EMV Transactions
What is the tool used to identify EMV Transactions?
Visa Resolve Online
We use these denials as they are indicators that the PIN is known to the user of the card.
PIN Related Denials
The cardholder filed an Unauthorized ATM transaction for $100.00. The customer claimed she/he lost the card. PIN was written down at the back of the card. The investigation shows that the customer never withdrew from the disputed ATM, no PIN failed attempt and no PIN change occurred when the disputed transaction happened.
Close the claim as write off
True or False. The cardholder gets arrested and incarcerated. They left their card with a friend/ family member for safe keeping. While incarcerated, the friend/ family member used the card to make purchases. The cardholder is liable for this activity.
True
To identify EMV Transactions, what are the POS Entry Modes that analysts need to look for?
05, 07, or 95
We use this denial as it is an indicator that the cardholder still has possession of their card after the disputed transactions occurred.
Undisputed/ Authorized Card Present Transactions
The cardholder contacted the bank and advised that her boyfriend will be using the card to purchase something online, the cardholder would like to make sure that the transaction will not decline. CH did not contact back to revoke the said authorization. The card was used the next day and CH reported the transaction as unauthorized and mentioned that she did not authorize her boyfriend to make purchases using her card.What should be the correct decision for this claim?
Deny the claim due to sufficient denial reason
True or False. An 8-year-old child took his mother’s card and made purchases using it. The cardholder is liable for this activity.
True
Michelle disputed unauthorized card present EMV transactions from Las Vegas, Nevada when she resided in Alabama and had never been to Las Vegas. Michelle stated that she has possession of her card and it was never lost or stolen. Upon investigation, there are valid card present transactions in Alabama on the same date the unauthorized transactions from Las Vegas occurred. There are also multiple declined transactions and transaction history shows that Michelle never made business with the disputed merchants before. What would be the appropriate decision for the case?
Approve the claim
We use this denial when one is trying to establish past transactions with the merchant that may possibly indicate that the cardholder has a subscription, a membership, or a signed agreement with the merchant.
Prior History with Disputed Merchant/s
The cardholder filed an Unauthorized transaction for $100.00. The said disputed transaction is signature based. The customer claimed she/he lost the card. PIN was memorized. The investigation shows that no PIN failed attempt and no PIN change recorded when the disputed transaction happened. Unable to contact the merchant to get a receipt for signature comparison. The balance was exhausted after the disputed transaction. What should be the correct decision for this claim?
Close the claim as written off due insufficient reason to deny the claim
True or False. A friend/ family member was given a permission by the cardholder to make a purchase, but the friend/ family member purchases a few extra items two days after hoping the cardholder won't notice. The cardholder was able to revoke the authorization right after the authorized purchase was made. The cardholder is liable for the activities two days after.
False
Sonya filed a dispute for unauthorized transactions that occurred on her account on 02/14/2020. She has the card in her possession, but it went missing on the same date the disputed transactions occurred but was returned to her the day after. Some of Sonya's disputed unauthorized transactions are EMV transactions (processed via POS entry mode is 05, 07, or 95; card service code 2 or 6; terminal entry capability is a 5) and some are online (card not present) transactions. What would be the appropriate decision for the case?
Perform additional investigative actions
We use this denial when we are able to contact the merchant, match cardholder information, and validate the transaction over the phone.
Merchant Call/ Verification
The cardholder filed an Unauthorized transaction from the ATM for $100.00. The customer claimed he/she lost the card and PIN was memorized and never gave to anyone. The investigation shows that the customer had one previous transaction from the same ATM. The balance was not exhausted after the disputed transaction and noticed a card-present transaction after the disputed transaction happened that was not reported as an error.
Close the claim as deny due to card-present transaction occurred after the disputed transaction
The cardholder filed a dispute for unauthorized card present transactions and stated that the card is in their possession and was never lost/stolen. Upon investigation, the disputed transactions were EMV. What should be the outcome of the claim?
Denied
What are the criteria to be met to deny a claim with EMV Transactions?
There is no evidence of card separation
There are no suspicious declined transactions
There is no difference in spending patterns
One or more of the disputed transaction(s) was processed as EMV
The cardholder indicated that the card is in their possession during the disputed timeline
We use this denial when we have enough evidence that proves liability of the cardholder by providing consent to use the card to a 3rd party.
3rd Party Usage
The customer disputed 1 PIN-based transaction and 1 signature-based transaction, transactions occurred on the same date. The customer claimed that he/she has the card in possession and the PIN was memorized and was never shared to anyone. The investigation shows no PIN changed and no PIN failed attempt when the PIN-based transaction occurred. The signature-based transaction was successfully verified from the merchant through outbound call. All information MATCHED. The balance was not exhausted and no fraud alert captured by the system. What should be the correct decision for this claim?
Close the claim as deny due to the signature-based transaction was successfully verified from the merchant and information was gathered.
If a cardholder reports unauthorized transactions and stated that their card is lost/stolen but has undisputed card present transactions after the card was reported lost/stolen, what can be the cause of denial for the claim?
It appears that the cardholder still has possession of the card.