Here's MGD's email to us:

I wanted to advise your that the fraud charge from prophotosland.com is part of a massive fraud operation perpetrated by an organized crime syndicate operated from Eastern Europe. This long running multi-year fraud operation has been hijacking millions of dollars a year from consumers debit and credit cards, virtually undetected by the financial institutions. They utilize an elaborate scheme that takes advantage of several weaknesses in the merchant account vetting system. The criminal enterprise is driven by the ability to obtain vast amounts of consumer card data.
 
I have been tracking and documenting this crime syndicate for almost three years, and have several hundred hours of research into the project. prophotosland is a subdivision documented here:
 
"fraud: www.prophotosland.com & www.photogey" [dslreports]
 
However, the master story of the criminal enterprise is here:
 
"Ebook websites, fraud charges, Devbill/DigitalAge/Pluto" [dslreports]
 
A few months ago Shaun Waterman, the UPI Homeland and National Security Editor ran a story on one aspect of the case which was published here:
 
"Analysis: Detroit trial shows cyber-scam" [UPI.com]
 
Recent victims of this fraud have included US military personnel including many stationed in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Germany. There has been many reported cases of hardship as a result of having to cancel their cards due to their location. There are numerous military victim reports on the net. The first reports began shortly after rangerjoes.com database was hacked by these criminals. Many of the overseas victims had purchased supplies from there before heading offshore. Military victim reports began to show up around here:
 
Military reports on main thread [dslreports]
 
and in numerous other places on the net. Mostly under searches of the phone numbers from the fraudulent sites as they were listed on the line item charges on the statements.
 
Regards,
MGD

I just noticed a charge for $9.87 on my WAMU VISA card from someone called prophotosland.com. I had no idea who or what that was, so did a quick google search hoping to jog my memory. What I found was quite a few websites complaining about the same mystery $9.87 charge from the same company and talking about how they couldn't manage to speak with any live person at said company.
 
So I skipped right to calling WAMU to report this fraudulent charge. The person I spoke to expressed no concern at my story and promised to send me a charge dispute form in the mail. I asked her if I should worry about the fact that this is clearly not an honest mistake and she said it was nothing to worry about unless they charge my account multiple times. I asked her what about the phenomenon of multiple people having the exact same fraudulent charge on their accounts and she said WAMU could do nothing about it.
 
I find it a bit ridiculous that I have to sit around waiting for her to put this form in the mail to me (as opposed to having something built into their website) and that I have to go to the trouble of "disputing" the charges from a documented fraudulent company. I don't expect to have any problem with the dispute, but it's still a bit irritating.
 
Anyway, you might want to warn your readers to look out for this $9.87 charge... it's small enough that I imagine people who use their cards often won't really notice the difference unless they're paying attention.
 
Thanks!
Megan

I've never heard of Certegy, until April 6. I went to K-mart to purchase some items, wrote a check (which I have done there dozens of times before), and it was declined. Huh? I mean WTH?! I've never had a bounced check, I have over draft protection anyways. I called the toll free number, of course it's automated, they won't give you a reason, the recording just said "Precautionary Measures", sooooo, what the heck is that all about? I cashed a check elsewhere a few minutes later, just fine.
 
I emailed K-Mart complaining about being the embarrassment it caused me. I emailed Certegy also, all I received from both was a form letter giving me instructions how to obtain more information about my particular situation. OK, so, I requested a letter through USPS which was suppose to explain WHY my check was declined. This is the response I received (you guessed it, another form letter).

