A customer files a claim after two months of unauthorized ATM withdrawals. The customer has possession of card, states never disclosed PIN. Withdrawals made on same days as other legitimate debit activity, withdrawals $20 - $200, ATMs w/in half mile of customer's home (customer used same ATMs in past). This is not a counterfeit situation because the customer states that her boyfriend took the card/PIN and made withdrawals and put the card back in her wallet. (High suspicion here that customer colluded, gave card/PIN to boyfriend). Under Reg E, can this claim be denied based on this evidence?
We have received several ATM REG E disputes stating that the "ATM" they used dispensed counterfeit currency. All of my usual contacts at peer banks and the ABA are extremely divided on whether these are REG E disputes or not. Just looking for more advice....
What happens when an unauthorized ATM PIN based transaction occurs in a customer's account while the customer still has the card? We have had several disputes like these and we wanted further clarification as to the consumer's liability. In these cases the customer had the card and did not have the PIN written anywhere on the card.
I process Visa and MasterCard chargebacks for several financial institutions and I am currently working on a case where the financial institution is not wanting to provide the cardholder provisional credit. The cardholder was making several auto fuel purchases in Florida and was called around the same time to verify transactions on her account. No one knows exactly what was said to verify the charges, but the cardholder agreed the gas charges were hers. Unknowingly to the cardholder there was actually counterfeit activity going on at gas stations in Massachusetts, so after her card was unblocked the fraud continued to happen. The financial institution has decided since the cardholder agreed that the original charges were valid and the card was unblocked for more counterfeit transactions to post, they will not be giving the cardholder credit because the fraud alert company tried to stop a further loss, but the cardholder insisted it wasn't fraud. Since I am the fraud processor, the cardholder keeps calling me because she wants this to be taken care of ASAP. She is out hundreds of dollars, but the financial institution is not budging on giving her credit because it's going to be a loss to them due to the card being counterfeit. Please give me some advice on this issue. I think people can make mistakes and I think when [Name of Fraud Protection Co Withheld] called to verify charges it was an oversight of the cardholder due to her making the same type purchases in her home town and we can not guarantee [Name of Fraud Protection Co Withheld] told her it was out of state charges. The financial institution knows there was counterfeiting going on that weekend because they had at least five accounts affected for the same merchants and state. Is the financial institution required to give the cardholder credit?
We are thinking about offering E-deposits to customers. The customer would go into the home banking application, enter the amount of the deposit and the check information then physically mail us the paper check. The customer would receive immediate availability on deposits up to a specific limit. Once checks are received (within 5 days) we verify the check information and process the checks normally, but do not post the funds. If the checks are not received in time, we can extend the time requirements. What type of transaction is this considered and which regulation does it follow? Reg D, DD, E or Z? Do we have to provide special disclosures and if so, which ones?
We are looking at an e-banking product that allows accounts to be opened and funded without the customer ever coming into a branch. How do we satisfy the CIP requirements for account opening if we never meet them face to face?
We have a customer who had their Visa debit card stolen. He filed a police report and we filed a dispute. The dispute came back denied because they had a signature, but it was not his signature. Why are [Name of Discount Stores Withheld] not responsible for these charges as they did not check the ID of their customer? The signature is clearly different, what can we do?
What recourse does the bank have regarding unauthorized ATM withdrawals? We have a customer whose debit card was used internationally with PIN to withdraw funds out of the ATM machine. The customer has the card in his possession and was not out of the country at the time.
I have been dealing with fraudulent check card transactions for a while. But I have not found a definite answer to the following question. If a customer still has their card and they are claiming that they have fraudulent transactions in their account does the $50 and $500 liability still apply? Or is the customer not liable at all? If this is covered by Reg E where in the Reg is this covered? I would think with so many compromised cards they would address this issue a little more specific on the reg. If anyone has any opinions on the matter I would appreciate your input.
On Visa's website under Zero Liability it states that financial institutions may impose greater liability on the cardholder if the financial institution reasonably determines that the unauthorized transaction was caused by the gross negligence or fraudulent action of the cardholder -- which may include the customer's delay for an unreasonable time in reporting unauthorized transactions. We have a cardholder with unauthorized transactions. I can see that she did a balance inquiry with her card at our ATM five days before she notified us that there was a problem with her account. At the time of the inquiry she was overdrawn and over $800 in unauthorized transactions had occurred. She is negligent in not reporting the issue sooner. By following Visa regulations is she liable for any transactions that occurred after she noticed the balance was not correct at the ATM?