Consumer complaint received 2017-08-21
Product: Credit card or prepaid card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Company: BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE (TN)

I am submitting this complaint to let you know about a merchants transaction processing. I have a billing dispute with this merchant and was informed my dispute can not proceed. I was given a different dispute case number in each letter regarding the same dispute, so Ill provide them all in the order I received : XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX through DBO XXXX ( how it was provided in third letter ). The merchant, XXXX, operates prediction markets at XXXX  The transactions are for deposits in an online trading account. On my credit card statement, these transactions post as purchases and not cash advances. Shouldnt transactions like this be considered cash advances? I have seen other online ( non ATM ) transactions processed as cash advances. Any time money is loaded to an online account, it is usually treated as a cash advance. If these transactions posted as cash advances and due to the lower cash advance limit ( that is a portion of the full credit line ), it would not have been possible for me to deposit as much as I did on this site. My dispute involves 28 transactions from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXXand three transactions in XX/XX/XXXX. First they said the transactions from XX/XX/XXXXto XX/XX/XXXX are too old to be disputed and the XX/XX/XXXX transactions were the only chargebacks completed. Then they said they will consider the 28 transactions ( since there are exceptions to the dispute time limits ) for dispute proceedings, but then a short time later they said vie phone call the transactions cant be disputed because the funds were loaded to an investment account and are older than 60 days while the letter I received a few days later ( only referenced the transactions from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX ) stated the dispute is denied because when funds are loaded to an investment account, there are no dispute rights ( nothing about a time limit ). If this is the case, then why were the chargebacks completed for the XX/XX/XXXX transactions? I think the XX/XX/XXXX chargebacks were easy because they were within the normal time limit for chargebacks. I believe chargebacks older than 120 days require an extra step/process and they dont want to process them due to the extra work, which is the reason for receiving different excuses for the dispute being denied. I have lost over {$83000.00} on this site through deposits on seven credit cards, with {$23000.00} on Barclay MasterCard. During the month of XX/XX/XXXXalone, I have made over {$44000.00} in deposits. During the month of XX/XX/XXXX, I have made about {$27000.00} in deposits. This site takes unlimited amounts of deposits, only accepts deposits by credit card, and does not offer other options to fund their accounts, such as electric bank transfers, wire transfers, or XXXX. Most online trading sites do not accept credit card deposits or have low limits in how much one person can deposit by credit card. The only way to fund most online trading accounts are by ACH bank transfers or wire transfers. My main reason for my dispute is not about losing money, but about the amounts of funds they allowed me to deposit. While I should not have deposited these amounts, XXXX  should not have accepted unlimited deposits and/or Barclay should not have approved all of the transactions. I noticed recently the merchant violated their own terms of service by accepting too much money. These terms are available at XXXXHome/TermsAndConditions that state, a limit on investment by any single participant in any particular contract [ of ] {$850.00} and You must not deposit more than the permitted amount with the XXXX XXXX. The permitted amounts for any Market are set forth on the Website. Where you deposit ( or attempt to deposit ) more than this amount, the XXXX XXXX will be entitled to reject or return your funds. They took deposits that far exceeded this {$850.00} limit per market on multiple credit cards. I discovered that there were several markets that I lost a lot more than {$850.00} and I counted 19 of these as follows ( all amounts identified are loses ) : AG SEC {$7900.00}, COMM SEC {$2200.00}, ED SEC {$1100.00}, ENERGY SEC {$4800.00}, HHS SEC {$2500.00}, SEC DEFENSE {$1800.00}, SEC STATE {$4900.00}, SEC TREAS {$3300.00}, SEC VA {$1800.00}, TRANS SEC {$1400.00}, AMB CHINA {$1300.00}, OMB {$2100.00}, EPA ADMIN {$3000.00}, SBA {$1400.00}, WH PRESS SEC {$4900.00}, CABINET WOMEN {$2500.00}, RNC CHAIR {$1000.00}, SCOTUS {$2000.00}, and FBI DIR {$1000.00}. These add up to over  {$50000.00} and more than {$35000.00} over the {$850.00} limit. Do you think it is reasonable for a web site to take over {$70000.00} in deposits on credit cards from the same user from XX/XX/XXXX( when I opened my account ) to the end of the year? And this is not even counting deposits made in XX/XX/XXXX. I got over my head, accumulated about {$50000.00} of credit card debt, and lost my life savings on this site.