![]() |
| ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| | |||||||||||||
| |||||||
| | |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
| |||
| |||
Bank FraudHi! I'm in Illinois and and am having a problem with my previous bank. Problems began when my ATM card was stolen. The bank continues to send threatening letters saying that my account is overdrawn by $9000! Stolen checks were deposited into the account with my ATM card and money was taken out all over the place! While my account was on hold a direct payroll was deposited. Now they refuse to reimburse my boss. What do we do? |
|
#2
| |||
| |||
| How long after the card was stolen did you notify the bank??? Here is a summary of the Electronic Funds Act: "If you report an ATM or EFT card missing before it is used without your permission, the EFT Act says the card issuer cannot hold you responsible for any unauthorized withdrawals. If unauthorized use occurs before you report it, the amount you can be held responsible for depends upon how quickly you report the loss to the card issuer. If you report the loss within two business days after you realize your card is missing, you will not be responsible for more than $50 for unauthorized use. However, if you do not report the loss within two business days after you realize the card is missing, but you do report its loss within 60 days after your statement is mailed to you, you could lose as much as $500 because of an unauthorized withdrawal. And, if you do not report an unauthorized transfer or withdrawal within 60 days after your statement is mailed to you, you risk unlimited loss. That means you could lose all the money in your account and the unused portion of your maximum line of credit established for overdrafts. If you didn’t notify the institution within the time periods allowed because of an extenuating circumstance, such as lengthy travel or illness, the issuer must extend the time period for notification to what is reasonable. In addition, if state law or your contract imposes lower liability limits, those lower limits apply instead of the limits in the federal EFT Act. After you report the loss or theft of your ATM card, you are not liable for additional unauthorized transfers that may be made. Because these unauthorized transfers may appear on your statements, however, you should carefully review each statement you receive after you’ve reported the loss or theft. If the statement shows transfers that you did not make or that you need more information about, contact the institution immediately, using the special procedures provided for reporting errors." Source: [url]http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/elbank.htm[/url] The full text of the Act can be found online at: [url]http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/ch41schVI.html[/url] One question though.... if your ATM was stolen, how did the thieves get your PIN number???
__________________ There are at least 17 lawsuits (!!) pending in various courts, including the US Supreme Court, asking if Obama is a natural born citizen (as req'd by Art II, Sec 1 of the US Constitution). Why has he spent over $1.35M in legal fees to block disclosure... rather than spend $12 for a VALID birth cert to settle the matter? The 'certificate' he has presented doesn't qualify to get a drivers license, wouldn't allow a child to qualify for Little League, or for a real citizen to get a US passport! |
|
#3
| |||
| |||
| JETX, my ATM can be used as VISA, (it has the logo), are they therefore governed by VISA *laws*? Asking for the poster and because I'm also wondering...I haven't had a problem, wasn't even held responsible to pay the $50.00 when my idenity was stolen by the biotroll. I didn't notice, so my report was about 6 days later. She used the card as a VISA, then the dumb bunny decided (DAH) tried to try to get cash. She's on tape, ATM sucked the card after 3 attempts, they did nothing...but anyway, are ATM cards ONLY, subject to different *laws* then an ATM w/Visa usage? Does this make sense? Thanks in advance for your response. This has been bugging me for some time. KAT Last edited by m martin; 04-10-2009 at 09:34 PM. |
|
#4
| |||
| |||
| If you use an ATM/Check card as a credit card (i.e., like a Visa card), then the transaction IS protected under Visa regulations and federal law just like a credit card. However, this also means that you must contact the bank within 60 days of the statement on which the fraudulent "charge" took place. |
|
#5
| |||
| |||
| Sorry, 'dunomad' is not correct. Though you may think that the VISA ATM is the same as a credit card, it isn't. And because of this, you do not have the protection of the FCBA (Fair Credit Billing Act) when using an ATM card. The 'protection' for ATM use is the 'EFT' (Electronic Funds Transfer Act). Even VISA calls these cards by different names.... an ATM is called a 'check card' (since it is just like writing a check). From VISA: "How do I use the Visa check card? The Visa check card is still your ATM card, but you can also use it to make purchases from your checking account everywhere you see the Visa® symbol. It's easy — simply hand your card to the cashier and ask to sign the receipt. You don't even need to key in your PIN. There's no check to write and no ID to show. You can also use your card for catalog purchases or when you're shopping online. Plus, record keeping is easy because every transaction is detailed on your monthly checking account statement." Source: [url]http://usa.visa.com/personal/cards/visa_check_terms.html[/url] Some of the confusion about these cards is due to the fact that you can use the VISA credit card as a 'cash advance' card at their ATM machines. Kat1963: If your VISA card is a 'check card' (ATM), then you are only protected by the Electronic Funds Transfer Act referred to in my earlier post. If it is a VISA credit card (used as a cash advance card), then that transaction is protected by the FCBA.
__________________ There are at least 17 lawsuits (!!) pending in various courts, including the US Supreme Court, asking if Obama is a natural born citizen (as req'd by Art II, Sec 1 of the US Constitution). Why has he spent over $1.35M in legal fees to block disclosure... rather than spend $12 for a VALID birth cert to settle the matter? The 'certificate' he has presented doesn't qualify to get a drivers license, wouldn't allow a child to qualify for Little League, or for a real citizen to get a US passport! |
![]() |