Stanislav Chernyak, Head of the claims department of URALSIB Bank Stage I– Activities related to risk management, i.e. monitoring suspicious transactions, identifying fraudulent transactions, taking measures aimed at preventing them, informing payment systems, etc.
Stage II– Carrying out claims work on past fraudulent transactions.
Stage III– Work on attributing amounts of fraudulent transactions to losses or insurance (if it is impossible to attribute losses to cardholders or merchants).

All three stages are closely interconnected. So, if the department responsible for risk management quickly identified and efficiently handled fraudulent activity, then the employees responsible for carrying out claims work will have to carry out the protest procedure for a smaller number of successful fraudulent transactions. In turn, the better the quality of the claim work, the smaller the amounts attributed to losses of the bank, its clients or Insurance companies. There is also feedback. Sometimes the risk management department receives information about fraudulent transactions that are difficult to identify during the monitoring process directly from the claims department that accepted the corresponding client application. In addition, carrying out claims work specifically on fraudulent transactions requires the mandatory generation of messages through the SAFE and FRS systems, which is part of the functions of risk management.

In this article, we will pay special attention primarily to the second stage, namely, the question of how, in our opinion, claims work on fraudulent transactions should be carried out, since often well-structured claims work (and sometimes the luck factor also works) allows reduce or even avoid financial losses.

Stanislav Chernyak – Head of the claims department of OJSC URALSIB. Supervises such areas of the bank’s activities as claims work, customer support, risk management, and improving the competence of bank specialists in these areas. He came to URALSIB in 1997, starting his activities in the direction of developing the bank’s card business. Previously, he held positions at Avtobank and Avtobank-Nikoil. Born December 24, 1976 He has a diploma from the Accounting and Financial Faculty of the Moscow State University of Commerce under the Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations of the Russian Federation.

Going back to the source

So, the first thing you need to pay attention to when carrying out claims work on fraudulent transactions is the fundamental principles of division of responsibility for fraudulent transactions between the acquirer and the issuer, which are adhered to by the payment systems Visa International and MasterCard Worldwide. In accordance with the current concept, the issuer is responsible for all fraudulent transactions, except for transactions in the field of e-commerce and MOTO (primarily we are talking about transactions on lost, stolen and counterfeit cards). Regarding liability for transactions on counterfeit cards, the main losses from which are borne by the issuing banks, the relevant provisions can be found in the manuals VIOR VOLUME I (chapter RISK MANAGEMENT, section Counterfeit Losses) and Security Rules and Procedures (chapter Fraud Loss Control Standards, section Responsibility for Counterfeit Loss). Responsibility can be transferred from the issuer to another participant in the transaction only in the event of proven violations of the rules of payment systems, as a result of which a fraudulent transaction became possible. General arguments that the client, for example, was in another country at the time of the transaction, are not accepted by payment systems as such evidence - the issuer must prove that the acquirer (or its retail outlet) violated a specific point of the rules. This also includes the transfer of responsibility within the framework of special programs, i.e. various Liability Shifts, which we will return to later. Thus, if the acquirer’s actions were recognized as correct, then it is almost impossible for the issuer to challenge the fraudulent transaction. Fortunately for issuers, as practice shows, acquirers regularly make mistakes, and the issuer’s task is to find such a mistake and take advantage of it wisely.

Standard Protest Methods

Moving on to the consideration of the actual procedure for carrying out claims work, we distinguish two ways: standard and non-standard. Standard means protesting transactions for reasons described by Chargeback codes and Compliance cases. With the standard option, it is preferable to use those codes whose application requires the least labor. Of course, not to the detriment of the quality of the claim work.

First, let's look at the procedure for protesting a fraudulent transaction in the presence of a card and its holder (Card Present), in whose role the fraudster acted, because protesting operations in the field of MOTO and Electronic Commerce related to Card Not Present operations has its own characteristics and will be discussed a little later.

First of all, it is necessary to generate and send messages about fraudulent transactions through the SAFE and FRS systems. In addition to fulfilling the requirements of payment systems, in some cases the issuer may receive a message about the right to protest the operation due to the location of the retail outlet where the fraudulent operation took place in the list of points for which the so-called chargeback window is open (code 93 Visa and 4849 MasterCard). As practice shows, sometimes this may be the only opportunity to protest such operations as, for example, payment for travel on toll roads, bridges, tunnels, etc.

