Talk:Credit card fraud

Credit Card Companies

The statement that credit card companies and banks profit from fraud is inaccurate. First, due to limitations on certain private sector and non-durable retail goods, on average only about 40-50% of retail transactions can be charged back to a merchant. In addition, there are no chargeback rights on cash transactions (ATM withdrawals, Over the Counter Bank withdrawals, wire money transfers, and gambling-related charges - which account for tens of millions of dollars in fraud annually), so banks lose 100% of the fraud in these situations. This is also the case with some convenience checks that are written fraudulently from credit card accounts. The bank does not retain fees for these charges, as stated in the article. Also, the statement (without a source) from the Wall Street Journal about "research and investigation fees" is not solely related to fraud but includes payment and non-fraud billing inquiry research too, making this claim misleading. While the methods outlined in this section are used to lessen fraud losses to some extent, claiming that financial institutions actually profit from fraud is completely incorrect, and since there are no citations to prove any of the statements made, I suggest that the section be reworded, rewritten, or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stickfigureparade (talk • contribs) 05:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyleft violation

Content literally lifted without attribution on a link farm site: http://www.fraudwatchernetwork.com/website/credit-card-fraud.html JavaWoman 04:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• For clarity, it is probably fraudwatchernetwork.com using Wikipedias content without permission, and not the other way around. I almost removed the larger part of the article for copyright violation there. --Apoc2400 08:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I will be looking into this, if necessary, I'll rewrite the information for new content. Alphabeter 00:50 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That page has been suspended by its host. Stifle (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Would you also look into this site. At least the charge-back part seems to be verbatim copying:

http://www.answers.com/topic/credit-card-fraud

Well They do credit Wikipedia (I missed that at first) so I assume it is cool with you guys. I'll leave this here just in case, as you can delete it if it is.

answers.com mirrors many wikipedia articles -- 12.116.162.162 19:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

FRAUD PREVENTIONS

This was a blank category, but I'll take it as a suggestion for the article. Alphabeter 00:50 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Safety precautions at a cash dispenser (ATM) "Try to use ATMs in an isolated location to reduce the chance of robbery or someone seeing the PIN-number you have entered" - this is terrible advice. You want to use an ATM in a busy area, where you are less likely to be robbed! Not in an abandoned alley, where you are alone and "safe."

Cleanup

I'll be doing cleanup on this page. Add any comments to my desk. Alphabeter 00:50 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Tone

This article needs to be written more as an encyclopedia article and less as a how-to. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it probably needs to be rewritten completely, with sections delimited properly and so on. Stifle (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Note

(→General precautions - "* Sign the card, but then write "ASK FOR ID" to force the merchant to verify your Identification." this isn't true, the card must be signed to be valid.)

Actually, you don't need to sign the card for it to be valid. A lot of places won't even check. If it is swipped or the ID # on the back is used, it's as valid to the credit card company as checking an ID or having a signature, probably even more so, because it shows you actually HAVE the card, instead of just the credit card number and expiration date. --Sir VG 06:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that; I've swiped countless unsigned cards, though I know it's wrong—so I'm a hypocrite. But merchants are supposed to refuse to accept unsigned cards—at least according to the terms of their agreements with Visa, MasterCard, and AmEx. [1] — Miles←☎ 06:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Aside from that, why is this even in the article anyway? Wikipedia is not a how-to. Stifle (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been in the article for a few weeks. — Miles←☎ 01:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

By Visa and Mastercard regulations, a credit card must be signed for it to be valid. If a merchant accepts a credit card that is not signed, the transaction can be charged back for that reason. If the consumer shows that the card wasn't signed, the merchant loses.

Persons that commit credit card crime largely go unpunished and repeatedly victimize consumers and businesses. The Secret Service handles crimes involving the US money supply, they have a limit of $2,000 before investigating each crime. Most credit card criminals know this and keep purchases from any one business below $2,000. With credit card crime occurring across state lines, criminals often are never prosecuted because the dollar amounts are too low for local law enforcement to pay for extradition.

