Julia Altshuler > wrote in message
. ..
> The Ranger wrote:
>> Two things: 1) The crook doesn't wait months on racking
>> up those extra charges; you'll be lucky if it's hours. 2) You
>> follow the process of reporting the bogus transactions
>> EXACTLY as they are listed on your Policies and
>> Procedures toss-away that is slipped in with your monthly
>> bill.
>>
> Thanks. The part about the crook waiting months was
> taken from this thread. Other than that mention of it, I'd
> know nothing about it.

Understood... I hope you _never_ have to experience the horror of
credit card fraud.

Think about the timing from the crook's POV. It's a finite
resource with a severely limited time-date. That's one of the
reasons there are spikes in the use and what the credit card
issuers have set the alarm algorithm to...

The crook that stole SWMBO's card number used it on her break at
the store across from where we ate. I don't know why the clothing
store allowed it but US$375.00 later, that was one very happy
crook. In my case, they immediately hit a couple mail-order
businesses.

> The idea was that by waiting so long, the thief made it much
> harder for the company to figure out what targeted cards had
> in common and much harder for them to catch the thief.

The card issuers are not interested in catching the thieves.
They're strictly interested in limiting their exposure and losses.
That's not their care or worry. (i.e.: SWMBO's crook never had any
actions taken against her -- beyond being fired from the
restaurant...)

> S/he was long gone from the restaurant.

> I had some errors on a bill from years ago. I did follow the
> instructions as you say, and it was cleared up shortly. I
> wonder if that's the case today. You say the time it happened
> to you was back in the days of carbons. It just seems to me
> that the card company could decide that the cardholder is the
> thief.

The card companies have a byzantine process on purpose; they are
going to limit their exposure and loss through any legal means
possible. Attrition of the customer base (where the customer
finally gives up and says, "I'll pay it already!") is an
acceptable business decision. It sucks to be in that position but
a letter on stationary from your lawyer helps smooth the process
somewhat.

> They could decide that the card holder was questioning
> a purchase that the cardharder had really made. It would
> be a my word against theirs sort of thing with the cardholder
> holding, ahem, all the cards.

The signatures are often what are compared. The business that took
the transaction in question usually has ?X? # of days to respond
before the credit is removed from their bank account. If they can
provide proof of the transaction, then the cardholder might be
liable for the transaction.

ObFood: Lucky Charms and a croissant for Spawn's breakfast.

The Ranger