electronic withdrawal without prior authorization
Complaint
buck
Country: United States
On 8/17/2012, a withdrawal of $369.00 was taken (without conscious authorization) from my mothers checking account. Paid to the order of FRAUDWATCH, with a phone number and I.D. number on the memo line.
On 8/21/2012, another withdrawal of $369.00 was taken (again, without conscious authorizatin) from the same checking account. Paid to the order of PATIENT ASSISTANCE PLUS. Again, a phone number and I.D. appeared on the memo line.
If anyone has dealt with these crooks, please let me know what can be done to stop this and to seek appropriate financial redress. Thanks.
On 8/21/2012, another withdrawal of $369.00 was taken (again, without conscious authorizatin) from the same checking account. Paid to the order of PATIENT ASSISTANCE PLUS. Again, a phone number and I.D. appeared on the memo line.
If anyone has dealt with these crooks, please let me know what can be done to stop this and to seek appropriate financial redress. Thanks.
Comments
https://complaintwire.org/complaint/7ngB4sMMcQU/first-consumers-fraud-watch
https://complaintwire.org/complaint/3ohTZYtSGAY/first-consumer-fraudwatch
Pattern of unauthorized ckecking account charges is similar to fraudulent telemarketer complaints associated with fraudulent "medical discount card" scams, many of which originate from scam call centers in the Montreal Canada area.
These scams often target the elderly, sometimes calling pretending to be associated with their pharmacy, doctor, or even "medicare". "Sales" approaches have include attempting to scare the victims into disclosing bank account information, "or your medicare benefits will be cut off". Amounts are typically in the $300 to $500 range, supposedly for some "medical discount card" that is worthless because medical providers don't accept it.
In some cases seniors have been tricked into disclosing account information, as outlined above, but there are also reports consistent with these scams obtaining access to account numbers of the elderly and just cramming through charges without obtaining the numbers through calling the victims. Sometimes this shows up as suspicious calls just before the charge, either answered, or just on caller id, as they may try to size up the victim, or grab some snippet of recording they can pretend is an "authorization".
They may be buying illegally sold "sucker lists" that include bank account information, especially those of potential elderly targets. There is apparently a market in these sucker lists among fraudulent telemarketing scams, and lists of those who have fallen for scams before are more valuable.
The "medical discount card" names were typically chosen so that they might slip through unnoticed, possibly appearing to be similar to some actual insurance payment. Past names included "rxsmart" and "interben". Names like Fraudwatch or Patient Assistance Plus suggest they have chosen names to sound like some elderly person might have agreed to this "service", and might appear innocuous enough to be missed on statements.
Also notice that once one charge went through, they quickly ran through another under a different name. This is a common pattern with cramming scams, for 3 reasons.
1) If one charge goes through, they know the account is live, and hasn't yet been shut down.
2) A series of small charges are more likely to maximize the amount of money they can take before the account might overdraft. The amounts are even in the approximate range of typical overdraft coverage, so at least one will probably go through even if the account only had a small balance.
3) By running the second charge through under a different name, even if the first charge was caught and charges from that name were blocked, the second name will get around the block.
This careful crafting of the details is one of the patterns you typically see with this type of scam, that argues that this isn't just some "accident". It's all set up by design, optimally targetted at the elderly, who might not check their statements a lot, might be conned, or that others might not consider credible.
The only way to stop these cramming scams is to file fraud disputes through your bank against all the charges, and immediately have the bank block the card number (if a debit card) or close the account (if through ACH against a checking account number).
Do that first, as it's the best way to actually recover the money, since the bank can reverse it under FRB Reg. E.
Also file fraud complaints with FTC, your state AG, and the AG they may appear to be located in.
It is common for fraudulent telemarketers to edit and doctor recordings, only playing excerpts to con you. If they can't make a good enough fabrication, they may just "lose" it, produce some barely intelligible recording, or throw someone else's recording at you.
They will also play around with the FTC TSR rules for "preacquired account information". There is no way they should already have your mom's account number if they called, and FTC actually requires that companies calling who already have it at least record and verify the last 4 digits of the number (still doesn't authorize obtaining stolen information), but YOU don't know that, so they can thow ANYTHING at you and claim it's "proof" of an "agreement".
When the product's phony, or only exists as a prop to create the appearance of a "business", and the pitch is fraudulent, everything is phony.
made out to pateint assistance plus. Changing banks didn't help!
thought I would share their info, its worth a shot. http://patientassistanceplus.com/, also 1-888--730-3873. I spoke with anna maria and a guy named John Moore is the one who emailed me back. they seem to be cooperative, lets hope they follow through. I told them that preying on elderly folks who are confused is unethical and when an elderly person is confused on the phone, taking their routing number should raise a red flag and the only way I will not pursue with an attorney is to receive a refund check. good luck to us all!
"For Release: 05/21/2013
FTC Seeks Public Comment on Proposal to Ban Payment Methods Favored in Fraudulent Telemarketing Transactions
In an ongoing effort to protect consumers from deceptive telemarketing, the Federal Trade Commission seeks public comment on proposed amendments to strengthen the Telemarketing Sales Rule’s protections against bogus charges and services.
The Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking announced today would curtail the use of four payment methods favored by con artists and scammers. The proposed changes would:
Stop telemarketers from dipping directly into consumer bank accounts by using unsigned checks and “payment orders” that have been “remotely created.” These instruments can make it easy for unscrupulous telemarketers to debit bank accounts without permission, according to the FTC.
Bar telemarketers from getting paid with traditional “cash-to-cash” money transfers, as well as “cash reload” mechanisms, that scammers rely on to get money quickly and anonymously from consumer victims.
The FTC has found that unscrupulous telemarketers rely on these payment methods because they are largely unmonitored and provide consumers with fewer protections against fraud. The FTC’s proposed changes to the TSR would make it a violation for telemarketers and sellers to accept any of these payment methods in any telemarketing transaction.
The proposed changes also would expand the TSR’s ban on telemarketing “recovery services” in exchange for an advance fee. In the Commission’s experience, telemarketers who call consumers offering to help recover losses they suffered through an earlier fraud are often engaged in deceptive practices. Currently limited to offers to recoup losses suffered in a prior telemarketing transaction, the existing ban would be expanded to include offers to recoup losses suffered in any prior transaction.