Insights for consumers
It pays to be very cautious when contacted about an online job. Job scams are becoming more common, and it is very difficult for a person to verify who they are dealing with online. Further, it is crucial to give correct answers to questions from transactional service providers about payments being made online. If correct answers are given, the transactional service provider may be able to alert the customer that they are being scammed.
What happened?
In August 2024, Sam was searching online for employment, when he enquired about an opportunity to work remotely for an international company who were recruiting online agents. The company would provide training. Sam was interested in the role and went through the training. As part of the training, a company representative took him through tasks over the phone. He understood the tasks were being carried out in a training environment. One of the tasks was to open an account and get a debit card with a transactional service provider and to set up a relationship with cryptocurrency exchange MoonPay.
Unfortunately, the job was a scam. The scammer persuaded Sam to make payments from his bank account into the new account with the transactional service provider, and then to transfer the funds to MoonPay, using the debit card provided by the transactional service provider. MoonPay converted Sam’s payments into cryptocurrency. The cryptocurrency was then transferred to the scammer.
Sam made four payments. After the last payment was made from his account with the transactional service provider to MoonPay, he realised that something was not right and phoned his bank and the transactional service provider. He wanted the transactional service provider to charge back the transactions from MoonPay to his account because he had been scammed.
After looking into the matter, the transactional service provider said they had no basis to charge back the transactions.
Sam asked FSCL to look into the matter.
What was FSCL’s view?
It was clear that Sam had fallen victim to a sophisticated scam. He lost about $9,400.
We considered the rules about chargebacks. The chargeback scheme is set up to resolve card payment disputes between merchants and cardholders. The card scheme operator, in this case Visa, makes the chargeback rules and there are only limited grounds for a chargeback. If the cardholder (Sam) authorises a payment and receives the good or service, there is no chargeback right against the merchant.
Sam agreed he had authorised the payments to MoonPay. While Sam had been a victim of a scam, he had not made the card payments directly to the scammer. The payments had gone to MoonPay, and the service provided by MoonPay was to convert Sam’s payments into cryptocurrency. MoonPay had carried out the service requested by Sam – the purchase of cryptocurrency. While the cryptocurrency was later transferred to the scammer, this did not give rise to a valid chargeback claim against MoonPay.
We also considered whether there was anything in the surrounding circumstances that should have alerted the transactional service provider to the scam and to question Sam about his payments. The transactional service provider contacted Sam via their mobile app when he made the first payment and before the payment was confirmed. Sam was asked to check the risks and taken through a series of screens, which required him to select answers. He confirmed that no one was doing the payments for him, and that he was not being guided. This was not the case; he had given answers to the transactional service provider at the direction of the fraudster. If he had answered correctly, the transactional service provider would likely have been able to alert Sam that he was being scammed.
Sam agreed the answers he had given were not accurate, however said he was in effect ‘hypnotised’ by the scammer. Unfortunately, scammers use psychological techniques to make it difficult for victims to think clearly at the time, and this was the case for Sam. However, the answers Sam gave to the transactional service provider led them to believe he was making legitimate payments and did not alert them that a scam was occurring.
In those circumstances, we found that the transactional service provider was not responsible for Sam’s loss.
How did FSCL suggest that the complaint should be resolved?
We explained our view to Sam, and he accepted what we had to say. The case was then closed.
