after. And of course I'm deleting your card details from my PayPal account immediately so that this can't happen again by accident."
So... that's hard to believe.
That is, it's hard to believe unless there were aggravating issues.
Perhaps the story of the friend's card being used for a one-off purchase by the friend is true, but the buyer has been spending up merrily, using the friend's card as the funding source, for rather more than one purchase. In that case, the friend would be fuming; that's credit card fraud. If the total amount of "accidental" purchases is significant, it's quite possible that the buyer can't pay back the amount immediately, or is stalling or denying responsibility... and clearly isn't aware that the issuing bank may very well come after him
Perhaps the story of the friend's card being used for a one-off purchase by the friend is not true, but the buyer has added the card to his PayPal account fraudulently, and then began using it as a funding source... not being challenged about it for some time as the friend didn't check the credit card statements for a while. (This could only work, I understand, if the c/c in question hadn't been used by the friend as a funding source for any other PayPal account - i.e., the friend either doesn't use PayPal at all or uses a different c/c for his PayPal account.) This would again be credit card fraud.
Perhaps the friend didn't even know that it was this buyer who used the card. Perhaps it's now become a police matter.
I think one thing has to be made clear. The buyer has admitted to using someone else's credit card to make a purchase from you. It's up to the buyer to remedy the situation as fast as possible. Tell the buyer what your desired outcome is, set a timeframe, and take no nonsense and enter into no negotiation.
In response to the current open case [case no. ###] involving a chargeback, in which you purchased [item no. ###] from us via PayPal using what you have stated is your friend's credit card as the funding source, this is your final notice that, unless you either
come to a swift agreement with your friend about your repaying him so that your friend (i.e., the card owner) contacts his issuing bank immediately (by end of business xx.xx.2019) to close the chargeback process (and so that your friend also contacts PayPal by phone to advise that the chargeback request is being cancelled), or
make payment of the original cost ($xx.xx) IN FULL by either PayPal using your own funding source OR by bank transfer to my account BSB xxx Account No. xxxxx, upon which we shall advise PayPal that alternative payment has been made and that the chargeback claim will not be contested by us,
you will be reported to the Australian Cybercrime Online Reporting Network (ACORN).
Purchasing goods using someone else's credit card without authorisation (be it directly or via PayPal), is a criminal offence, i.e., "obtaining property by deception".
A person who, by any deception, dishonestly takes property belonging to another person with the intention of permanently depriving that person is guilty of obtaining property by deception. Obtaining property by deception is an indictable offence that carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of 1,200 penalty units. Indictable offences are more serious offences triable before a judge and jury in the County or Supreme Court.
The consequences of being reported to ACORN, which is a national policing initiative of the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments, will include your name being on a permanent register and forwarded to federal, state, or local law enforcement or regulatory agencies with jurisdiction, with prosecution the responsibility of the receiving agencies. The involved agencies include (but are not limited to) all Australian police agencies (including your local police department), the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, the Australian Attorney-General’s Department, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, and the Australian Communications and Media Authority.
Once the report is made, it will not be possible for us to halt the investigation. You must respond to this letter by phone or text message (to the phone number shown on this letter) no later than 48 hours after tracking shows that you have either received this letter or refused delivery of this letter. Refusal to accept this letter will not stand as a defence for failing to comply with the demands and timeframes contained herein.
(If you need a swift resolution, you could alternatively say "respond to this eBay message by responding via eBay's message system"; however, sending by eBay message doesn't have the gravitas or official status of sending via letter with recorded delivery - signature on delivery.)
The deadline for complete resolution from you is xx March 2019, by close of business.
No negotiation will be entertained and no extensions will be granted.
Yours faithfully,
[business name - or your name]❞
Links in which you might be interested:
Criminal Code Act 1955 (with particular reference to 134.1 Obtaining property by deception)
sounds to me like the 'friend' is probably non existant & they have gotten an account/card in a false name or the name of a person who is deceased (happens alot) They maybe taken you're being reasonable with them as that you're a push over & they're going to get away with it.
I would play hardball with them & tell them you've been advised you should call the police because it sounds like you have both been the victim of online fraud. (play a little bit dumb, not blaming them & you've been advised sounds less 'attacking' than you thinking of the idea yourself), hopefully should sort them out quick smart.
)