Then it is advisable to check whether any violations have been committed that would allow the use of Chargeback codes from the “authorization” and “processing” groups.

In accordance with the current concept, the issuer bears responsibility for fraudulent transactions, except for transactions in the field of e-commerce and MOTO.

Essentially, you need to get answers to the following questions:

2. Was the card not in the list of withdrawn cards at the time of the sub-limit transaction? (possibility of using codes 70 Visa, 4807 MasterCard);

3. Was the transaction carried out on an expired card? (possibility of using codes 73 Visa, 4835 MasterCard);

4. Is the transaction submitted for payment on time? (possibility of using codes 74 Visa, 4842 MasterCard);

5. Is there double processing of the operation? (possibility of using codes 82 Visa, 4834 MasterCard);

6. Are the rules for performing an operation in a CAT type device violated? (possibility of using 96 Visa, 4808 or 4847 MasterCard codes).

The advantage of using all of the above codes is that they guarantee that the transaction will be contested with almost 100% probability with minimal labor costs: there is no need to request copies of documents for the transaction, or send accompanying documentation (except for code 4847 MasterCard).

If none of the codes of the “authorization” and “processing” groups are suitable, and the card is a chip card, you need to check whether there is an opportunity to protest the operation within the framework of the current provisions of the Liability Shift program for fraudulent transactions on chip cards. “Liability Shift” refers to the transfer from the issuer to the acquirer of financial responsibility for fraudulent transactions using a chip card in a terminal (POS or ATM) that does not support chip cards, and confirmation of a trade transaction with a PIN code. Payment systems in special manuals describe in sufficient detail all the processes associated with migration to the chip. It is important for us to pay attention to following points. First of all, you need to know that Liability Shift does not operate throughout the world, but only in those regions that have declared one degree or another of participation in the Liability Shift program. Moreover, if a region within a particular payment system has announced the introduction of Liability Shift, this does not mean that all issuers in other regions have the right to protest transactions in this region within the framework of Liability Shift. To do this, it is necessary that an appropriate agreement be signed between the regions or, as in the payment system MasterCard system Worldwide, the region must declare participation in the Transitional Chip Liability Shift program. In relation to Russian participants in international payment systems, it should be borne in mind that today Visa Liability Shift is valid only in the CEMEA and Europe regions, and for ATM transactions - only between participants from the CEMEA region. MasterCard Liability Shift is valid in the Europe and Malaysia region. Since the process of expanding the Liability Shift program is actively developing, it is necessary to constantly monitor changes in order to know for sure whether the issuer has the right to protest a fraudulent transaction for a “chip” reason.

The second point is related to the fact that today, in a number of cases, clarifying the issue of the possibility of challenging an operation within the framework of Liability Shift requires a serious analysis of the operation, namely: the parameters of the card and terminal, what type of fraudulent operation took place on the card, whether the PIN code was checked in online or offline mode, and whether the PIN code was checked at all, whether a Fallback took place, etc. For this purpose, payment systems have prepared special flow charts, following which it is possible to determine who is responsible for the fraudulent transaction (Visa CEMEA Member Letter 02/04 “Chip migration – liability shift” and MasterCard Europe Edition Operations Bulletin, No. 10, October 2004) . However, it is often difficult to get an answer to a particular flow chart question, since it depends on the specific values ​​of the fields of authorization and transaction messages, i.e., it is necessary to understand message formats and know in which field the value we are interested in is located. Data on the fields of interest to us and their values, obtained from various information letters and manuals of payment systems, are summarized in Table 1.

Therefore, figuring out whether you can appeal a transaction under Liability Shift can be challenging. The only consolation here is that today it is very rare to subject transactions to in-depth analysis, since in the vast majority of cases it turns out that the acquirer does not support the chip at all. To challenge an operation for a “chip” reason, the following codes are used:

1) transactions on counterfeit cards – 62 Visa, 4862 MasterCard (non-ATM transactions), 4870 MasterCard (ATM transactions on MasterCard and all transactions on Cirrus/Maestro; from April 2007, code 4870 can also be used to contest non-ATM transactions on MasterCard);

2) transactions on stolen, lost, unreceived cards - 81 Visa, 4837 MasterCard (introduced from October 2007 new code 4871).