Dear Ms. XXXXX,   This letter is written in response to your inquiry regarding our recent inability to authorize your check. Initially, we want to assure you that we understand the concern this can cause, and we apologize for any inconvenience you may have experienced.   Certegy Check Service (CCS) is a check authorization service. Our clients throughout the United States utilize the service to help reduce losses incurred through retail practice of check acceptance. For many CCS clients we assume liability should an authorized check subsequently be dishonored. CCS maintains a computerized file containing both returned check information and driver's license or checking account number. In addition to this information, over 40 years of check authorization and resulting loss experiences CCS has developed guidelines for authorizing acceptance of checks. Our system determines the potential risks associated with with checks. Many proprietary factors are evaluated and in making decisions for check approvals. We also track check writing based on many factors, including check sequence number,, check writing activity and check amounts. This process is designed to protect consumers and retailers and to prevent unauthorized individuals from writing checks on otherwise valid accounts. Unfortunately, valid check writing patterns can occasionally overlap with these patterns resulting in out inability to authorize a valid check such as yours.   Regarding our inability to authorize your check, although there were no returned checks on file, the check fell outside of approval guidelines. Unfortunately, we did not have any addtional information at the time to override the concern, and we again sincerely apologize.   In closing, we do appreciate and understand your concerns. Please contact our Customer Care Department at 800-352-5970 if we can be of further assistance.   Sincerely, CERTEGY CHECK SERVICES, INC. Customer Care Department

The check fell outside WHAT approval guidelines? Does this scream discrimination or am I being just plain stupid?

• they keep a "computerized file containing both returned check information and driver's license or checking account number"
• they've used "over 40 years of check authorization and resulting loss experiences" to develop guidelines for authorizing checks
• some proprietary factors!!!
• some sort of pattern matching based on things like "check sequence number, check writing activity and check amounts."

• "Regarding our inability to authorize your check, although there were no returned checks on file, the check fell outside of approval guidelines. Unfortunately, we did not have any addtional information at the time to override the concern, and we again sincerely apologize."

Certegy Check Services Inc. disclosed last summer that a database administrator had sold the personal and financial information of 8.5 million consumers to data brokers over a five-year period. The check-processing firm didn't nab the DBA until a retailer reported a link between check transactions and marketing solicitations that some of its customers had received.

Your website continually runs stories about how merchants aren't allowed to ask for ID during a credit transaction. I work on the management team at a nationwide retailer, and credit card fraud occasionally hits our location. Every so often, we are hit with something called a 'retrieval request' from one of the big 4 credit authorization companies (Discover, AMEX, MC, Visa). This means we have 48 hours to provide a legible signed receipt, and video evidence of my staff checking a photo ID to verify the cardholder.

If we are unable to verify that my staff checked the ID of the cardholder, we are hit with a 100% chargeback to our account. That's right, they charge back the entire amount, because WE DIDN'T CHECK ID. Thusly, I have informed my staff to check photo ID on ALL TRANSACTIONS, as I am tired of dealing with bad debt. If a customer will not provide ID, I will not take their payment. I am not sure what merchant agreement your readers keep referencing, but this simply isn't true. How can I not check ID, per their agreement, and yet still be held liable for passing a stolen credit card? I would rather lose a customer than lose thousands of dollars in chargebacks every month. Just my two cents.

RELATED
"LEAKS: Amex Document Shows Proof of ID Check Is Not Required For Chargebacks"
(Photo: Brett L.)

...shortly after [Kristen Smith's] 16-year-old son started a summer gig at a local car dealership... his new employer conducted a routine background check that returned shocking news: A man living in Phoenix was using his Social Security number. Even more shocking was the discovery by the local police department that there was more than one perpetrator. In 1994, a man from Pennsylvania with a DUI arrest on his record had been using Smith's son's Social Security number as well.

Of course, credit monitoring agencies are hoping to cash in on this new threat by offering special monitoring services—think of it as the credit world's attempt at creating a "restless leg syndrome" revenue stream. But you can handle the monitoring on your own with a little effort. Adam Levin, chairman of Identity Theft 911, suggests that parents remember to include their children in their periodic credit reviews. And a spokesman from the Social Security Administration says parents can call the SSA directly to check whether any work history has been reported for a child's number.

