Otázka ohledně webových stránek s hazardními hrami s licencí Curaçao, které používají nesprávný kód kategorie obchodníka (strana 809)

As long as you have solid proof I don't see any problem. How do ghost traders get the right to collect payments for products that don't exist? Why don't you also address this?

Atâta timp cât ai o dovadă solida nu vad nici o problemă. Comercianții fantoma cum primesc dreptul de a încasa plati pentru produse care nu există. De ce nu va referiți și la această chestie?

I understand what you're saying. Ultimately, what merchants are doing is not legal and refund requests seem justified to me as long as you haven't received any product or service from them.

Înțeleg ce spui. Până la urmă nu este legal ce fac comerciantii și cererile de rambursare mi se par justificate atata timp cat nu ai primit nici un produs sau serviciu de la el.

I understand where you’re coming from, and I do get the sentiment you’re expressing. However, the key issue here is whether you knowingly entered into a transaction with the expectation of receiving goods or services from that company. If you did, and especially if you continued to do so multiple times, then in the eyes of a bank or fraud investigator, filing a chargeback may appear as a misrepresentation of your position.

A single chargeback probably won’t raise much concern. But when there are 20 or 30 transactions with the same merchant — particularly for digital or online services that are meant to be delivered instantly — it raises questions. If the service wasn’t delivered the first time, why continue transacting with them? And if you did keep trading with them, why wait 30 days (or longer) to raise an issue?

This is even more relevant in the crypto space, where many services are borderline, unregulated, or high-risk. That environment already attracts scrutiny for potential money laundering or fraudulent activity, so repeated disputes there draw extra attention.

I get that it’s tempting to lean on a specific chargeback reason code if it technically fits your scenario. But banks don’t just look at the individual claim — they look at the overall pattern. They will collate data and look at the reasons that particular merchant get disputes and if there is a trend. Banks lose significant funds due to dispute fraud. So as more and more people raise disputes and file action fraud reports, the bank will be required to act under AML regs and consumer duty

So it’s not about saying you’re wrong to raise a dispute — just that you need to be aware of how it might be perceived in a broader context. The more consistent and reasonable your overall behavior looks, the stronger your position will be if it’s ever investigated.

What did she tell them, they aren’t budging

Can u help me with Kryptonim please?

have put a review on Trustpilot against golden bet 😡😡

they are now asking for this information to prove my review is genuine - advice anyone??

they are telling me that they made their "crypto exchange" and put every blame on the casino. But I wrote them now and will escalate the case if they refuse to coorperate.

Can you give me your E-mail bro

Am I correct in thinking you have raised a complaint with the fos regarding falcora finance payments?

Not quite the FOS. FCA have had a couple of call, and they are concerned nucleus were aware and continued facilitating for a prolonged period and didn’t report it. I would encourage any one with falcora to file with the FCA.

I have my situation being heard at complex situation (or something like that) where FOS representatives will be present. Its a new forum held by LLoyds group.

I’ve responded to this but it’s with the Admin

Done