If none of the “chip” group codes are suitable for challenging the operation, you need to request copies of documents related to the operation. By the way, if we are talking about a counterfeit card with a magnetic stripe, then before requesting documents it is worth checking whether the information from the second and first tracks of the card’s magnetic stripe was transferred to the issuer during the authorization process. If not, then you can use the same codes 62 Visa, 4862 MasterCard. Let's return to the requested copy. Firstly, the acquirer may not provide the required copy at all, and then you can safely use codes 81 Visa and 4837 MasterCard. If a copy is submitted, you need to check:

1) is the document provided by the acquirer correct? (possibility of using 60 Visa, 4802 MasterCard codes)

2) is the currency of the operation and transaction the same? (possibility of using codes 76 Visa, 4846 MasterCard)

3) is the cardholder’s signature on the transaction receipt? (possibility of using codes 81 Visa and 4837
MasterCard; MasterCard rules provide the right to issue a chargeback using code 4837 without first requesting a copy)

4) was a fraudulent transaction made at the same point where a previous transaction was carried out by a legitimate cardholder? (possibility of using codes 57 Visa and 4840 MasterCard; MasterCard rules provide the right to issue a chargeback using code 4840 without first requesting a copy)

5) was the transaction amount split into several “sub-limit” amounts in order to avoid online authorization? (possibility of using the standard Compliance case)

6) how different is the cardholder’s signature on the check from his signature on the card? (possibility of using the standard Compliance case)
The last of the listed standard cases of Compliance is worth talking about in more detail. For clarity, let's look at an example from real practice. Our bank received a Pre-Compliance, in which the issuer claimed that the merchant did not match the signature on the check and on the card, and the sample signatures differed from each other (Fig. 1 and 2).
After short analysis situation, it was decided to refuse the issuer, and for this reason. The fact is that payment systems recognize the legitimacy of Compliance only in cases where there is no doubt that there is one name on the signature strip and a completely different one on the check. For example, “John Smith” is clearly written on the card, but “Ivan Smith” is written on the check. In our case, there are only two “squiggles,” and the parties can argue for a very long time and to no avail whether they are different or not, whether the two “squiggles” belong to the same person or not. Only a graphological examination can put an end to this dispute. It is clear that payment systems cannot afford such luxury. Therefore, in most cases, the acquirer’s guilt will not be considered proven, and the decision will be made against the issuer.

This, strictly speaking, exhausts the issuer’s ability to protest fraudulent transactions using standard methods. If the issuer does not come up with any non-standard move, then the amounts can be attributed to bank losses or insurance.

Claims work on MOTO and Electronic Commerce operations

Claims related to MOTO and Electronic Commerce transactions require separate consideration due to their inherent features, such as the absence of a card, client signature, 100% authorization, etc. When challenging fraudulent MOTO and Electronic Commerce transactions, it is first necessary to check whether they were used whether when conducting an operation using the 3D-Secure or MasterCard SecureCode system. The fact is that when the acquirer uses these systems, Liability Shift is triggered, similar to the “chip” one, but at the same time, responsibility shifts from the acquirer, which traditionally bears the main losses from fraud in transactions of this type, to the issuer. To determine the use of 3D-Secure or MasterCard SecureCode, you need to know the values ​​of the following fields of the authorization request:

1. For 3-D Secure
a) the value “05” or “06” in field 60 of position 9–10 (Mail/Phone/Electronic Commerce and U.S. Bill Payment Indicator);
b) the presence of an entry in field 126.9 (3-D Secure CAVV), if both the issuer and the acquirer support 3-D Secure.

2. For MasterCard SecureCode
a) the value “1” or “2” in subfield 42 (Security Level Indicator) of field 48;
b) the presence of an entry in subfield 43 (UCAF) of field 48, if both the issuer and the acquirer support MasterCard SecureCode.

If the fraudulent operation took place without using the above-mentioned systems, then the case can be considered practically won, and you need to choose the easiest path, i.e., first get answers to the following questions:

2. Is the transaction submitted for payment on time? (possibility of using codes 74 Visa, 4842 MasterCard);

3. Is there double processing of the operation? (possibility of using codes 82 Visa, 4834 MasterCard).

If none of these codes are suitable, 83 Visa or 4837 MasterCard codes are used. Rice. 1 Fig. 2 A few words about protesting fraudulent transactions using “non-chip” cards at ATMs. Issuing Chargeback using codes 90 Visa and 4859 MasterCard may seem completely futile, however, as practice shows, you should not neglect even this opportunity, because you may just get lucky. Concluding the story about standard methods protests, it is necessary to mention the “acquiring” side of the claim work. Unlike the issuer, the acquirer does not have to figure out how to protest the transaction, but only “fight back” using the code that the issuer chose.

