Apparently not. Check out hardygrrl’s last post. Doesn’t sound like they’re too interested in prosecuting anyone. With all the money they lose to fraud, you’d think they’d try a little harder to discourage it.:rolleyes:
Small correction.
We do prosecute the big cases/fraud rings. I don’t know if there’s a set dollar amount for prosecution.
Keep in mind this is partially due to the varying laws in the states. Many jurisdictions have a set dollar amount that needs to be hit before they will take any action. Like the police told a customer of mine “You can file a report, but keep in mind our priorities.”
I wish we could punish every perp but it’s not realistic.
Hmmm…nothing against you, hardygrrl; you’re just doing your job, but I’m getting a pretty high reading on the Lame-o-meter, company-policy-wise. Am I to understand that under a certain dollar amount, credit card companies don’t want to bother tracking down credit card thieves in favor of simply taking a loss, yet at that same dollar amount are PERFECTY WILLING to devote resources to harassing legitimate card-holders who have already told them their card number was stolen? I understand that card-holders may lie, and I can see the case for both strategies, but to give the latter priority over the former seems awfully cold-blooded.
blowero, I don’t presume to speak for hardygrrl, but it sounds to me like, in order to prosecute the thieves, they have to get the police involved, and it’s the police who don’t want to bother, below that certain dollar amount. Whether or not it’s harassment to pursue the matter with the legitimate holder I can’t say, but there seem to be limits to what the card companies can do, without police cooperation, which is hard to get.
Except that sort of flies in the face of what hardygrrl wrote earlier:
Now, when I orginally read this, I didn’t see anything to the effect that they want to go after the bad guys, but the police won’t cooperate. I get the distinct impression that the decision is based on profit, don’t you? I’m basing my conclusion on words like “It makes better business sense”. And where it says “the victim can always file a police report”; that would tend to imply that the bank doesn’t want to bother, unless I am unaware of a law that allows only cardholders to file police reports, and not banks.
If the bank doesn’t want to go after the thief because it’s not worth it for them, that’s one thing. My gripe is what appears to be a “business decision” to mainly go after the card-holding customers simply because it’s easier.
Looks like the cops are part of it blowero.
We don’t go after the cardholders. We ask them to sign an affadavit. That’s all. This complies with both the V/M agreement and Bank Regulation Z.
Like Harmonix said, the police aren’t going to use their resources to track down someone who used an account number when there are, for lack of a better term, bigger fish to fry. Sucks? I know.
O.K., fair enough. I certainly don’t know what the V/M agreement and Bank Regulation Z are, but if all you do is ask the customer to sign one form, I wouldn’t object to that. I had the impression from this thread that customers were being asked to do much more. So then are we saying that rexnervous is having all this trouble just because he refused to sign an affidavit?
It really does, because then it just makes the problem worse. We have a system where it’s relatively easy to get away with using someone else’s card number, coupled with the fact that these crooks know that the police aren’t gonna bother with them. Hell, practically makes me want to steal someone’s card myself.
So now I’m curious: Since we’ve now established that the police are at fault, what exactly happens when the bank tries to take legal action against an identity thief? Do the police just flat-out tell you they won’t do anything? And you mentioned before that you DO prosecute the “big” cases. So do the police ask you how much money was involved, and then say they aren’t going to do anything because it’s not enough money? How do you decide at what monetary amount to draw the line? And wouldn’t it depend on which police department was involved?
Since I’m the one who started the thread, let me jump back in here on a couple notes.
Look, I’m not going to reiterate my basic feeling, since it’s all there in the previous posts, but it’s a little disingenous to say that “it’s just a little affadavit.” And no, I am not refusing to fill it out, the point was that I’m ticked that I have to make copies of the police report, copies of other things (I forget), and fill out like three pages at least of information. That is NOT a “simple affadavit”, it’s a bloody waste of my time for something that is not my fault.
As far as the cops go, it’s all over the place. I had an excellent trooper who initially responded to the call, and did a whole lot of initial investigation. He called up all the card agencies to talk to them, found out where the charges were made, told me some basic stuff about identity theft, came by my house a few times to update me. Of course, the fact that over $10,000 was charged to my name on these various accounts helped, since he said that that amount makes it a felony or something.
However, once he turned the case over to the detectives, he (and I) were in for a rude awakening. According to Connecticut law, the presiding jurisdiction for these cases must be in the locale of the purchase. The purchases were all made in smaller towns in Massachusetts. So now I had to go call 2 more police depts. to explain the situation. And these police depts. wouldn’t do anything about it until the stores in question filed a complaint. Guess what? I still haven’t heard anything, so it appears the stores haven’t bothered to even file the police report.
So you see where my frustration lies? NOBODY (except for my initial police officer) seems to care or to want to do jack shit, except to make me prove that I didn’t do this.
No offense to you personally hardygrrl, but this whole “that’s the way it is and it sucks doesn’t it” isn’t exactly friendly to your real customers, is it? Seems to me it’s just a basic cost-opportunity benefit analysis, and the simple, law-abiding customer is the one who is stepped on.
No offense taken. 
Like Blowero asked, it does depend on the laws of the various juridictions the extent of prosecution. The suits never give us a dollar amount that needs to be reached. Part of the problem is (scary part ahead) we deal with people who make fraud a career. They know what to do and how not to get caught. It’s a daily battle just to stop these fuckpuddles, much less catch them.
I personally would love to string up these people and make them human pinatas. When you have to tell someone their grandchild who visits them every week has opened six accounts in their name, or the friendly neighbor who mows their lawn also stole their mail…I hear people lose their faith in humanity, and honestly, I’ve cried along with some of them.
Unfortunately, I work for a BigAss Bank whose eyes are on the profit margin.
Now you guys have me scared. I used my credit card over the phone today, and it was declined. I called the bank in a panic to find out why. Turns out the person on the phone had typed the wrong expiration date. And get this: I had repeated it 3 times to her, and the 3rd time she even read it back to me correctly, but STILL typed it in wrong.:rolleyes: