WARNING, Paypal just made me lose $20 THOUSAND dollars from a scamming buyer

TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others

Status
Not open for further replies.
#661
ang3lina33 said:
I think I'm a bit confused...so OP still has her 11k right? Her account is still negative with PP?
Click to expand...

The way I read it is that her paypal account was -11K when paypal took the funds to pay back the buyer so she transfered the $11K from her Chase account back to paypal to bring the balance to 0. At this point, she was out the money and the bag.

As for the chargeback, Chase put the $11K back into her account, perhaps on a provisional status(?), and will be duking out the dispute with paypal. If Kristie wins the dispute with Chase, then paypal will have to reimburse Chase the $11K.
 
#662
So if Chase takes $11K from paypal then op's paypal balance will be negative $11k? Can they go after her like usual- via collection agency and such?? I'm just curious how this all works.
 
#663
All I have to say is wow!! What an amazing idea you came up with!! I had not thought of doing this at all back with my situation. Besides being a great idea, it is also smart in the sense that there is no way paypal can put ( no chargebacks allowed ) in their terms. Because if this idea catches on, you can bet , all legit sellers will be doing it. It will save people the trouble of going to court. Even though the court does nail the scammers. Really well done!!!!
 
#664
No, from what I understand about chargebacks, if Chase finds in favor of the OP then paypal has to eat the cost of the $11K reimbursement to Chase and cannot go after OP for further reimbursement (but I wouldn't put anything past paypal!).
 
#666
don't kid yourself.. pp will figure out a way to get these funds back....they don't want to

be out 11k but they don't care if a seller is out the money!!! let's see how all

this unfolds...personally, hope that the OP will get her money and that Chase will

duke it out with pp...
 
#667
roey said:
The way I read it is that her paypal account was -11K when paypal took the funds to pay back the buyer so she transfered the $11K from her Chase account back to paypal to bring the balance to 0. At this point, she was out the money and the bag.

As for the chargeback, Chase put the $11K back into her account, perhaps on a provisional status(?), and will be duking out the dispute with paypal. If Kristie wins the dispute with Chase, then paypal will have to reimburse Chase the $11K.
Click to expand...
Precisely.
For paypal to take the money BACK I needed a proof of delivered merchandise from my bag. In other words, PP can't just steal $11k AND the buyer keeps my bag.

My BFF that is the paralegal is also scanning all the court paperwork and sending it to me to sue PP for multiple things. If the bank thing falls through I am suing them.
 
#668
When Paypal comes collecting OP can tell them the same thing they told her. It's on 11k, and not her problem. Paypal can get a dose of their own medicine...
 
#669
*Heather* said:
Regarding the chargeback with your bank, I would have never thought of that. You did say that you were the one to transfer funds back to Paypal, so I am wondering if this could be used against you? I don't think Paypal can go into your accout and take the funds, but if you transferred it yourself, I hope it doesn't work against you. Would be a great victory for sellers everywhere if this does work! I am sure these banks are fed up with all the Paypal horror stories. Good luck, hope it works!
Click to expand...

i know that in cases with judge judy (yes i watch :P) that in order to recover lost funds that were scammed from you, you have to be out of $$. so say a friend used your CC a year or so back, you have to have paid the CC bill, then sue for the amount. i know that judge judy is small claims but you have to be out and not be owing $$ in order to recover. i was under the impression that the OP, must've paid back PP and then wants to recover the $$ back through chargeback process.
 
#670
You know, I'm almost wondering if Chase could potentially be sick of issues with Paypal, having seen their fair share of their customers being effed over.... :thinkin:

Perhaps they will be more willing to fight Paypal on the behalf of the OP here, KWIM?
 
