Just spoke to Mastercard

[Casinorep]

I thought what the hell and chatted with a manager at one of the firm that's been declining egaming transactions. I asked if they are indeed blocking transactions with online gambling sites in a nutshell. And his response was that they do not have such policy in place, but that it is up to the merchants or the cardholder's issuing bank.

Now either he does not know what he's talking about or may not be high up the ladder enough to have a precise knowledge about this. But I thought it was interesting what he said.

[Renee]

If I understand right, yous poke with mastercard, and not a bank.

The UIGEA was about financial institutions blocking the transactions, not the card processing network company (or whatever you call mastercard), correct?

It doesn't surprise me what he said. I would have thought that was the deal too.

I bet if you call your bank and ask them the same thing they will tell you they are blocking them.

[Casinorep]

Aaahh wish I can edit the title.

Well banks also issues other types of cc that do accept egaming transactions so they won't just block you if you use the processor that is notorious for denying gaming deposits right now.

But anyhow, to make sure, I called one of my bank that I have that processor with. And they said they don't block either.

So bottom line is this - gaming sites claim certain processors block deposits. I spoke to both the processor and issuing bank and they both deny knowledge of such events. So this is where the mystery lies.

Being that I don't gamble myself, I don't experience this hands on but would hope that none of my players do.

**Moderator please edit title if you can**

[TheGooner]

I suspect that your mastercard contact is simply unaware of their latest directives.

The credit card procedure for transactions is quite straight forward.

1) Electronic Credit card transactions are sent to an "acquiring bank" which is the bank that signed the merchant up to accepot this card type.

2) This acquiring bank then compares the value against any shop limits and if the acquirer also issued the card the check the card holder details - this is known as a "local auth."

3) However, 99% of the time, the transaction is then sent directly to mastercard, who will validate the transaction against the merchants Standard Industry Code (SIC) and check against an international list of HOT cards. This is a "Standard Auth".

(This is where US issued Mastercards are declined for gambling sites)

There is also a very clever series of checks looking for fraud traffic by comparing transaction history and amount and doing a series of algos to see if the transaction is unusual.

4) Finally, if the value is over certain limits, mastercard may choose to forward on the transaction to the actual bank that is the issuer of the card to verify actual balances and amounts. This is an "extended auth".

In these days of the credit crunch many institutions now used extended auth (if required) for all transactions.

------------------

Now - if your card is good (ie you can use it elsewhere) - and if you have not exceeded any daily limits - then the only place that you can get declined is in step 3 - the SIC code check.

The process is not magic or voodoo - it's simple authorisation logic. And mastercard are definately doing SIC code declines for several countries at merchants that are coded as a gambling site.

If the site is not coded as a gambling site - then it goes through. This is illegal of course - but goes on a lot using a series of "shell" merchants - and a bank that is happy to look the other way for a 1-3% acquiring fee.


Note that all of this is done electronically. It does not require human intervention. And unless the "manager' you talked to is specifically in charge of risk management or legal processing restrictions then I would not expect him/her to be informed specifically.

-----------------

Source :
This string of processing is based on my previous work of 15 years in writing and setting up financial transaction processing sites for cards.

The same procedure is generally true for VISA and AMEX too.

[Renee]

That's a really decent explanation. Thanks for that

Seems I'm totally useless when it comes to this stuff.. I didn't realise mastercard are the actual ones blocking.. I just thought the UIGEA made it up to the individual banks to carry that burden..

If thats not the case, then I don't understand why the banks are finding it so hard then?

[Casinorep]

Good 411 there Gooner. I recall asking one of the online casino's support rep about this and he said that some master card deposits still go through. And the bank rep said that they will only block the transaction if it is flagged as fraudulent. But if it's done automatically at the SIC stage then it's no wonder no one has a clue about it.

[TheGooner]

You are welcome guys n gals. It was an intersting business.

The really interesting stuff goes on with those specialised mastercard transaction checks for fraud and stolen cards. They've developed all sorts of trending data ... some of it funny ... much of it REALLY interesting.

If you want to get a call from mastercard (or your issuing bank) asking about whether your card has been stolen recently then try the following :
- buy petrol (fill up your car) with your mastercard
- go to the mall and buy a pair of sneakers / running shoes
- take your second car back to the petrol station and fill it up too

These three transactions within a period of 2-3 hours should be enough to get a call from your issuer within 24 hours about half the time - depending on whether it's normal for you to buy shoes / petrol frequently.

Why? Apparantly, sneakers and petrol are the most common things bought by young crims when they rip off a credit card ...

[Renee]

You are welcome guys n gals. It was an intersting business.

The really interesting stuff goes on with those specialised mastercard transaction checks for fraud and stolen cards. They've developed all sorts of trending data ... some of it funny ... much of it REALLY interesting.

If you want to get a call from mastercard (or your issuing bank) asking about whether your card has been stolen recently then try the following :
- buy petrol (fill up your car) with your mastercard
- go to the mall and buy a pair of sneakers / running shoes
- take your second car back to the petrol station and fill it up too

These three transactions within a period of 2-3 hours should be enough to get a call from your issuer within 24 hours about half the time - depending on whether it's normal for you to buy shoes / petrol frequently.

Why? Apparantly, sneakers and petrol are the most common things bought by young crims when they rip off a credit card ...

That's interesting. I might do that. Although I have a feeling they wont call me just because I used to buy a full tank of petrol every 2-3 days.

Actually, when I was in Budapest 2 weeks ago I called my bank to let them know that I was overseas so they wouldn't block my card. They asked the dates I'd be overseas and I told them, then when I was going to tell them which countries I was in, they told me they didn't need to know.. I was like, but if someone steals my card details and takes them to another country to use them, you should block my card. She just told me that I'd have to dispute them when I got back.. Seemed a bit silly to me, especially if I'd have wanted to get a replacement card quickly and the thief had maxed out my credit card. I would have been stuffed...

[vinism]

That's a really decent explanation. Thanks for that

Seems I'm totally useless when it comes to this stuff.. I didn't realise mastercard are the actual ones blocking.. I just thought the UIGEA made it up to the individual banks to carry that burden..

If thats not the case, then I don't understand why the banks are finding it so hard then?

The banks are finding it hard because they have no idea how to do the same thing with checks and ACH transactions. That's where the real burden comes in. Basically, what they have to do now is to get their various commercial account holders to certify that they're not processing online gambling transactions. Otherwise, there's no real good way for them to block individual transactions.

[TheGooner]

Exactyly right Vinism.

Credit Card processors had the good fortune to already have an Industry Code in place for all merchants - mainly for reporting analysis more than anything else - and so now can easily access this information when making a transaction authorisation.

But bank wires and paper cheques have no such information regarding the sender - other than the senders name - to work on. This makes it almost impossible to detect the purpose of a payment based on any one entry.

However, over the course of several weeks or months it does become possible to identify "potential" accounts that might be gambling - based on transaction value and frequency of processing.

This is why as affiliates we often see that the payers name for bankwires are very non-descript and have no apparent relation to the program or casino.

It's all smoke and mirrors and hiding the intent when paying into US accounts - as the UIGEA now makes funding gambling transactions for online gambling illegal ... if the gambling is illegal in your state.