[~bladerunner]

Solaris

It sounds from what you are saying, that using front companies is a legitimate business practice for mp3 sites, I did not know this. Generally I would think of that as money laundering which I do consider 'dodgy'

I can see why Seva got upset as it looks like as though I am singling Soundsbox out as a bad egg. Perhaps they are all bad eggs for want of a better word.

If these sites believe they are doing nothing wrong then perhaps they should be honest with their customers and post their methods on their sites for us all to decide.

The fact remains that my friends credit card was cancelled and she cannot use it. The bank acted correctly by the sound of it.

I am all for getting rid of DRM and useless Record company execs. Money should go to artists and the music stores. I think we can all agree on that.

[solaris]

Originally Posted by ~bladerunner

Solaris

It sounds from what you are saying, that using front companies is a legitimate business practice for mp3 sites, I did not know this. Generally I would think of that as money laundering which I do consider 'dodgy'

I can see why Seva got upset as it looks like as though I am singling Soundsbox out as a bad egg. Perhaps they are all bad eggs for want of a better word.

If these sites believe they are doing nothing wrong then perhaps they should be honest with their customers and post their methods on their sites for us all to decide.

The fact remains that my friends credit card was cancelled and she cannot use it. The bank acted correctly by the sound of it.

I am all for getting rid of DRM and useless Record company execs. Money should go to artists and the music stores. I think we can all agree on that.

We sure can agree on that, ~bladerunner

I can also understand that it must be very irritating for your friend to have her credit card canceled and that she now must wait for a new card to arrive and on top of that be forced to learn yet another pin code

But when the RIAA are using dirty tactics, then these shop owners have to react on that. Otherwise we will never have a DRM-free world to live in

[jasn]

Originally Posted by jasn

Blade, when your friend clicked on Process Payment, did she remember to click on the Not To Be Used For Fraudulent Purposes box? That could be the problem...

Jeez...perfectly good sarcasm gone to waste. I hate when that happens.

[solaris]

Originally Posted by jasn

Jeez...perfectly good sarcasm gone to waste. I hate when that happens.

Hi jasn

I can honestly tell you that I giggled, when I read your post and wanted to comment on it - but I didn't want to start any chit chat. You know me...

[~bladerunner]

I saw the sarcasm, I just didn't find it helpful at the time.

[squash54]

I don't quite understand how it was that the bank, apparently unilaterally, decided the transaction was "fraudulent".

In my experience credit card providers contact the customer when there is a transaction that falls outside the customers normal buying profile. For example, multiple transactions on my wife's account at shoe stores over the space of one hour wouldn't attract the slightest interest but a single purchase at a hardware store would ring alarm bells (and vice versa on my credit card ).

I can imagine there would be occasions when the transaction/s were self evidently fraudulent, but this does not seem to be one of them. Was this a case of Blade's friend telling the bank it was an unauthorised transaction without (perhaps understandably) realising the connection with the Soundsbox payment. If so, Blade should make this clear as then there is no question of a "fraud", just a misunderstanding.

Also I find the repeated references to "money laundering", "scam" and "fraudulent" a bit over the top, in the circumstances. Talk about guilty until proven innocent . It is perfectly legal for me to tell someone who has an obligation to pay me money that he can discharge that obligation by paying it to someone else (who I might owe, or a charity or whatever). These stores appear to be operating openly and legitimately within the countries in which they are located. If you have grounds to believe they are in fact breaking the law, then I would respectfully suggest you report it to the appropriate authorities. However, I think you are going to need a lot more meat on that bone than has been presented here

Cheers,

Squash

[jasn]

Originally Posted by ~bladerunner

I saw the sarcasm, I just didn't find it helpful at the time.

Considering what was posted immediately afterward I completely understand.

Carry on...

[~bladerunner]

Originally Posted by squash54

I can imagine there would be occasions when the transaction/s were self evidently fraudulent, but this does not seem to be one of them. Was this a case of Blade's friend telling the bank it was an unauthorised transaction without (perhaps understandably) realising the connection with the Soundsbox payment. If so, Blade should make this clear as then there is no question of a "fraud", just a misunderstanding.

