Kelly: if we can prove we used a credit card check to get the funds to send to ASD can’t the credit card company cancel the amount on our credit card because we did not receive a service or good for the money sent to them??? Considering it is a BOA credit card and the seized funds were in BOA accounts???

How does all this work and how long does it usually take?

This type of chargeback is generally classified as “billing errors” under Federal Legislation.

“billing errors” complaints must normally be filed within 60 days of the date of the statement on which the disputed charge appears (not the date of transaction) This 60 day limit, however, varies from issuer to issuer, so check with BoA.

You can read more on your rights here: http://ag.ca.gov/consumers/general/credit_card_chargeback_rights.php

How does all this work and how long does it usually take?

The Bank of Canada maintains custody of all balances of $1,000 or more for 100 years, until they are claimed. Unclaimed balances under $1,000 are retained for forty years (ten years from the date of the last owner transaction at the Canadian bank, plus an additional thirty years at the Bank of Canada). Consequently, in the case of balances under $1,000, a written claim must be received by the Bank of Canada no later than December 31 of an account’s last year (that is, the year of the last transaction date + forty years).

Too little too late. First, if your lawyer told you 6 months was enough time to take an account over as abandoned, and also went along with you just devising your own refund formula, get a new lawyer, look for one who went to law school this time. Just about half an hour’s research provided me with Canada’s law on unclaimed balances, which applies to banks and all other merchants holding funds in balance for their customers, so you don’t even get to evade it by saying you’re not as bank (which in a few states in the USA you can)

Up until the end of 2007 the Bank Act authorized the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to publish (in the Canada Gazette, available at most libraries) information about all unclaimed balances of $100 or more, once they have been inactive for nine years. This information includes the creditor’s name, last known address, and balance amount. The purpose is to help people locate balances that may be owed them.

If still unclaimed by the end of the tenth year, these balances are then given to the custody of the Bank of Canada, which in turn assumes responsibility for publishing the above information.

So, as we can see, you have to hold that money nine years and then publish the information, then after another year, you have to turn it over to the Central Bank. By refunding anyone with out a court order, you’re breaking hte law and could be said to be stealing from the account holder (however much we may both agree that he deserves it)

This is just one other problem with under regulation in Canada, and frankly, under policing in all jurisdictions. STP looks to me like it’s run from the spare bedroom of your house, I can say I’m darn apprehensive about the prospects of you actually being in business in 9 years, and I’m flat out curious about your refund policy because I know from personal (yes I have an account) that it’s not uniformly applied.

I’m kind of stressed for time just now, I’ll come back and reply a bit more later.

Stella, Greggs post contains many valid and important observations including the above comment. I have read your User Agreement, and frankly it is clear that STP is very much aware of the nature of many of the businesses who use your services and are relatively unconcerned whether they are genuine businesses or simply internet scams. The STP disclaimers are extraordinarily wide and customer protection appears to be minimal. In this regard, the statement made that payment processors of the STP mould are in fact the enablers of the ponzi and money laundering “industry” is defensible.

Paypal wont touch a lot of the “internet marketing industry” businesses and neither do most banks and other registered, licensed financial institutions. It is also not reassuring to customers that they are all “offshore” from the US where the regulations offer some customer protection from legal abuses by these companies.

It is beyond imagination that STP are not aware that funds belong to ASD, are funds which belong to a business that is the subject of a civil forfeiture prosecution in the US on charges of wire fraud and money laundering, amongst others. And STP must also be aware that these civil proceedings will almost certainly be followed by criminal proceedings. The description of the ASD account as an abandoned account is not accurate in any way and treating it as such does not reflect well on the ethics or accuracy of STP. This view is further supported by the fact that you are also dealing with accounts for AVGA, which is one of the ASD’s latest incarnations.

The operation of a reputable payment processor does not depend on it operating in a way that it can legally “get away with”, but also on its its commercial ethics and conduct.

Your reference to “merchant paying commission”, is a strange way to refer to the account of a client who you KNOW is the subject of a US forfeiture prosecution on the grounds of illegal operations, wire fraud and money laundering.

I was not aware that your terms and conditions permitted clients with illegal or fraudulent activities, however broad and all encompassing the disclaimers in your User Agreement, but the return of monies that belonged to a company under a major civil and possible criminal investigation is commercially, morally, if maybe legally reprehensible.

You picked up on some things I notcied as well. STP apparently (according to Eagle and Gregg) have a long history of facilitating scams through their payment processor. It is disturbing to say the least that Ms. Hiemstra chooses to state in her letter how aqctive they really are in promoting and facilitating these online programs/scams/Ponzi schemes. of course, given her history and that of her husband’s in actively promoting such scams (see Prof. Higgins post above), it is not surprising that they would have perhaps figured out another angle for benefitting from the various scams. So much of her letter would come across as believable, if it weren’t for the niggling details of their scam involvement, promotion, and facilitation (and Tony, I agree — they should have seen the ASD Ponzi from miles away, yet agreed to facilitate it — perhaps casting doubt on Stella’s due diligence claim…..).

Tony H:

Stella Hiemstra: We do regularly ask for proof of outside revenue depending on the business model, incorporation documents (legitimate ones), source of original funding, etc.

Did you ask this of ASD? If so what was the answer? If you didn’t ask, why not?

Stella Hiemstra: We then asked their membership to vote on whether STPay should refund all payments.

A curious way to run a business. Ask ponzi players if you should refund payments effectively closing a ponzi scheme.

Stella Hiemstra: Thousands of hate emails were hurled my way and the membership voted overwhelmingly in favour of allowing the program to continue.

What happened to the “program”? Let me guess, it turned out to be a ponzi scheme after all.

Stella Hiemstra: SolidTrust regularly refunds members at a loss from a failed online program, at least so far as their transaction history dictates.

By “failed online program” are you referring to a typical HYIP/AutoSurf?

Stella Hiemstra: We do regularly ask for proof of outside revenue depending on the business model, incorporation documents (legitimate ones), source of original funding, etc.

Did you ask this of ASD? If so what was the answer? If you didn’t ask, why not?

Stella Hiemstra: We then asked their membership to vote on whether STPay should refund all payments.

A curious way to run a business. Ask ponzi players if you should refund payments effectively closing a ponzi scheme.

Stella Hiemstra: Thousands of hate emails were hurled my way and the membership voted overwhelmingly in favour of allowing the program to continue.

What happened to the “program”? Let me guess, it turned out to be a ponzi scheme after all.

Stella Hiemstra: SolidTrust regularly refunds members at a loss from a failed online program, at least so far as their transaction history dictates.

By “failed online program” are you referring to a typical HYIP/AutoSurf?