https://chime.zendesk.com/agent/tickets/67359405 RFD Claim ID 9841044. Claim was initially finalized on 2023-04-25 No final letter sent due to Inspector error ,R1 2023-05-10 with Ticket zd#67357613. With finalized on 2023-05-10 with Ticket zd#67357613. CH reached out on May 10 2023 requesting a copy of the documents with Ticket zd#67359405. CH claimed 4 Unauthorized Transaction amounting to $970.59. DND on 2023-05-10. REG-E claim. No claim cancellation request. No merchant credit. **INVESTIGATION** *Manual funding event was observed on 2023-04-14 09:28:12 and on 2023-04-14 09:51:08 prior the authorization of the disputed transactions which was authorized on 2023-04-14 11:06:51,on 2023-04-14 11:07:45, on 2023-04-14 11:09:11 and on 2023-04-14 18:42:26, leaving the account on a low ending balance. The said funding has an impact on the disputed transaction since balance before was low and no other in between transactions occurred an indication that disputed transaction was anticipated and funds added was for disputed transactions to push through. *As per checking purchase inquiry in VISA transaction from Play Station CH information such as email address matches their record on file. *Disputed merchant 18500 GRAND RIVER AVE, DETROIT, MIUS is not abnormal to CH as the member has history of undisputed transactions with the same merchant which suggests that the merchant is not new to the member. *The disputed amount was also normal for the member as there is undisputed transaction of similar scale were present in the transaction sheet suggesting no breach in spending pattern, this provides evidence that the activity on the account did not deviate from typical patterns of authorized activity (transaction authorized on 2023-04-13 15:01:28). *Disputed card present transactions are within CH vicinity approximately 4mins drive from CH address. *No suspicious declined code within UT timeline as per Gali. *Disputed transactions from 18500 GRAND RIVER AVE, DETROIT, MIUS is CVV1 validated and matched with PIN RESULT [Y] and with an AVS RESULT B suggesting of a street address match AVS B (Street Address Match). This means that the disputed transactions underwent proper validation and executed seamlessly suggesting that MM was the one in control of the transaction. *Disputed transaction was made via AVS (Y), which suggests that the address and five-digit ZIP code match. *Funding was observed on 2023-04-15 09:25:28 after UT while the card is said to be not in possession. *The disputed transaction type [card-present EMV] is not abnormal for the cardholder. The transaction sheet shows an undisputed history with the same mode transaction. *No occurrence of personal identifiable information changes on the account or any other relevant hallmarks of account takeover during the disputed timeline *No fraud alert indication related to the disputed transactions. Gathered enough strong evidence to deny the claim. No error found. VROL: 5258222945, 5258222946, 5258222947, 5258222956. Case closed. Case not handled in LEAN ____________________________________ Angelie Singuay #RR:NoInfo Dispute ID: 9841044-R2 Dispute Type : Debit-Reg E - Unauthorized Transaction Rebuttal Notification Date : 2023-05-10 Case Decision: Deny VROL: 5258222945, 5258222946, 5258222947, 5258222956 🌸🌸Overall investigation🌸🌸 Rebuttal 9841044-R2. Reached out date is on 2023-05-10 via ZD#67359405, associated ZD#67362204, 68049612,67466304,67436824,67389495,67364365. The claim was finalized on 2023-04-25. No new info. Reg E claim. CH is disputing 4 UT from several merchants amounting to $970.59. As per penny card is not in possession, pin on "Sticky notes". No claim cancellation and no merchant credit found. Investigation found, disputed transactions are card present EMV transactions and card not present transaction with MOTO/ECI 7 entry mode 10. *Response code 85 was observed within UT timeline as per RTA. *No freezing and unfreezing of disputed card within UT timeline. *No valid undisputed card present EMV transaction within UT timeline. However, *Manual funding event was observed on 2023-04-14 09:28:12 and on 2023-04-14 09:51:08 prior the authorization of the disputed transactions which was authorized on 2023-04-14 11:06:51,on 2023-04-14 11:07:45, on 2023-04-14 11:09:11 and on 2023-04-14 18:42:26, leaving the account on a low ending balance. The said funding has an impact on the disputed transaction since balance before was low and no other in between transactions occurred an indication that disputed transaction was anticipated and funds added was for disputed transactions to push through. *As per checking purchase inquiry in VISA transaction from Play Station CH information such as email address matches their record on file. *Disputed merchant 18500 GRAND RIVER AVE, DETROIT, MIUS is not abnormal to CH as the member has history of undisputed transactions with the same merchant which suggests that the merchant is not new to the member. *The disputed amount was also normal for the member as there is undisputed transaction of similar scale were present in the transaction sheet suggesting no breach in spending pattern, this provides evidence that the activity on the account did not deviate from typical patterns of authorized activity (transaction authorized on 2023-04-13 15:01:28). *Disputed card present transactions are within CH vicinity approximately 4mins drive from CH address. *No suspicious declined code within UT timeline as per Gali. *Disputed transactions from 18500 GRAND RIVER AVE, DETROIT, MIUS is CVV1 validated and matched with PIN RESULT [Y] and with an AVS RESULT B suggesting of a street address match AVS B (Street Address Match). This means that the disputed transactions underwent proper validation and executed seamlessly suggesting that MM was the one in control of the transaction. *Disputed transaction was made via AVS (Y), which suggests that the address and five-digit ZIP code match. *Funding was observed on 2023-04-15 09:25:28 after UT while the card is said to be not in possession. *The disputed transaction type [card-present EMV] is not abnormal for the cardholder. The transaction sheet shows an undisputed history with the same mode transaction. *No occurrence of personal identifiable information changes on the account or any other relevant hallmarks of account takeover during the disputed timeline *No fraud alert indication related to the disputed transactions. Gathered enough strong evidence to deny the claim. No error found. Final letter was automatically sent via ZD#68081282. This was reinvestigated and found no enough reason to overturn the claim. Case closed. #RR:Deny