As I said, the bank cancelled the card, not my friend.
The first time she knew about it was when she went to make a purchase (not an mp3 store) at a later date and found the card was being rejected. This was when she rang the bank and they told her that the card had been cancelled due to the Soundsbox transaction. Which was to a Jewellery store as previously mentioned.
If that sounds perfectly normal business practice to you then fair enough.
Personally I like to know that my card isn't going to be cancelled every time I make a purchase online. If Soundsbox had been honest in the first place on their site about their payment setup then maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Originally Posted by squash54

Also I find the repeated references to "money laundering", "scam" and "fraudulent" a bit over the top, in the circumstances. Talk about guilty until proven innocent . It is perfectly legal for me to tell someone who has an obligation to pay me money that he can discharge that obligation by paying it to someone else (who I might owe, or a charity or whatever). These stores appear to be operating openly and legitimately within the countries in which they are located. If you have grounds to believe they are in fact breaking the law, then I would respectfully suggest you report it to the appropriate authorities. However, I think you are going to need a lot more meat on that bone than has been presented here

You may indeed find it a bit over the top but that doesn't change the fact of what happened.
See here for a definition
The debated legality of Russian mp3 sites is precisely why mp3 sites are using these practices.
It would be very easy for someone with a malicious intent to defraud someone by this very method. Surely you can understand my and others asking questions when this is happening.
I don't believe the stores are operating 'openly' as you put it, when they are conducting business in this way.
As I keep saying if the sites believe they are doing nothing wrong then tell your customers what you are doing. Let them decide whether or not to do business with you.

[seva]

Even if soundsbox had notice on the site that charge will be done in this or that what that bank would still cancel transaction and block credit card!
Bank doesn't know how soundsbox processes payments and they didnt contact your friend either to confirm or decline anything.
What if she did purchase some jewelry online, her credit card would be canceled anyways as it would have same payment description and to them this means it's a fraud!. Informing users wouldn't help as bank did make a choice on their own without even contacting customer...


Seva

[squash54]

Originally Posted by ~bladerunner

As I said, the bank cancelled the card, not my friend.
The first time she knew about it was when she went to make a purchase (not an mp3 store) at a later date and found the card was being rejected. This was when she rang the bank and they told her that the card had been cancelled due to the Soundsbox transaction. Which was to a Jewellery store as previously mentioned.
If that sounds perfectly normal business practice to you then fair enough.
Personally I like to know that my card isn't going to be cancelled every time I make a purchase online. If Soundsbox had been honest in the first place on their site about their payment setup then maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation.



You may indeed find it a bit over the top but that doesn't change the fact of what happened.
See here for a definition
The debated legality of Russian mp3 sites is precisely why mp3 sites are using these practices.
It would be very easy for someone with a malicious intent to defraud someone by this very method. Surely you can understand my and others asking questions when this is happening.
I don't believe the stores are operating 'openly' as you put it, when they are conducting business in this way.
As I keep saying if the sites believe they are doing nothing wrong then tell your customers what you are doing. Let them decide whether or not to do business with you.

With regard to the first part of your post I have highlighted, surely if what you say is true the bank told your friend HOW they knew the jewellery store transaction was "fraudulent" (whatever that means, as it is clear your friends account was only debited with the agreed amount). She must have been surprised, to say the least, that the bank had behaved this way without attempting to contact her about it, If she did ask, what did they tell her? It she didn't ask, kindly tell why that was.

Second point, if Soundsbox had said, for example, "the transaction will show on your credit card statement as NiceJeweller", how would this have told you the bank will treat this as a fraudulent transaction, and cancel the credit card??

Third point - did you actually read any of the definitions of "money Laundering" on the link you quoted? If you had you would have seen they bear no relationship to what happened to your friend and the Soundsbox transaction.

Final point - what do you mean by this reference to "malicious intent" and "this method". There was no "method". For some reason your friend's bank has done something which, by all accounts, is out of the ordinary. In fact, absent a more informative response to this and my first post, one which I find unbelievable.

Squash