In most cases, if the transaction is authorized, submitted correctly and on time for payment, there is a signature on the check, and complies with CHIP/PIN/3D-Secure/MasterCard SecureCode requirements, then it is almost impossible for the issuer to contest the transaction. If the acquirer nevertheless made a mistake, and the Chargeback is legal, you need to try to find errors from the issuer itself. For example, check whether the client actually has an overdraft due to a late submission, whether the message has been sent to the SAFE/FRS system, etc.

Non-standard methods of protest

As mentioned above, if none of the standard protest options described above are suitable, the issuer may try to take a non-standard route. By non-standard option we mean filing a claim with the acquirer due to a violation of one or another point of the rules of payment systems, which is not described in standard cases of Compliance or Chargeback codes. The claim is made through the same Compliance procedure, and the choice of reason depends on your imagination combined with a good knowledge of the rules of payment systems. Often this is a bluff designed to intimidate the acquirer by submitting the case to the Arbitration of the payment system with the subsequent payment of commissions in case of loss. The acquirer’s task is to competently understand the situation and respond confidently, in order, in turn, to sow the seeds of doubt among the issuer about the advisability of filing a case with Arbitration. Thus, everything depends on how well the parties argue their position and interpret the rules, which in each specific case “where you turn, that’s where you come out.” Naturally, there is a risk that if the matter comes to arbitration proceedings, the arbitration committee may interpret the situation in its own way and not in your favor. There are situations when the same situations are interpreted either in favor of the issuer or in favor of the acquirer. I would like to give a few examples from practice that will better characterize the subject of conversation than general reasoning.

Case 1. Standard situation: several transactions using a counterfeit “non-chip” card carried out in the UK were authorized, correctly presented for payment, the required data from the magnetic stripe, signature, etc. were fully transmitted. In general, there is nothing to complain about. However, after some time, the seized counterfeit card was received by mail (Fig. 3-4). The fake turned out to be of poor quality, but this was not enough for an “accusation”. However, the card was missing a prefix - four digits printed under the card number and matching the first four digits of the card number. Pre-Compliance was sent to three acquiring banks indicating a violation of clause 5.5.B (VIOR vol.1). In the “load” it was stated that the special character “V” also does not meet the standards. The two banks agreed and refunded the transaction amounts. However, a refusal was received from the third bank. The acquirer argued the refusal by the lack of evidence that this particular card was used at its outlet. According to the acquirer, a card was presented at the point of sale that met all the requirements of the payment system. We could not prove the opposite (sometimes several counterfeit cards are actually used at the same time) and were forced to abandon our claims. This case demonstrates very well that it is not always possible to beat everyone.

Case 2. A curious case. Cash withdrawal operation for a large amount using a counterfeit card. In response to a request for documents, the acquirer, along with a copy of the check, for some reason provided a clear photocopy of the holder’s passport and his card (the latter also lacking a prefix and a special character). In this case, there was no need to prove that this particular card was used. The Acquirer agreed with Pre-Compliance due to a violation of clause 5.1.D.1.a (VIOR vol.1).

Case 3. Again a fake card. One of the features of this case is that the transaction for a large amount was divided by the acquirer into ten separate transactions. Each of the transactions was authorized, all rules of payment systems were followed. However, the issuer filed a claim using the standard Compliance reason – Split Transaction. The acquirer was accused of the following: by dividing the transaction amount into several parts, he avoided one authorization for a large amount. At the same time, the issuer argued that if the operation had not been broken, then the system would have automatically sent a response to the authorization request about the need to contact the issuer (Call Issuer). This would help avoid a fraudulent transaction.

Ultimately, the case was considered by an arbitration committee, which sided with the issuer. I admit that this case is not from our issuer practice, but we, in turn, encountered a similar situation as acquirers.

