Question about Gambling websites with Curaçao license using incorrect Merchant Category code (page 875)

Can you help me we with KTM?

[email protected]

Are you able to contact and help me with KTM?

[email protected]

Hey,

Hope you're all ok and staying away from these evil sites.....

I've had my final adjudication from the FOS with myh case against Starling. You can read it below. I've highlighted the relvant parts in bold for future reference. What irks me, is that they have ignored the fact that the website in question (magicwin) is blatantly a scam site (copious evidence provided) so this was NOT gambling, but fraud. The Ombudsman in question has also contradicted himself in the previous case I quoted, as well as ignoring evidence that a chargeback would have succeeded.

I'm going to take Starling to court over this. They are wrong, and the ombudsman is as well.

My complaint against Mastercard directly is still ongoing.

I would suggest that anyone here who has had problems with an issuing bank that uses Mastercard, directs a complaint at them. This complaint should explain how Mastercards lack of, and recent changing of, chargeback rules prevents people who have genuinely been scammed/defrauded by fake casino sites, having any from of redress to get their money back.

Any other form of fraud is covered by Mastercard. All forms of fraud, including this one, are covered by Visa.

If enough of us complain, we can do something about this.

The £20k+ I have now lost to these sites doesn't matter me now, it's gone and I accept that. I just don't want anyone else to have to suffer as I have.

The complaint

Mr K complains that Starling Bank Limited ("Starling") didn’t raise chargebacks for him for

transactions that took place on his account.

What happened

Mr K has said to us that he has a history of problem gambling. To protect himself from this,

he placed a gambling block on his bank account with Starling and registered with

GAMSTOP. However, in June and July 2024, Mr K had a relapse and gambled around

£2,800 on unregulated gambling websites from his Starling account.

Mr K contacted Starling saying these transactions were only accepted because the merchant

websites used an incorrect Merchant Category Code ("MCC"), which bypassed the gambling

blocks he had in place. He asked Starling to process chargebacks for these transactions, but

they said there were no chargeback rights for gambling transactions.

Mr K complained and said he was the victim of a scam and that the websites and their

payment processors had misrepresented themselves because the transactions would have

been blocked had they used the correct MCC’s.

Starling didn’t think they’d done anything wrong and so Mr K referred the matter to our

service. One of our investigators looked into what happened but didn’t recommend that

Starling needed to do anything to put things right. He felt Starling were correct not to raise

chargebacks as there was nothing within the card scheme operator’s chargeback rules that

permitted this, taking into account the circumstances of Mr K’s claim.

Mr K didn’t agree with our investigator and so his complaint has been passed to me to

review.

What I’ve decided – and why

I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and

reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.

I’m aware I’ve summarised the events of this complaint. I don’t intend any discourtesy by this

– it just reflects the informal nature of our service. I’m required to decide matters quickly and

with minimum formality. But I want to assure Mr K and Starling that I’ve reviewed everything

on file. If I don’t comment on something, it’s not because I haven’t considered it. I’ve

concentrated on what I think are the key issues, which our powers allow me to do.

I note Mr K said at one point that he didn’t receive any goods or services from the

merchants/websites in question. But Mr K has also said that at the time he made the

transactions, he was aware he was using a gambling website and the transactions were

gambling ones. So, I’m satisfied he received the services he was paying for.

However, Mr K also said the only reason he was able to make these transactions was

because the MCC’s attached to them were listed as something other than gambling, which

meant the blocks and other safeguarding measures he’d put in place didn’t prevent them

from being made.

Mr K feels that Starling should have raised chargebacks because the merchants and

whoever was involved in processing their transactions used the wrong MCC’s. The relevant

card scheme operator here was Mastercard. Our service has directly contacted Mastercard

about scenarios where merchants and/or their acquirers/payment processors have used

incorrect MCC’s to mask gambling transactions. Mastercard has directly confirmed to us that

there are no chargeback rights for any sort of gambling transactions, such as the ones Mr K

made, and there were no chargeback codes applicable where incorrect MCC’s have been

used. Mastercard also confirmed to us that, had a bank such as Starling submitted a

chargeback request in circumstances such as Mr K’s, this wouldn’t have been successful

had this been sent to them to decide.

I’ve also considered what Mr K has said about being the victim of a scam. However, I’ve

mentioned above that Mr K did get the services he requested and authorised, which was that

he transferred money to the websites in question to gamble. So, I don’t think the rules

around fraud chargebacks apply here.

I’m aware that Mr K has made successful chargeback claims with other banks. However,

that was a decision made by those banks. That doesn’t mean Starling were bound to do the

same though. I’ve also noted that Mr K has referred to other decisions made by ombudsmen

(one of which was mine), where the decisions have been upheld in favour of the consumers.

However, the circumstances of each case are different and I’m considering the specific

circumstances of Mr K’s complaint and whether Starling acted fairly.

I of course appreciate the impact this matter has had on Mr K, particularly as he had taken

several measures to try to protect himself from gambling. However, I can only assess

whether I think Starling were wrong not to not raise chargebacks for him. And, bearing in

mind what Mastercard has directly told us about this, I’m satisfied that Starling didn’t act

unfairly when they decided not to raise chargebacks on Mr K’s behalf.

Where did you email me on?

Anyone know "CNSLTITANS"

Hi,

Does anyone know anything about "fint"?

Thanks in advance.

Hey,

can you email me on [email protected]

the email u sent me are saying they don’t recognise the office but payment

Hi Kelly,

Yes one of the other sent it to me, much appreciated 🙂

Can't say that I am surprised. The complaint is being refused properly stating that the bank has acted correctly.

The way to walk this process is to ask your bank for a chargeback for not receiving goods by the dodgy merchant. Many have posted here how to raise chargebacks, if you acknowledge to your bank that you made a deposit to a casino the bank simply is not allowed to raise a chargeback in most cases despite the MCC code and reason.

Since the casino is abusing the MCC code to allow deposits to its casino without being flagged and possibly blocked, the consumer has to track down the merchant and contact this asking for a refund due to a lack of receiving goods. As most merchants don't respond you have clear evidence that you tried to solve this without success asking the bank to intervene and raise a chargeback.

The only problem is that given this topic having 2.6million views, not only players and casinos will find this topic but banks too that are likely not happy to put effort and work in this process. I don't read all posts but where last year and 2023 most merchants cooperated and refunded the money instantly they now are aware of this work around and also are prepared to fight a chargeback until some way hoping the consumer/player lose them. The merchants however, wont speak about gambling transactions as that would lead to a suspension of their merchant agreement with the card schemes and could lead to severe penalties so they will try to proof that they did deliver the goods which is impossible as they don't have your address and other relevant personal details.

I got the same treatment but no where near as complex an answer as you just a few lines ignoring anything about the site being illegal making out its a real site and genuine

Hi Simon,

could you please pass me Kelly's instructions as well?

It would be a great help. 🙏🏻

[email protected]

Thanks in advance.