_     _ 
( )   ( )
`\`\_/'/'
  `\ /'  
   | |   
   (_)   
         
         

         
  #####  
 ##  ##  
 ##      
 ##      
 ##   #  
  ####   
         

  _____  
 |  __ \ 
 | |  | |
 | |  | |
 | |__| |
 |_____/ 
         
         

       
/'\_/`\
|     |
| (_) |
| | | |
(_) (_)
       
       

  ___  
 / _ \ 
/ /_\ \
|  _  |
| | | |
\_| |_/
       
       

IMPORTANT: enter the case-INsensitive alphabetic (no numbers) code AND WRITE SOME SHORT summary of changes (below) if you are saving changes. (not required for previewing changes). Wiki-spamming is not tolerated, will be removed, so it does NOT even show up in history. Spammers go away now.


Visit Preferences to set your user name
Summary of change:
An example of how a UK bank charged +10.6% more from the balance than the merchant received. (We asked the cardholder if this is the same as the previous record holder, HSBC). As a comparison, advertised card fee is 2%. * '''444.53 GBP was charged.''' - 2009-05-12 * Merchant received 401.94 GBP on 2009-05-19 ( 132460 HUF, 1 GBP = 329,55 HUF). ** the original parameter via the gateway was 418.14 GBP (=135163 HUF on 2009-05-12) When one pays with '''card internationally''', it happens the following way (see WebShop/CardTransactions for more details): * using a gateway they contact their cardholder's bank via the visa/mastercard criminal network to authorize the payment. * The cardholder's bank authorizes the payment (if they are lucky) and charges an amount from the cardholder's balance. The '''final amount charged is completely out of control of the merchant'''. There is no way to tell in advance how much the cardholder bank will charge. ** this is '''different in POS domestic sales where the fraudulent "electronic payment" network has a good competitor: paper cash''' - in international payments competition is - yet - illusoric * Visa settlement happens in USD (never GBP). The bank does not advertise to the cardholder the exchange rates they will use. ** and the merchant does not know what is the cardholder bank anyway, even from the card number this would be infeasible to find out automatically (but the merchant does not know the cardnumber anyway with this system - at least that part is good). And finally, the merchant sometimes gets some part of the settlement amount. The visa/mastercard criminal network paid about 50000 USD less in 2009 Q4 (it's just to our small business) than they charged from cardholders. And on the top of that, there is basically noone to sue, because they work via proxies (merchants don't contract with Visa/Mastercard, the gateway is a different legal entity). With all the small-letter text the visa/mastercard processing gateway is not responsible for totally fucking up the transactions (eg. not completing the settlement for sales type transactions - while the charge is already gone from the cardholder - not available for spending). How smart is the '''legal system to protect fraud committed via proxy-method''' like that ?
Optional: Add document to category:
Wiki formatting: * is Bullet list ** Bullet list subentry ... '''Bold''', ---- is horizontal ruler, <code> preformatted text... </code> See wiki editing HELP for tables and other formatting tips and tricks.