Case 4. The same Pre-Compliance was received from the issuer as in Case 3. Frankly, the Split Transaction reason for standard Compliance describes a situation where transactions are split in order to conduct several sub-limit unauthorized transactions, rather than avoid authorization for a larger amount. It was possible to respond to the issuer in exactly this way, but we knew what decision was made earlier payment system in a similar situation (see case 3). We didn’t want to take risks, and we decided to check whether the issuer really has restrictions set, if exceeded, a refusal is generated using the Call Issuer code. Was found for real existing map the same BIN, and a transaction for the total amount was carried out through a virtual terminal with a similar MSS.

As expected, we received a positive response and not a Call Issuer. Thus, the issuer “lied”, which was reported to him in our response. The received authorization, of course, was immediately canceled. The case was never sent to Arbitration...

Case 5. Another example of a “non-standard” approach. As part of an investigation into the activities of a fraudulent retail outlet, a representative of one of the affected issuers contacted us. In an informal conversation, we reported that this point actually carried out fraudulent transactions, talked about the measures taken, and preliminary results. Some time later, a three-page Pre-Compliance was received from the issuer, in which, with reference to our conversation, it was stated that the merchant was conducting transactions using counterfeit cards (i.e., without the participation of a legitimate customer) and thus clause 5.3.F.1 was violated. a (VIOR vol.1). Not only does this paragraph say something completely different, the issuer also proved the fact of fraudulent transactions only by verbal confirmation from the acquirer, which cannot in any way be attached to the case when considered in Arbitration. Therefore, in our response to Pre-Compliance, we wrote that the transactions were carried out by the legal holder himself directly at the point of sale. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that a non-standard approach is not only the ability to accuse and demand the return of sums with ultimatums. Sometimes it is much more expedient to apply with a letter of “Good Faith”, pointing out violations committed by the outlet. This approach sets up colleagues in the shop to want to help whenever possible, and not to follow the principle, no matter what the cost. This is especially true for relationships between Russian banks. In our practice, there have been many cases when, using “Goodwill” letters in favor of the injured party, it was possible to resolve situations that would never have been resolved with the help of “hard” Chargeback or Compliance.

There is a total sale in the store. Or an auction has been announced for a long-desired item. And now you stand with your card at the terminal, or confirm the payment in the online store, but instead of the expected purchase you receive... Refusal! You turn pale, blush, feel uncomfortable, start calling your bank, and sometimes swear. And you are trying to understand - why, why did your card fail you at the most necessary moment? The apogee of frustration... Away from panic, we are looking for the causes of the problem and ways to solve it.

Before calling the bank and arguing with the branch or call center employees, remember the two simplest reasons why you may be refused to pay for a plastic card.

The first is the banal account balance. Unfortunately, we are not always able to estimate the rate at which our balance is decreasing, especially when spending our day at the mall. So try to remember how much money you had and how much you should have left. In most cases, the problem is quickly resolved.

In order to always know how much more you can spend, you can connect yourself to a notification service about account transactions and the current balance, the so-called mobile bank. Online the bank will send to your mobile phone SMS messages with information about the completed transaction and the current balance.

The second is a malfunction of the terminal itself (or the payment acceptance service in the online store). Moreover, the malfunction can be either the most common breakdown (after all, any equipment can fail), or simply a lack of communication with the bank or payment system. At this point, call or don’t call, until the terminal itself is operational, you won’t be able to pay for the service with a card.

Third, if a PIN is requested at a retail outlet, clients often simply “miss” the required combination themselves and receive a completely legitimate refusal. In an online store, you can also enter the card expiration date or CVV2 code incorrectly.

Basically, clients receive the reasons for refusal associated with this list immediately - on a receipt from the terminal or on a page on the Internet.

We have already examined the simplest and most common reasons for refusals when paying with plastic cards. But there are times when the client objectively does not understand why he was unable to complete the transaction.
In one of our articles we talked about how banks ensure the security of their cards. Actually, these security measures can become the primary source of unsuccessful payments.

Limits

Not all clients know (and many simply forget) that almost all banks set limits on their plastic cards in terms of the number and amount of transactions.

The bank can set limits in order to minimize the client’s losses in case of loss of the card (when it has not yet been blocked). Basically, the threshold values ​​of these restrictions are high enough to ensure comfortable payment by card. But even if the amount is not enough, you just need to call the bank and raise the limit to the required level.

Many banks include the function of changing limits in online banking services (Internet banking). Thus, clients have the opportunity to independently set and regulate limits on their cards.