I can't find any source of the secret service setting a floor limit. I want someone to back up this statement with a source, otherwise it should/will be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.176.3.171 (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldnt you sign the card, but then write "also ask for ID" on it? [this has worked for me, 98% of the time they also ask for my ID]

Yes, I've heard of this idea; it's particularly stupid one. 82.20.6.250 (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Because most places I go to don't check ID, even when cards say "See ID". I make a habit of pulling my ID out and handing it with the card anyways. A simple solution would be a federal law requiring merchants to verify with photo ID. When I worked at OfficeMax, I had people really pissed off at me because I asked for ID. If you are going to get that upset, use cash. Seriously, Congress needs to step in and radically change Federal law to protect consumers. There shouldn't be an opt-out for prescreened credit offers; it should be an opt-in. Nobody should have access to a credit report unless the consumer specifically authorizes access. That won't happen because the banking industry wants to continue to prey on consumers by sending out prescreened offers. -- 12.116.162.162 18:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I had a debit card that had been used so much, the signature panel had worn off in several places, and the words "VOID" were clearly visable. It was like this for several months and I never had my card rejected by the merc. -- 12.116.162.162 18:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

-You have to realize that most merchants don't train their personnel to check ID correctly, especially if you go to a place like Wal-Mart, Best Buy, or a similar store where you generally have a lot of fraud charges taking place, because there are young kids working who either don't care or weren't trained correctly. Stickfigureparade (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

- In the USA, it is a violation of the merchant agreement to require ID in order to process a transaction. It is not a violation to ask for ID, but requiring it is a violation unless there are specific circumstances to warrant it. A blanket policy of requiring IDs of all customers is not a specific enough circumstance and is likely to get the merchant account suspended if maintained in the face of customer complaints. This stuff is covered in the previously linked merchant guidelines. Furthermore, the reasoning behind this policy is precisely because the credit card companies want to supplant cash transactions - you do not need an ID to use cash so requiring an ID to use a credit card makes cash easier to use than their product contrary to the credit card company's intention.

And one more comment - the signature on the back of the card is not intended as proof of identity. It is there to indicate legal acceptance of the contract between the card holder and the card issuer. That's why the policy, as explained in the aforementioned merchant guidelines, when presented with an unsigned card is to have the card holder sign it and then use it. Writing "check id" or anything else other than the card holder's actual signature in the signature area of the credit card makes the contract legally invalid and the merchant is supposed to refuse to accept the card. This too is covered in the previously linked merchant guidelines. 98.110.167.69 (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Asking for id

Requesting id is fairly common in Australia for high-value or high-risk transactions. Are merchants doing it in contravention of laws or issuer agreements? It seems unlikely. Maybe the statement that they are not allowed to ask for id needs to be qualified as "in some jurisdictions"? Subsolar 07:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I live in Dallas, Texas and am sometimes asked for ID when making credit card purchases. I obtained my first credit card in 2001 and for the first two years, I was almost never asked for ID when making transactions. Then some time towards the end of 2003, it seemed like all of a sudden everyone was asking me for ID. I asked a few people about it but no one seemed to be able to explain it. So it was just an unexplained phenomenon, but I read recently that in some jurisdictions, merchants can be liable for fraudulent transactions solely because they did not ask a customer for ID when making a credit card purchase, and that merchants usually request ID in such jurisdictions. Andrea Parton (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Familiar Fraud

I propose that there should be a section dedicated to Familiar Fraud - use of credit cards fraudulently by friends/family members/acquaintances. Many US banks treat this type of fraud differently than standard "anonymous" credit card fraud (I don't know if this is true outside the US). For example, the claim that "Once you report the incident, you are no longer responsible for unauthorized charges made on your card" is incorrect when a friend or family member is a suspect. If it can be reasonably proven that the friend or family member had access to the card and made the unauthorized charges, the victim may still be held responsible. Stickfigureparade (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Card cloning

Anyone have information regarding card cloning mentioned in the Automated teller machine#Card_fraud article? There's no mention of this term in this article, not sure whether this should be a new article or a redirect to a specific section in this article. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 00:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think card cloning and card skimming should be mentioned in both articles, but there should be a main article for both called something like "bank card skimming and duplicating". Facts707 (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Dirty article

This article is a mess: tons of areas need citations as well as some worldwide views. I will spend some time researching the information and get this article looking nice and crisp. This is a VERY important article, and a big issues. NoFlyingCars (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Need sources...

I challenge this. Please source.

"One way to protect your credit card from being used if lost or stolen is to sign the back of the card "Ask For ID", instead of signing your signature. This makes the cashier ask for another type of ID verification such as a driver's license. The cashier then is able to not only match the name, but also has a photograph for verification."

