| |
In lugnet.market.services, Paul Janssen wrote:
| |
In lugnet.market.services, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
| |
In lugnet.market.services, Paul Janssen wrote:
http://www.landofbricks.com
| |
Mark, sad, but there is truth to these stories.
|
Hey, I never said *none* were true - I even said that they do freeze some
accounts for protection from fraud.....
| |
Paypal yanked the funds back. They
claimed that the buyer has possibly used fraudulaent funds.
|
And there ya go - straight from your fingertips. *Any* good CC company will
try to protect people from fraud, and that is exactly what was going on. If
you buy something and it turns out to be stolen the police will yank it away
from you - does that make them thieves?
|
The police helps you get the info you need to get the money back from the
person that got the goods, buy PP in very incooperative, unlike the police.
| |
| |
I had shipped to the
confirmed address, (but no delivery conf.), and received feedback for the
order about 1 week after shipment. A good 4 months later the funds were
yanked back, and no matter what evidence I provided that it had been shipped
(including links to BL feedback etc.), paypal stated I have to follow
their “seller protection program” to the very letter.
|
Sounds like the buyer is the one doing you bad, not paypal. Did he claim you
never sent the goods? And if that is what he did (it really sounds like that
is what happened) do you really expect paypal to give him back his money an
let you keep the money also?
|
I did ship, and the buyer received! The buyer left me positive feedback. I was
even 1 piece short on a used black falcon fortress, which I shipped a few days
later, again to the confirmed address. My beef is that a “confirmed” address
means nothing apparently. You would think they at least contact the “buyer”,
or even file charges, but what I undferstood they do not. So, PP has proof
that fradulent funds were used, they have a confirmed address of the fradulent
buyer, yet stick it to the seller. They should at least help me get the money
back from the buyer by sharing info regarding the fraud, but they don’t.
Preventing me from getting it back is also a form of stealing, wouldn’t you
say.
If it actually did work like that - could you imagine the
| |
amount of fraud that will start up? All 2 people have to do is send the other
a good amount of money, the ‘buyer’ claims he never got the item - paypal
would refund the money to the ‘buyer’ and still let the ‘seller’ keep the
money.... heh - that would be an easy way to double your money there.
It is sad, yes - but it is reality. Any major CC company will do the exact
same thing - so how does that single out paypal as theives? All a person has
to do is calim they never made the purcace to their CC comapny and there is
over a 95% chance they will get their money back regardless of the store
having proof that the charge is legit.
| |
I truely believe thet stole it from me.
|
Who? The ‘buyer’ or Paypal?
|
Both, the buyer for real (if indeed he used a stolen CC), PayPal in a broader
for blocking my chance at getting it back.
| |
It is so easy to reverse CC charges - no matter how much proof the store has
it was you. The percentage of chargebacks that get denied are very small. So
is this paypal’s fault?
| |
there is truth to some of these stories,
|
Yes, I agree some are true - and I bet the vast majority of them are sellers
who do not understand this is how *all* CC processors work. And I am sure
most stories are missing some very key facts. But like the story that was
posted here - not one ounce of supporting evidence - and look at it - it is
the #1 topic right now - WITH NO PROOF! If somebody stole $7,000 from me I
would make a run to the BBB and any and every news station that would listen
- and trust me, ALL would listen and play the story to death like they do
with everything.
If somebody stole $7,000+ from you - would you only change the payments you
take on ebay? lol, think about it......
Mark
|
|
My guess as to what happened here is something like this: the Buyer on that
transaction most likely stole someone’s credit card number and/or identity, set
up a PayPal account under false pretenses, bought a bunch of stuff, and then
took off when the fraudulent credit card charges were noticed by the victim.
Even the fact that the buyer left positive feedback is not uncommon in fraud
cases; the criminal usually does everything possible to appear to be legitimate
for as long as possible.
Sure, PayPal should bear more responsibility to protect you from counterfeit
“verified” buyers, but they had a team of lawyers draft their user aggreement,
and you sat there squinting at fifteen pages of fine print in your browser with
your mouse hovering over the “I Have Read and Accept...” button. Who do you
think has the upper hand when it come to the procedurals? Read the fine print
of your direct deposit contract with your employer and you will see that they
can do the same thing to you if they screw up and decide that they have overpaid
you sometime.
I am not a lawyer, but If I were the seller in this case, I would consider
taking one or more of the following steps to try to get my money back, although
the odds are slim: 1. File a criminal complaint with the local police
department in the buyer’s jurisdiction. 2. File a mail fraud complaint with the
FBI. 3. File a civil suit against the buyer.
Once the police or the FBI open a criminal investigation, PayPal would
presumably have to cough up some information about why they pulled back the
funds, although the seller probably won’t see this information anyway. But if
it turns out that the goods were purchased with a stolen credit card number, the
seller will probably never get their money back. The stolen goods could be
returned to the seller if the buyer is aprehended and convicted, but that is one
big IF. The burden ultimately rests with the seller to verify the identity of
the customer, which is very difficult to do in an Internet sale.
A close friend of mine was the victim of identity theft and bank fraud not long
ago. It was absolutely pathetic how unhelpful the financial institution and the
local police were in pursuing the criminal, even as this individual continued to
use a stolen debit card number and the bank continued to approve the bogus
transactions, dropping the burden of proof on the victim every time. The
seriousness of identity theft is only beginning to be understood by the law
enforcement, and it is unlikely that the seller will ever recoup the stolen
goods or the lost funds. The lesson here is that if you’re doing business with
someone to the tune of $7,000 (or whatever amount you decide is a lot to lose)
you had better find an independent way to verify that they are the person they
claim to be. My friend’s identity theft case was first uncovered because a
vendor contacted her by telephone when they received a suspicious order by
e-mail. The vendor’s vigilance, although commendable, was an act of
self-protection.
Even when you are the seller, the rule is still caveat emptor.
- Chris.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
26 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