Safety system

This is where it gets a little more complicated. The restrictions that may be included in this case are, as a rule, unknown to the client in advance.

The bank security system is a comprehensive, multi-stage protection plastic cards from potentially unwanted or suspicious transactions. When receiving a transaction refusal related to the security system, clients are simply lost and cannot even imagine what this might be connected with.

The main reasons why such restrictions may be triggered are transactions on the Internet, other countries (when traveling abroad), the time of operations, the frequency of transactions over a certain period of time, frequent changes of retail outlets, or vice versa - settlement in the same store several times in a row - the list is quite large, and in each specific case it is very difficult to “guess” the reason.

Banks try their best to keep the principles of the security system secret. This is understandable - if anyone can easily obtain this information, there will be no justice for scammers.

Everything can also be resolved by calling the 24-hour support service - bank employees will be able to check your transactions at any time and remove the necessary restrictions.

It is more difficult if the security system of the acquiring bank (the owner of the terminal) has been triggered - this also happens. In this case, you will have to go through all the circles of hell until the issuing bank (your bank) and the acquiring bank (store bank) are convinced that you are you and that the transaction is not performed by a stranger. Only after confirming your details will you be given the green light to purchase.

Wrong data

It happens that when performing a transaction, employees of retail outlets (or the client himself at an ATM or online store) select the wrong type of transaction or the wrong account. In this case, you will receive a strange notification: “Invalid data”, “Incorrect account”

Don't compete with the device, find out exactly what you did wrong at the bank. And even more difficult...

Such cases are rare, but they do happen.
Sometimes it is not possible to complete a card transaction due to a global failure in the bank or payment system itself. Of course, neither one nor the other is doing everything possible to prevent such situations, but anything can happen.

If the refusal is connected precisely with this, then no number of calls to the bank will solve the problem immediately. All that remains is to wait. True, in this case it is not just one client who is experiencing problems, but very, very many, so the time required for restoration of work is reduced to a minimum.

“Lethal” outcome for your card:

• it just expired. That is all - you cannot use the card, it is simply invalid;
• The plastic card is physically damaged. It is scratched, broken, demagnetized (if it only has magnetic tape), and they cannot process it.

It’s easy to overcome this trouble - go to the bank and replace the old plastic with a new one. But in this case, you will no longer make the right purchase at the right time.

Chargeback is a procedure for contesting a transaction by the payer, in which the payment amount is debited from the recipient without acceptance and returned to the payer, after which the responsibility of proving the truth of the transaction falls on the recipient. Chargeback technology is used in mutual settlement systems using plastic cards (VISA, Master Card). Wikipedia. First, let me clarify the situation: who actually returns the money. Let me give you an example: You have opened a VISA card at the bank. VISA is an international payment system. Your issuing bank VISA cards, which has the right to issue (put into circulation) credit and debit (plastic) cards. The issuing bank bears, on its behalf, obligations to you to exercise your rights. That is, the issuing bank is like an intermediary between you and the payment system. And you have the right to challenge the transaction if you have problems with the store/outlet/other payment systems. Suppose you made a purchase in an online store, paid for the goods, and the next day the store disappeared or the seller disappeared on ebay. Well, with ebay everything is clear, here you can contact either them or PayPal (if you paid with PayPal). What if you paid by card? And here some are disappointedly resigned to the loss, but the desire to buy in online stores disappears. Another case: you have made a withdrawal or purchase from your card, and you know that you did not make it. The third case at the post office we received an empty box instead of the ordered phone, we saw that something was wrong and refused it, the parcel was sent back, and the seller does not want to return the money. Another case is when you received the goods, but you were not satisfied with the size/color and you sent the parcel back to the store, by tracking, the seller received the parcel and was “lost”, but you paid by card. Well, another option is that the package simply did not arrive to you or the order arrived of poor quality or does not correspond to what was declared. This is where you can carry out the Chargeback operation. Well, it’s intuitively clear that you need to contact your issuing bank, write an application, present the facts, but!.... ;D we have so many incompetent employees in the bank who can answer you: - we don’t work with... . (name of store/payment PayPal systems) - the money has left us and there is no way to get it back - we do not work with Chargeback - what is it? - Chargeback cannot be done in our bank - etc. (you can add) ;D In fact, Chargeback is carried out by a payment system (VISA, Master Card), and the bank only transfers documents to this payment system, having first checked the facts, so such answers are lack of competence of workers. Of course, you can joke a little and ask leading questions, for example VISA - is this the payment system of your bank? or something similar. ;D But here it gets sad... Russia. In general, let's leave this and get down to business. No need to go anywhere! Everything can be done via the Internet. Let's take the example of our famous bank. (not for everything). So. If this happens to you, then print out the following documents: Disputed Transaction Statement Additional statement regarding a transaction made on the Internet A free-form statement outlining the reasons for challenging the operation and the circumstances of its implementation (write yourself and in as much detail as possible). You must also attach screenshots of documents that prove your actions. Screenshot of the store (seller) order Screenshot of the bank statement on the day of the operation Screenshot of correspondence with the store (seller) Screenshot with tracking on the mail website + tracking number (or numbers) If the item is defective - photo of the item Etc. in accordance with your case. It is advisable to save all documents in 1 file.pdf and send to This email address is being protected from spambots. You must have JavaScript enabled to view it. Your documents must be registered and confirmed by email or telephone. Within 120 days, your question must be resolved, an investigation will be carried out and if you are right, the protested payment amount will be written off from the outlet and returned to you. Along with the amount, a return fee may be deducted from the retail outlet (you can threaten him with Chargeback in correspondence with the store/seller, it may have a psychological effect). In special cases, it may take up to 180 days. You can find out about the progress of the investigation by calling the phone number listed on back side Your card. A disputed transaction can be reported within 60 days from the date of the transaction; sometimes claims are accepted for transactions longer than 60 days. The Chargeback procedure is similar in other banks that issue VISA and Master Card. If you have any questions, you can ask, if there are any additions, we will be happy to add information to this topic. :)

