https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice..._lot_of_money/
Not sure if the OP is on here or not but interesting thread anyways about financial domination and legalities.
Printable View
https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice..._lot_of_money/
Not sure if the OP is on here or not but interesting thread anyways about financial domination and legalities.
^^^ in point of fact, the financial domination aspect is somewhat irrelevant. The bigger questions involves what constitutes a 'fraudulent' credit card charge from a legal standpoint, and how hard the credit card merchant account holder / online credit card processing service is willing to fight an attempted 'charge-back' from a real world standpoint.
Any customer who pays via credit card can institute a 'fraudulent charge' claim with their credit card company, and the credit card company can in turn attempt to rescind the customer's transaction, without any legal determination having been made as to whether the customer transaction was actually fraudulent or not. It then falls to the owner of the bank credit card merchant account which was used to receive the customer's transaction whether to 'voluntarily' comply with the credit card company's request to rescind the customer's transaction, or to 'keep' the customer transaction money and allow the situation to escalate.
A fair amount of info is missing from the reddit posts. The reddit OP stated that she operates her own indy website. However, the reddit OP did not state whether she has her own credit card merchant account, or whether she uses a 3rd party ( and the 3rd party's credit card merchant account ) for payment processing. However, in the vast majority of cases, due to the costs and other issues involved to gain approval for a credit card merchant account, a 3rd party payment processor ( and the 3rd party's credit card merchant account ) is being used.
Based on that assumption, if a customer disputes a credit card transaction it will actually be up to the 3rd party payment processor, and NOT the individual camgirl, to decide whether they will 'voluntarily' comply with the credit card company's request to rescind the transaction. Generally speaking, 3rd party payment processors have tens of thousands of online clients, thus are not willing to put their relationships with banks and credit card companies at risk over a single client, thus are not likely to 'fight too hard' about rescinding the customer transaction i.e. instituting a 'charge-back'.
Under the circumstances, the Reddit OP stands a very good chance of having the entire $25,000 customer credit card transaction 'charged-back' if the customer seriously disputes the charge. However, doing so will have negative repurcussions upon the credit card customer. Credit card accounts with $25k+ limits aren't approved for 'just anybody' ... and if a charge of this magnitude is disputed undoubtedly questions will be asked !!! And there is the remote chance that the matter could wind up before a court in the form of a lawsuit ... which would expose the identities of both the customer and camgirl via 'public record'. And a 'charge-back' of this magnitude will also have negative repurcussions upon the camgirl via her 3rd party payment processor.
So without risking that questions will be asked ( by his employer, bank, wife, etc. ), and without risking a potential lawsuit, this customer is essentially extending a settlement offer to the camgirl ... where she could 'voluntarily' return $24k, and keep $1,000 for her 'trouble', in exchange for avoiding potential problems with her 3rd party payment processor ( which in the worst case could prevent her from being able to process future customer credit card charges ) and also avoiding a potential lawsuit which would make her true identity and camming activities a matter of 'public record' ... with said 'public record' information then potentially being turned up in future background checks by prospective straight job employers etc.
If the matter were to actually go to court, there is a mixed track record. Generally speaking, adult businesses which directly processed large credit card charges ( i.e. the customer and his card were physically present in a strip club ) have often been found to be guilty of some sort of coercion ( plying with excessive alcohol, drugging the customer, sex acts, etc. ) which served as justification for rescinding the transaction. But this would theoretically not apply in the case of an online transaction, where the customer's inebriation level was 100% the result of his own actions. And, generally speaking, a court trial jury made up of jealous housewives and bible thumping retirees is not likely to buy into a narrative that a 'professional' online adult domme is the 'innocent victim'. Nor is such a jury likely to buy into a narrative that $25,000 represents 'fair value' for services rendered. The customer has a fair amount of 'leverage' in this situation, and he apparently knows it !!!
Had I been asked for advice, seeing as how this customer wants to play 'let's make a deal', my advice would be for the camgirl to respond with her own counter-offer ... perhaps offering to 'voluntarily' return $15,000 of the customer's money while keeping $10,000 for her 'trouble' !!! $10,000 isn't too bad for 3 hours work plus assurances that her future ability to receive online credit card charges from customers via a 3rd party payment processor won't be disrupted ... while at the same time $10,000 isn't so 'expensive' for the customer that he's likely to pay legal fees to an attorney ( probably $5,000 worth ) plus risk the matter 'going public'.
If the camgirl allows the matter to escalate to a lawsuit, she would face similar attorney's fees ... PLUS the costs involved to travel to appear in whatever local court the lawsuit is filed in by the unhappy customer ( perhaps multiple times ) ... PLUS the potential lost domme income while spending hours / days travelling or appearing in court instead of earning money from other online customers.
I think the whole situation is nothing but a troll. She hasn't returned to the thread to answer any questions and her original post was so incredibly vague that I doubt the validity.
In the case that it IS real... its going to be interesting, because I'm sure that was multiple charges over the course of 3 hours, leading to the total of 25K.