5381332

Dispute ID:5381332 PRN:156141469569 PAN: 4232230155980589 CLAIM AMOUNT: $98.25

Dispute ID:5381332. DND on 2022-10-25. CH claimed 5 UT against Netflix Com amounting $98.25. No merchant credit. No claim cancellation. Reg E. OLD account.

*INVESTIGATION FOUND: As per penny . Card in possession. Pin stated as "memorized". Phone status not specified. Disputed transaction/s has ENTRY MODE: 01,10 MOTO/ECI: 02,07 which subject to Card-absent initiated with NO CB rights due to PTF claim. Card ending in *0589 already closed.

EVIDENCE:

✔Observed Direct Deposit on 2021-07-06 19:24:20 amounting $759.35 which directly impacted the account as prior the DD balance was deemed depleted and without the said DD the transaction won't push through and cant make any future transactions. ✔Spending pattern was observed with the merchant showing that CH is doing a business with the said merchant for consecutive months starting month of January 2021 - August 2021 with exact amount of $19.65. ✔With previous transaction from Netflix. ✔With freezing and unfreezing(enable) of the card observed during UT timeframe numerous times, indicating that the member is still in control of the card's activity. ✔ATO was observed (multiple changed of phone number during UT timeline). ✔Unable to identify decline codes on RTA however as per GALILEO, Deny codes 51, 57,55 was observed during UT timeline and 2 of the DC: are related to the disputed merchant. ✔ As per GALILEO, Deny code 51 was captured with the disputed merchant means insufficient funds which indicates that CH is aware of the account balance and had the knowledge on account's activity. ✔ Unable to identify AVS results on both VISA and RTA transactions are more than the timeline. ✔No indication of fraud alert was captured by the system. ✔ As per thorough investigation gathered enough evidence to deny the claim. ✔ Therefore, concluded NO ERROR FOUND. ✔ Filed FR 2270819979,2270821903,2270822344,2270834611,2270834612. ✔ CASE CLOSED. ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔ As per thorough investigation gathered enough evidence to deny the claim. ✔ Therefore, concluded NO ERROR FOUND. ✔ Filed FR 2270702186, 2270702187, 2270702188, 2270702247. ✔ CASE CLOSED.

Received claim cancellation request from CH on xxx. ZD #xxx.

Dispute ID: 5329516. Referral Bonus - Referrer (U1) dated 2022-02-17 03:14:48 amounting $100.00.

Matthew andro pacheco JOhn hill solidarios lyndon paderna Christian paca-oncis kevin tubungbanua Tristan flores

🌺🌺🌺🌺🌺🌺🌺🌺🌺🌺🌺🌺🌺🌺🌺🌺🌺🌺🌺🌺🌺🌺🌺

5331088

*With (1) previous transaction with merchant from Pl Peoplelooker.com.

*With multiple previous transaction/history from the same merchant that is undisputed showing that CH had already agreed with the terms and conditions from disputed merchant before. Moreover, CH is not new to transact with this kind of merchant. It was observed that CH has pattern of history from the said merchant starting month of March 2022 up until July transaction showing that CH is doing business with the disputed merchant.

*Member has previous transaction with the disputed merchant where it has entry mode 10, credential on file and no response code 85 was captured prior the authorization of the disputed transaction.

*With freezing and unfreezing(enable) of the card observed during UT timeframe, indicating that the member is still in control of the card's activity.

*Deny code 51 was captured with the disputed merchants means insufficient funds which indicates that CH is aware of the account balance and had the knowledge on account's activity.

• No suspicious decline codes was captured related to the disputed merchants during UT timeline.

*No indication of fraud alert was captured by the system.

*No occurrence of personal identifiable information changes on the account or any other relevant hallmarks of account takeover during the disputed timeframe.

*As per RTA and VISA, AVS Result (Z) indicates that the ZIP code matched but address not verified.

*Disputed merchant recurring flag shows as YES which means cardholder got the subscription with merchant and it is cardholder's responsibility to cancel it.

*Observed funding from XXXXX dated XXXX amounting XXXX but not directly impacting the account however CH had spot me limit of $XXXX which caused the transaction to go through indication that CH had the knowledge to the account.

*There is a Promotional Credit - Interest observed on 2021-10-22 09:10:11 amounting to $100.00 via Referral Bonus - Referrer (U1) prior the disputed transaction from DEPLOYME, +13475925762, NYUS which is exact amount and had a great impact to the account.

With funding activity observed during UT however not intended on the disputed transaction but CH had spot me limit of 205.00 which made the transaction went through an indication that CH anticipated the account balance and had the knowledge on the account's activity.

🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀 🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵🏵

FEEDBACK: Invalid Markdown. Agent notated that those funding event observed during UT timeline is enough to cover the disputed transactions. So there's no need to put all those funding that happened prior the AUTH of the transactions. We can use that funds if prior to that the balance of the account is already exhausted however, on my case the funding is greater that to the disputed transactions. Hence, as per new update we need to investigate the claim holistically.

Incident Report (IR): We're on lunch break at around 10:15 - 10:30 am with my teammates (Jubelle, Jocelyn, Ma. Elena, Celia, Rufelle, Keisha and Roy). At first we're having a happy lunch while talking about updates regarding with the process. Some of us are busy using our cellphones and all of the sudden one of our teammate (Roy Sarabia) opened up about his mark down regarding Playvox Audit. We disagreed with his mark down as there was no update about it. We exchanged opinions and all of us was given a chance to explain why it's an invalid markdown. Meanwhile,( Roy Sarabia ) uttered some words which shocked us. He said that "madakpan ko lang nasa ma wasak gid na chura ya. Bun-on kona sa station ya" He stood up and said "Dugay nana gusto nila nga ee pa HR ko pero waay man", then (Rufelle) asked him "Si sin-o BOY?" and He replied "Ara ho, si Izra" those were the exact words we heard from him and this is not the first time he did that. So, I chatted (Celia) that I need to go upstairs to report it to my TL (Regine) which I did. I would like to address this concern because this is not the first time instance. I would like to raise this because for me it's a "threat" and it's not safe anymore and it would cause anxiety which affects my job.

Valid markdown.

FEEDBACK: I mentioned that there was decline code 05 and 51 on RTA however upon checking there is no decline code 05 and 51 on RTA but on GALILEO there was decline code 05,51 during UT timeline and DC: 51 happened on the disputed merchant.

Action Plan: Moving forward always crossed reference both Galileo and RTA for identifying decline codes and always include on the notation.