It all started with the stick closed my justified claim against one bad seller. The amount was significant for me, so I firmly set my sights on challenging the transaction.

I started by visiting my native bank, fortunately it’s not far from home. At the branch where I received the card, they told me to ask all questions by calling the support phone number indicated on the card, and by calling the phone number indicated on the card they told me to contact the branch where I received the card. Everything is clear, it's a mess. I decided to act on my own. I filled out an application for a disputed transaction and faxed it straight to the claims service in Moscow.

SEQUENCING:

I quote the official website of Sberbank (http://www.sbrf.ru/volgograd/ru/person/bank_cards/faq/)

Submit to the Bank's division a written application about the disputed transaction on the form established by the Bank, attaching to it a free-form statement outlining the reasons for challenging the transaction and the circumstances of its implementation. A statement about a disputed transaction can be sent by fax to the Help Service of Sberbank of Russia; in the message please indicate your card number, your full name and contact number, as well as the location of the transaction (country, city), name of the retail and service point, card number, date, amount and currency of the transaction, reason for challenging;

If a transaction made on the Internet is disputed, you must also fill out an additional application.

Statement one: Disputed Transaction Statement
Additional statement: Supplementary Statement for Online Shopping

In our case, we fill out both applications and send them, along with the attached evidence, by fax to +7-495-747-3888. I compiled everything into a Word file and sent a free fax from here. There you can send a fax consisting of no more than 10 pages, if you send more by regular fax.

It is advisable to attach it to the application All available evidence that you are right. In this matter, as in patrol, it is better to be overcautious than to be undersafe.

What I sent:

PayPal transaction screenshot
- Screenshot of the report on the Sberbank card account, where the completed transaction is visible
- Screenshot of the seller’s letter in which he agrees to return the goods and gives instructions
- Scan of the receipt (cheque) from the post office about sending the goods back
- Screenshot from the mail tracking site, where you can see that the parcel was sent back to the seller
- Description of my situation with all the details, facts and dates in free form

Now the most important point:

You may need to fax a package of documents several times. For me, the effect was achieved only the third (!) time.

A sign of successful receipt of your documents and the start of work on them is a call from a girl from Sberbank to the number you specified in the application. She will clarify the details with you and, if necessary, tell you what else to send. If you did everything correctly, after the girl’s call (I had it on the same day, literally a couple of hours later), you will receive a letter from PayPal with the subject “PayPal notified of chargeback filed by you.”

After this, a new dispute will open in the Resolution Center. Under no circumstances should you close it until the money is returned, just wait, no additional actions are required from you.