how-to block ads
|
Bob in VA
@66.100.x.x
| reply to MGD
Credit Card Fraud UWEBTEMPLATE and now MOBALL
BEWARE: moball (supposedly of Cape Charles, Virginia) is part of this same scam operation.
My Providian card was hit twice, which hasn't been used online or in person for over 1 year!
* Apr 25, 2006 U-webtemplate 6104107204 Pa charged $9.95
* May 10, 2006 U-webtemplate 6104107204 Pa credited $(9.95), after disputing in writing through Providian (now Washington Mutual - very unimpressed with the way they handled fraud report)
* May 10, 2006 moball Cape Charles Va $4.95 charge appeared, which must be same scam company
Did a google search on the exact distinctive phrase of poor english on the website of the obvious fraudulent internet front for the U-WEBTEMPLATE company, "pay per one template to get rarest design". If you search in quotes, Google will find 637 websites all over the world that are positioned to run fraudulent charges through, SCARY no one is working to shut these folks down!
Thanks for your help | |
MGD
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-31
Fort Lauderdale, FL
| said by Bob in VA :
BEWARE: moball........
.........Thanks for your help
Bob, you are welcome, and thanks for posting.
There is an issue that needs to be emphasised for victims who discover this fraudulent charge.
It is vital that you do not allow the bank to play into the criminal's hand.
When you call the bank, report the charge as a "Fraudulent charge" not as a disputed charge. A disputed charge triggers a different process whereby the banks notifies the vendor that there is a dispute and gives the vendor an opportunity to produce documentation to support the charge, or correct the error. This is a process reserved for legitimate businesses. From the criminals point of view the ideal event once the victim discovers the charge is to receive a dispute notice. This allows the criminals to issue a credit and prevent a charge back from occurring.
Currently the only event that I am aware of that causes the merchant account for each "fake company" to eventually get revoked, is the triggering of an abnormal charge back ratio, which can take some time. The process can be hastened by having as many of the charges processed as charge backs and not as disputes.
By correctly reporting it as a fraudulent charge and a compromised account, it should hopefully cause the bank rep to immediately charge it back and not issue the dispute notice. The more charges the criminals can address as disputes and issue credits for, the longer the scamming under that merchant account can continue. Meanwhile the criminals are withdrawing the funds daily and laundering it.
Under no circumstances should you entertain a banks request that you contact the company to address the charge. If a bank rep does that, they have clearly not understood what is going on, and you should ask to speak with someone who handles fraud.
Also, if any of the banks tell you that you will have to pay the cost of issuing the new card, REFUSE to do so, speak to a manager if necessary. Your card account number including your name, address, and the cvv2 number are in the hands criminals, through no fault of yours.
Bob, with regard to the additional charge from moball, this is like Deja Vu, and I am following up with another post that addresses moball and some very interesting historical similarities.
Stay tuned..
MGD | |
MGD
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-31
Fort Lauderdale, FL
1 edit | reply to Bob in VA
I see that there are now several reports on RobertBrown.com »216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:6Y···lnk&cd=1 of tandem charges from moball along with the U-webtemplate charges. It appears that the moball charge may come first, and could possibly be a process of validating the card. Unlike anything else related to Uwebtemplate, moball is a properly registered, documented, and easily traceable company. I have called and left a message with them.
Here is where it gets strange, there is a history of these tandem charges showing up with a phone game company. Here is where a company called Generex LLC or generextech.com was reported as showing up prior to the Digital Age fraud charge back in September of 2005 »Re: Trouble Bubble LLC Collegeville? What makes this relevant is that Generex was also a properly documented and registered LLC in Ohio. »[Credit Card] Generex Technology LLC
The similarities do not end there, both moball and Generex are hosted with Jaguar Technologies LLC. and even more uncanny is that the same wording appears on both sites.
Look at moball tech "about us" »www.moballtech.com/about.php
Moballtech.com "About"
Now look at the Generex tech "about us" »www.generextech.com/about.php
Generextech.com "About"
Even the support wording is the same, look at moball:
Moball contacts
and compare to Generex:
Generex contacts
Even the moball
"Let us remind you that we have a list of FAQs (which were created on the basis of previously asked questions), so before asking us a question please read our FAQs and probably you will find the answer immediately. Our customers' requests are at the heart of our customer service." is striking similar to Generex's:
Compare that to the last paragraph under Generex "Customer Care"
Generex Support
So, is all this just a random coincidence that they both end up on cards combined with the others?. A review of moball's filings with the state of Virginia indicate that the person listed on the LLC is a reputable individual. In the Utemplate etc. cases there is not one valid document, or vald registration. What is the connection, if any?
MGD | |
|