All three major credit reporting bureaus have different responses to reports of a stolen number, so check the table at the end of the SmartMoney article for details on what you can request from each one.

Online resources:
Identity Theft Resource Center
Identity Theft 911

Protecting Your Child's Identity [SmartMoney]

(Photo: Getty)

"Heath informed me that due to the Patriot Act, all negotiable instruments required a fingerprint as proof of my status as a holder in due course."

Though not a lawyer, we have seen them on TV, so we rushed to find where the Uniform Commercial Code requires thumbprints. Wait a minute, it doesn't.

Ramsey's letter to Chase, inside...

JPMorgan Chase,

I would like to inform you of the incredulous exchange I had at one of your local branches.

The company I work for currently uses your institution for its financial transactions. In return for my labour, my employer provides me with a negotiable instrument commonly known as a cheque drawn from the funds stored with your company.

Thursday, January the 11th at 5:45 pm, I entered your facility located at 1115 S 800 E Orem, UT 84097 with the intent to recoupe the amount entitled on my cheque.

Before visiting this branch I located the phone number for this facility and called ahead of time to find out what was needed to cash my cheque. I was informed that two forms of identification would be sufficient.

While at the bank, I spoke with a teller who promptly asked me for two forms of identification. I produced these forms of identification. The teller then proceeded to request that I press my thumb onto a pad of ink in order to place a copy of my thumbrint onto the cheque. I politely refused this request by stating "No thank you."

After providing my signature on this cheque, your teller refused to provide recoupement of the amount shown on the cheque issued from your institution. At this point, I questioned the nature of this refusal as it clearly states on the cheque that funds were to be drawn from this institution. The teller stated that this was due to some sort of 'rule'. She mentioned that this rule forbid her from lawfully producing the amount shown on this cheque. I requested that she show me some documentation on this policy as I was informed that two forms of identification would be sufficient to prove that I had rights as a holder in due course as per U.C.C. - ARTICLE 3 - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ..PART 3. ENFORCEMENT OF INSTRUMENTS
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-308.html)

I proceeded to speak with the manager Heath who informed my father not 5 minutes before, that two forms of identification were sufficient to prove rights as a holder in due course. I questioned Heath as to why your institution would refuse to provide the recoupement endorsed by my employer and the cheque from your bank. Heath informed me that due to the Patriot Act, all negotiable instruments required a fingerprint as proof of my status as a holder in due course. Which seems to be in violation of U.C.C. ARTICLE 3 which I believe to be the law that federal banks subscribe to in order to conduct business.

I would like to call to your attention Heath's insistence that the Patriot Act was his reason for denying the recoupement that I believe I am legally entitled to. I feel that this is absurd and I would expect that a manager at your facility would be educated enough to know why he or his tellers would refuse a request of recoupement. I am familiar with the Thumbprint Signature Program. However, I do not believe this holds sufficient legal authority to deny a holder in due course the advancement of this negotiable instrument.

I feel that your company could have treated this situation with more professionalism and that refusing to pay funds from an account drawn through your bank is wrong. I also feel that your employees are not provided with enough training on what is proper and what is not. It seems as if these employees were just quoting policy based on hearsay. This policy has cast your company in a negative light.

I feel that your prompt attention will help resolve this matter.

Previously: BofA Throws Out Customer Who Refuses To Give Thumbprint

"Your are not a customer and I don't have to help you." I asked, "What good is a BofA check if BofA wont cash it? Checks are bound by federal guidelines, it seems to me like not honoring a check to your own bank would be fraud." "Those rules tell me I have to get your thumb print to cash a check." "Show me that rule."

Question: Can a bank legally refuse to cash your check? Can a bank legally require a thumbprint as a prerequisite for doing business?

Tycho's letter, inside...

Tycho writes:

— BEN POPKEN

Simply put, the nation's largest collector and parser of data about private citizens.

From GovExec:

Really? We could of sworn it was something else...

Read more. (Thanks to mrscolex and Brownlee!)