Diffrent merchant code. Curucao casino

[Eliot85]

Hello meisters! I wonder if u have seen on different forums that players are asking for refund/chargeback from paymentsprovder from casino with curucao licens. They use 3part for turn around the merchant code.. What do u guys think about this.. Right or wrong.

 

[jasonuk]

It sounds like a two wrongs don't make a right type scenario.

Many Curacao casinos take crypto because they either can't use, or don't want the hassle of, the VISA or Mastercard network for payment processing.

Those that do, generally have to cheat and disguise their transactions - because labelled with the correct merchant code they would be rejected (particularly as there are two tiers of Merchant Category Codes - one for government-licensed gambling, and one for other gambling).

We have mentioned in the past when players have been defrauded by a rogue casino that chargeback may be their final chance - but banks have been getting increasing wise to this and starting to push back, e.g. with higher verification checks which can shift the burden to the customer.

I imagine people have cottoned on to this as a way to try and "freeroll" casinos - similar to the Self Exclusion fraudsters a few years ago. The difference here is the banks have considerably more data available than the casinos ever had, and they will pick up on attempted player fraud as well - with the potential for more repercussions than the SE scam had.

Intent is key - people who have genuinely been scammed by a fraudulent casino should have an opportunity to appeal, those who are trying to game the system will hopefully get their day in court.

 

[Guntis]

It sounds like a two wrongs don't make a right type scenario.

Many Curacao casinos take crypto because they either can't use, or don't want the hassle of, the VISA or Mastercard network for payment processing.

Those that do, generally have to cheat and disguise their transactions - because labelled with the correct merchant code they would be rejected (particularly as there are two tiers of Merchant Category Codes - one for government-licensed gambling, and one for other gambling).

We have mentioned in the past when players have been defrauded by a rogue casino that chargeback may be their final chance - but banks have been getting increasing wise to this and starting to push back, e.g. with higher verification checks which can shift the burden to the customer.

I imagine people have cottoned on to this as a way to try and "freeroll" casinos - similar to the Self Exclusion fraudsters a few years ago. The difference here is the banks have considerably more data available than the casinos ever had, and they will pick up on attempted player fraud as well - with the potential for more repercussions than the SE scam had.

Intent is key - people who have genuinely been scammed by a fraudulent casino should have an opportunity to appeal, those who are trying to game the system will hopefully get their day in court.

I think he does not like seeing different strange names on his bank statements.

There are plenty of casinos that change merchant identifiers so the banks in some Nordic countries don't block these transactions. All those casinos themselves are not necessarily the sites where players don't get their winnings, it's just a thing with their banks.

 

[jasonuk]

I think he does not like seeing different strange names on his bank statements.

The OP seems to be referring to third parties posting on forums, so not sure we can speculate on the exact intent. Although it is known that these transactions often incur additional currency conversion charges beyond those advertised.

There are plenty of casinos that change merchant identifiers so the banks in some Nordic countries don't block these transactions.

That isn't a valid justification though - they would be breaching merchant agreements by doing that, and it's still considered payment fraud. The whole purpose of the MCCs is so that transactions can be processed and managed correctly - which includes blocking transactions as required.

One of the reasons a lot of sites went to crypto-only is it introduces enough plausible deniability that everyone can blame everyone else, while still keeping the gravy train going. Admittedly things would be a bit more problematic if banks started blocking payments to crypto platforms.

All those casinos themselves are not necessarily the sites where players don't get their winnings, it's just a thing with their banks.

Indeed, and as I mentioned there are two strands here - one is existing people using chargebacks as a last-ditched attempt to deal with rogue casinos; the other is potentially dishonest people using chargebacks as a way to freeroll the casinos (possibly in a similar way to SE fraud a few years back).

Which is why I mention intent being important - the first group have a legitimate complaint, the second group are potentially committing payment fraud given their behaviour depends on whether they win or not.

If banks are forced to act because of an increase in fraudulent chargebacks, either they'll continue to push more liability onto customers (as they have in recent years), or they will start introducing further checks and/or restrictions for foreign transactions.

 

[Guntis]

The OP seems to be referring to third parties posting on forums, so not sure we can speculate on the exact intent. Although it is known that these transactions often incur additional currency conversion charges beyond those advertised.


That isn't a valid justification though - they would be breaching merchant agreements by doing that, and it's still considered payment fraud. The whole purpose of the MCCs is so that transactions can be processed and managed correctly - which includes blocking transactions as required.

One of the reasons a lot of sites went to crypto-only is it introduces enough plausible deniability that everyone can blame everyone else, while still keeping the gravy train going. Admittedly things would be a bit more problematic if banks started blocking payments to crypto platforms.


Indeed, and as I mentioned there are two strands here - one is existing people using chargebacks as a last-ditched attempt to deal with rogue casinos; the other is potentially dishonest people using chargebacks as a way to freeroll the casinos (possibly in a similar way to SE fraud a few years back).

Which is why I mention intent being important - the first group have a legitimate complaint, the second group are potentially committing payment fraud given their behaviour depends on whether they win or not.

If banks are forced to act because of an increase in fraudulent chargebacks, either they'll continue to push more liability onto customers (as they have in recent years), or they will start introducing further checks and/or restrictions for foreign transactions.

I thought his question was similar to another guy from Sweden who was asking for info about misleading MCC codes, and i suggested ring Finansinspektionen for advice. It's a Swedish financial authority.

 

[jasonuk]

I thought his question was similar to another guy from Sweden who was asking for info about misleading MCC codes, and i suggested ring Finansinspektionen for advice. It's a Swedish financial authority.

Thanks, good thread to quote. It ties in with a lot of what I said above, but obviously in more detail given people were actually performing the chargeback action in question. Some of that information is a few years old at this point, and as we've discovered in other threads, banks are more aggressive in disputing this now given it appears to be becoming more common.

Some of the examples mentioned in this post (#360 of that thread) show how brazen the fraud is. But two frauds don't make a right...