Thanks, MoodFreak (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Yeah I also want to challenge the figure of 7% cited in paragraph 2. I realize that it's cited but it seems high. If somebody boosted 7 percent of cars off of a car dealers lot, the dealer would immediately build a higher fence. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.110.2 (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep. wasnt hard to find this -- http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2005/tc20050621_3238_tc024.htm

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.110.2 (talk • contribs)

I'm sure I'm missing something here. There is not 7% number quoted; there's 7bp which is a wildly different figure and the original author even linked to an explanation of basis points. This seems to jive with the older number you linked to. Can you re-phrase your question, maybe? Kuru (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops! You're correct. My mistake Sir. Thanks for your patience. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.110.2 (talk • contribs)

Whoever is able to access to the following info, please make edition accordingly.....

• http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=en&q=credit+%22card+fraud%22+reimbursement&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--58.38.44.147 (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Fraudulent charge-back scheme?

There is a class of email spam (usually sent to commercial / corporate email addresses) where the spammer makes an offer to purchase something from a vendor. The spammer makes it clear that he intends to pay for the goods using a credit card. It has been speculated that this is some form of charge-back scheme, whereby the spammer is using a legit credit card but intends to request a charge-back to reverse the charge, while at the same time retaining the goods that were shipped to him. Can a spammer / criminal make a living (or at least a respectable income) performing this sort of charge-back fraud without the bank or card-issuer getting suspicious of the number of charge-backs being performed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.80.140 (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Credit Cards with RFID Chips

Some newer, "contactless" credit cards have embedded RFID chips which may increase vulnerability. The first reference below says they're more secure when used without letting to credit card leave your hands. All sorts of staments and claims flying but no known claims of breaches I know of.

RFID Journal http://www.rfidjournal.com/blog/entry/7870

Popular Mechanics http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/how-to/4206464

Boing http://tv.boingboing.net/2008/03/19/how-to-hack-an-rfide.html

"Johny Carson Attack" http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3513_7-6658127-1.html

DonL (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of magnetic stripes & EMV

I think that this article should be expanded with a few sentences about magnetic stripes and that some banks are starting to phase them out for security reasons. -- 62.156.55.33 (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Card-Not-Present

We now have several US suppliers demanding the "ATM PIN", ie the card PIN, for internet transactions. Presumably, this enables them to avoid the Card-Not-Present transaction fees. I haven't seen any documentation about this.

The Web is full of old documention saying that the PIN will not be required for Card-Not-Present transactions, and our (AUS) banks don't know anything about it either.

Any further information would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Unexpected repeat billing

I'm renaming the section formerly called "Unethical but legal schemes" to "Unexpected repeat billing." If the charges are unexpected, it's often illegal. For example, see this settlement between the FTC and an organization that signed people up for free trials of buyer's clubs and billed them when the trials were up.

Kstinch (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Profits, Losses, and Punishments

The "Merchants" section of this needs to be updated. It is my understanding that, in the US, after October 1, 2015, the merchant will bear full responsibility for any fraudulent charges over the first $50 on the card. This is being used to leverage merchants into adopting RFID technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Credit card fraud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716180053/http://www.fraudlabs.com/fraudLabswhitepaperpg1.htm to http://www.fraudlabs.com/fraudlabswhitepaperpg1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Cardilistic

Cardilistic mean the card and the list of people who enter the atm and see how they use the card and see the credit number. Gurungdevil (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Outdated, regional

Most of this info is from the 1990s and US centric. Zezen (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Does English Wikipedia include British English?

Does English Wikipedia include British English? Prairie Astronomer (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ACCT425 Accounting Capstone

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 February 2022 and 26 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Deanhulbert23, Allieolm, Purpledaisy28, Colesharris (article contribs).

Introduction sounds like an ad

I'm pretty sure the introduction was edited by a credit card company, it is quite obvious that credit cards are the least safe form of digital money, which is backed up by incredibly high fraud numbers (50% have experienced it, over 800million fraud just in the UK plus twice as much that was thankfully stopped in time) but the introduction makes it seem like credit cards are safe to use and uses advertising tropes like "becoming increasingly more sophisticated and secure", like yeah no shit, I'd hope so that is literally normal technological advancement and not something worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8108:8400:7bd8:59cf:5634:3c4a:c485 (talk • contribs)

I've made some changes to try to address some of the issues you brought up. Wikipedia relies on what reliable sources say, if you're willing it would be helpful if you could find some to support any changes you think should be made to the article regarding how safe credit cards are compared to other forms of digital money. PhantomTech[talk] 07:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)