#671
well pp does indeed need a dose of their own medicine... the question I would want

an answer to is: the bag was delivered to the buyer who in turn claimed it was

fake.. buyer contacted pp and pp advised buyer to destroy the bag based on an

affadavit that the buyer provided.. why didn't pp contact the seller for her

affadavit saying that the bag was authentic.. she had the backup....someone at pp

made a poor decision without having documentation from the seller to review ..

pp should be held accountable.. it sure is easier for Chase to duke it out with pp

again, the seller will have to wait several more days to see if this re-crediting

the funds will stay put..we all have our fingers crossed for you
 
#672
blah956 said:
i know that in cases with judge judy (yes i watch :P) that in order to recover lost funds that were scammed from you, you have to be out of $$. so say a friend used your CC a year or so back, you have to have paid the CC bill, then sue for the amount. i know that judge judy is small claims but you have to be out and not be owing $$ in order to recover. i was under the impression that the OP, must've paid back PP and then wants to recover the $$ back through chargeback process.
Click to expand...

What you're missing is she didn't pay back the $11K with additional money of her own.

She transfered the $11K the buyer paid her after the sale was completed to her bank account.

The buyer filed a dispute with PP who made OP's account -11K (because there were no funds in her PP account to reimburse the buyer; the $11K had already been transfered out). Paypal credited the buyer using their own funds and placed OP's account into a negative status in an effort to recover the funds. With a negative status, PP would then place her account into collections to try to recover the loss, which could in turn damage her credit rating.

In order to avoid collections and credit damage, she transfered the SAME $11K FROM THE BUYER back to her PP account which brought her balance from -11K to 0 $.

So, she did not pay back anything; all she did was move the original funds from her bank account back to her paypal account.

She is still out the original $11K payment and the bag.
 
#673
roey said:
What you're missing is she didn't pay back the $11K with additional money of her own.

She transfered the $11K the buyer paid her after the sale was completed to her bank account.

The buyer filed a dispute with PP who made OP's account -11K (because there were no funds in her PP account to reimburse the buyer; the $11K had already been transfered out). Paypal credited the buyer using their own funds and placed OP's account into a negative status in an effort to recover the funds. With a negative status, PP would then place her account into collections to try to recover the loss, which could in turn damage her credit rating.

In order to avoid collections and credit damage, she transfered the SAME $11K FROM THE BUYER back to her PP account which brought her balance from -11K to 0 $.

So, she did not pay back anything; all she did was move the original funds from her bank account back to her paypal account.

She is still out the original $11K payment and the bag.
Click to expand...

she is filing the chargeback to recover back the 11k the buyer paid her. she isn't whole in the sense that since she doesn't have the bag, she should have the 11k. if the buyer has the bag, then theoretically (if the bag really is indeed authentic) she should have 11k but she doesn't. she paid back paypal so her credit wouldn't be affected but in order to recover the 11k back, she needs to make paypal whole. now she is going after paypal through her bank rather than deal with paypal directly. i didn't say she was trying to recover an additional 11k. i think everywhere else you and i are in agreement.
 
#674
blah956 said:
she is filing the chargeback to recover back the 11k the buyer paid her. she isn't whole in the sense that since she doesn't have the bag, she should have the 11k. if the buyer has the bag, then theoretically (if the bag really is indeed authentic) she should have 11k but she doesn't. she paid back paypal so her credit wouldn't be affected but in order to recover the 11k back, she needs to make paypal whole. now she is going after paypal through her bank rather than deal with paypal directly. i didn't say she was trying to recover an additional 11k. i think everywhere else you and i are in agreement.
Click to expand...

I believe she already made paypal whole when she transfered the original payment from her bank account back to her paypal account. Paypal was made whole at that point because the money they used from their own funding to pay back the buyer was recovered from the original payment Kristie transfered back to them.

Now paypal needs to make Kristie whole (which I know you already know:D) by paying back the $11K they took from her (the buyer's original payment). They essentially stole her money and her bag.

I think if we were having this conversation in person we would be in complete agreement! :) Sometimes the written word can have multiple meanings and be construed differently by different people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top