5543294

DISPUTE ID 5543294. CH disputing 1 Debit UT amounting $89.64 with D Hgate. No claim cancellation. No Merchant Credit found relating to the disputes. As per Penny, Card in possession at the time of transactions. PIN Memorized. Disputed card ending 6455 is closed. Case decision: Denied. VROL Case No. 2282021377. OVERALL INVESTIGATION: With funding event observed from Friend Transfer amounting to $130.00 on 2022-11-10 18:58:14 before the authorization of the disputed transaction from DHgate, REDHILL, GB on 2022-11-11 05:42:51. Balance exhausted after the authorization of the disputed transaction. CH has no prior history with the disputed merchant, hence this is abnormal to the CH. With fraud alerts on the disputed card. Galileo deny code 46,51,59 was captured within the UT timeline but not related with the disputed merchant, however, they are on the disputed card ending 6455. Galileo deny code 51, 59 was captured with the disputed merchant. RTA response code 51, 59 was captured with the disputed merchant. Penny response code 51, 59 was captured with the disputed merchant. As per RTA, disputed transaction shows INTERNATIONAL: YES RTA response code 46,85,51,59 was captured within the UT timeline but not related with the disputed merchant, however, they are on the disputed card ending 6455. Penny response code 46, 51, 59, was captured within the UT timeline but not related with the disputed merchant, however, they are on the disputed card ending 6455. RTA: AVS RESULT Y AVS Result: D Unknown Value No PII changes captured within UT timeline. No signs of ATO. There is freezing of the disputed card within the UT timeline. There is enough evidence to deny the claim. Final resolution, no error found. Sent ZD #57698215. Case closed.
🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀

Dispute ID 5543294. This is an invalid markdown.
Comment from the QA states that: "The investigator denied the claim upfront but because of following evidences CB should have been pursued: The disputed merchant is abnormal as there are no past undisputed transactions in spending history. The disputed transaction is international as per RTA. Fraud Code 59 was observed with disputed merchant during the UT timeline. Fraud Alert was captured during the disputed time frame with same disputed card. The disputed transaction is force posted as per VROL."

Agent reply:

• There is a strong evidence that I used to deny the claim and that is the funding from Friend Transfer that was captured on 2022-11-10 18:58:14 (10 hours, 44 minutes and 37 seconds) before the authorization of the disputed transaction on 2022-11-11 05:42:51. Prior to the funding the CH account balance is exhausted which suggests that the funding was intended for the disputed transaction. That is the reason why I upfrontly denied the claim.
• Deny code 59 was truly observed within UT timeline using the same card however agent did not pursue CB since there's enough evidence to deny the claim eventhough it's an international transaction.
• As per KB we consider that the transaction is a force posted transaction if the Authorization Hold, Backout, and Settlement all occurring at the exact same time and upon checking authorization date of the disputed transaction was on 2022-11-11 05:42:51 and the settlement date was on 2022-11-12 21:10:30 , therefore it's not a force posted transaction.

QA also stated: "The investigator notated that "RTA response code 46,85,51,59 was captured within the UT timeline but not related with the disputed merchant, however, they are on the disputed card ending 6455." but deny code 46 was not present in UT timeline (2 days prior and 2 days after the disputed transaction)."

Agent Reply:

• Upon reviewing the claim, response code 46 was captured in Gali, RTA, and Penny using the same card within UT timeline but not related with the disputed transaction. Hence, Invalid markdown.

🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀🎀UT timeline: 2022-11-09 to 2022-11-14