Talk:Credit card fraud

message: 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)
thread_title:  Credit Card Companies 

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

message: (→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)
replies: text: 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.   — Miles←☎ 06:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It hasn't been in the article for a few weeks.  — Miles←☎ 01:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Note 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Asking for id 

message: 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)
thread_title: Familiar Fraud

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Card cloning]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dirty article 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Whoever is able to access to the following info, please make edition accordingly..... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fraudulent charge-back scheme? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Credit Cards with RFID Chips 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of magnetic stripes & EMV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Card-Not-Present 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unexpected repeat billing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Profits, Losses, and Punishments 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cardilistic 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Introduction sounds like an ad