The $4700 that Rushmore erroneously charged has still not been resolved. I haven't received any other communication from them about whether they are refunding the transactions or if I should charge them back myself. ALL emails with Rushmore about this issue were posted earlier in the thread.
We are closing in on 120 days from the first fraudulent charge, which I understand is the time limit for some credit cards on initiating a chargeback. Since they have been non-responsive, and they are a (triple?) rogued casino, I'm probably not able to do a PAB with them. I think I should just go ahead and get the banks to issue the reversals from their side.
Before acting, make certain you have no money tied up in any online casino. Although Rushmore told you to go to your bank, instead of via them, I suspect this is in THEIR interests, not yours. Having ditched this processor, the processor no longer has a hold over Rushmore in terms of security deposits. Rushmore would rather save $4700 than do the right thing as far as this industry is concerned by avoiding you approaching the banks by dealing with the matter themselves. Rushmore employed the processor, not you, and it was Rushmore's responsibilty to ensure that the processor was behaving properly. Rushmore must know that for a mere $4700, the damage to the US processing industry would be disproportionate as after the $4700 had been recovered, the banks would start investigating HOW such a large fraud had been perpetrated in the first case. Once they dig deep enough, they will see that the charges were not just wrongly taken, but were disguised as non gambling purchases in order to bypass UIGEA. The bank would then look for other transactions from the same processor, and the end result could be that processor getting shut down and it's funds frozen. It would affect pretty much all US facing casinos EXCEPT Rushmore, who have moved on to a different processor and tactic.
If the bank is determined enough, they can use this one incident to flag the player as one who uses their bank to make gambling transactions, and will have a look at other transactions with different casinos that may be disguised gambling transactions. This could result in a mass retrospective chargeback of ALL deposits at ALL casinos that the bank can trace, not just the ones in dispute. This is why it beggars belief that Rushmore are actually TELLING a player to issue a chargeback through their bank, rather than dealing with the matter themselves directly with the processor concerned.
This unquantifiable collateral damage is why the industry is so paranoid when players, especially US ones, start mentioning chargebacks as the FIRST action to consider when they have an issue.
The problem is the 120 day window. If Rushmore can stall until then, it forces the player to accept the fraudulent charges or start the ball rolling with the bank.
It might be worth checking whether outright fraud is excluded from this 120 day window, as surely it was designed with consumer/business disputes in mind (a civil matter), rather than criminal fraud by theft (a criminal matter).
It seems rather odd that by stealing from someone's card, a thief can keep the money after 6 months, yet steal a car, and it can still be recovered years later, with the thief being brought before a court.