Visa Exposed As Massive Credit Card Scam

[baja]

SAN FRANCISCO—In coordinated raids Monday at locations in Delaware, South Dakota, and California, federal agents apprehended dozens of executives at Visa Inc., a sham corporation accused of perpetrating the largest credit card scam in U.S. history.

According to indictments filed in U.S. District Court, Visa posed as a reputable lender, working through banks to peddle a variety of convincing-looking credit cards carefully designed to dupe consumers into spending far more money than they had. The criminal group would then impose a succession of escalating fees on unpaid balances, allegedly bilking some $300 billion from victims in the past year alone.

"This is criminal behavior of the most vile sort," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a press conference following the arrests, estimating that one in three Americans have fallen for the scam since its inception in the 1970s. "By masquerading as a legitimate business, this illicit syndicate was able to prey on helpless citizens for decades, charging unfathomable interest rates on the order of 15, 20, even 30 percent or more. It's staggering. Nobody could afford that."

"The actions of the Visa crime ring amount to nothing less than mass extortion," Holder continued. "Anyone who's holding a Visa card has most likely already been ripped off."

Calling the scam's breadth and sophistication "unparalleled," Holder said the ringleaders of the plot carefully portrayed themselves as top-level financial executives, spent untold sums of victims' money on a luxurious high-rise headquarters in San Francisco, and employed scores of graduates from elite business schools—all as a means to perpetuate an elaborate confidence game.

Investigators said Visa often targeted vulnerable individuals, such as those with limited financial resources, students, and even the elderly. The group's typical con involved direct solicitation through letters supposedly written by the CEO himself, which often praised the recipients by name and stated that they had been hand-selected for favored treatment.

"I needed to pay off some medical bills, and this seemed like a good option," said Visa cardholder Eileen Carlson of Phoenix, explaining that her initial skepticism of the offers was worn down by the barrage of official-looking mail she received almost daily from the criminal organization. "But before I knew it, they were demanding at least $900 a month, which I couldn't pay. They knew I didn't have any money to begin with—what did they expect?"

"And they kept after me for years," added Carlson, breaking into tears. "For christsakes, you can't get blood from a stone."

According to the Federal Trade Commission, Visa often employed perverse twists on its standard ruse, luring victims with promises of free gifts, enticing but inscrutable "rewards" programs, or deceptively low interest rates that later ballooned out of control and siphoned away every last penny a person had.

"These crooks manipulated interest rates and charged arbitrary, exorbitant fees on literally anything they could—too much credit card activity, too little activity—it was utterly shameless," said Barbara Pendleton of the FTC, suggesting Visa used deliberately confusing financial language as well as fraudulent threats of litigation to squeeze money from its victims. "Then they sat back and did nothing while the money flowed in from people who actually work for a living."

Added Pendleton: "What's more—and this is truly sickening—they became so confident they could get away with this stuff that they openly conducted national ad campaigns and sponsored charity events. These people are the scum of the earth."

According to former Visa CFO R. Neil Williams, a crime boss turned government informant, the syndicate compiled troves of sensitive personal data on millions of Americans, including home addresses, birth dates, and income levels, and regularly sold this information to third parties or exploited it to draw new victims into the scam.

"Sure, people should have known better than to trust a magical card that allowed them to buy anything they want without any money whatsoever," Williams said. "But at Visa we understood that people will believe anything if they want it bad enough. That was the genius of our whole scheme."

As of press time, lawyers for Visa had proclaimed their clients' innocence, citing the fact that there is still no federal law stopping banks from charging any interest rate they goddamn please.

[DrFate]

As usual, I never can tell if baja's post are intented to be funny...

Also, when did the board go back to 'off season' mode?

[Peoples Champ]

i have a visa, do I get rid of it?

[Racer]

Its from the onion

[Hogan11]

As usual, I never can tell if baja's post are intented to be funny...

Also, when did theh board go back to 'off season' mode?

This has a front page lifespan of about two hours.

Besides, Mock never followed the rules for on/offseason mode, so someone had to pick up the ball I guess.

[baja]

I thought I'd wedge this in between tebow threads.


It's from the Onion, sorry your ass is too tight to appreciate the piece.

[DrFate]

Oh, the onion...

right...

That stuff is never funny. I don't mean 'not real funny' - it's not funny at all.

[baja]

Oh, the onion...

right...

That stuff is never funny. I don't mean 'not real funny' - it's not funny at all.

In this case you are right it's not funny. It's too close to the truth to be funny.

Some of you dopes are too dense to know when someone is in your pocket.

[Smiling Assassin27]

As usual, I never can tell if baja's post are intented to be funny...

Also, when did the board go back to 'off season' mode?

Considering that when I googled the article, the first 3 sources for it were:

splitsider.com
lunaticoutpost.com
the onion

it's most definitely REAL. :afro:

[DrFate]

In this case you are right it's not funny. It's too close to the truth to be funny.

Some of you dopes are too dense to know when someone is in your pocket.

If you don't like the terms of the credit agreement, don't sign the damned agreement. I don't think there are goons driving around beating people who don't get credit cards.

[JJG]

Cute. Like most good jokes, It has a little bit of truth to it.

Credit card free since 2009.

[Smiling Assassin27]

If you don't like the terms of the credit agreement, don't sign the damned agreement. I don't think there are goons driving around beating people who don't get credit cards.

I'm also having a hard time seeing how Visa's in my pocket when I pay off my balance every month with no finance charge and don't incur an annual fee or transaction fees. Maybe they're sneaking into my house and turning on all my lights while I'm at work.

[baja]

What a humorless bunch of dweeps

[baja]

I know lets start another Tebow thread

[Dagmar]

So baja posted another conspiracy anti America theory article and it's from the onion?

The ONION?

http://resources.toolwi.com/resource/preview:2/0257235880663cf54bfdc62167e09c04.gif

http://204.45.110.156/bin/1237977238_pineapple-express-laughing.gif

[Dagmar]

Have you run of tin foil hat websites?

[Crushaholic]

It's Griese's fault...

[DrFate]

I remember when this was a football board...

What destruction McDaniels has wrought...

[baja]

We need a smily for "It went right over your head" We can call it Rusty.

[ColoradoDarin]

Yeah, Visa forced me to spend money that I don't have!!

Hilarious.... The Onion doesn't strike again.

[baja]

I remember when this was a football board...

What destruction McDaniels has wrought...

Why are you posting here when there are 50 Tebow threads to chose from.

So much for trying to interject a little satire here. Man you guys are tight assed and dull.

[maher_tyler]

True or not, if people are dumb enough to fall for it, then they deserve to pay! Pay the minimum balance and don't spend outside of your means, how hard is that???

[baja]

What's coming is bad but I can say you certainly deserve it. Need it actually. ;D

[Dagmar]

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnj31bbqUj1qm00hqo1_250.gif

[DrFate]

Why are you posting here when there are 50 Tebow threads to chose from.

So much for trying to interject a little satire here. Man you guys are tight assed and dull.

If you'd get your head out your ass and look at the front page, there are all of TWO Tebow threads. (Tebow in the topic)

I know - I'll post some off-topic 'satire' that isn't even remotely funny, and ridicule anyone who calls me on it.

I remember coming to this place for Broncos info I couldn't get locally. Apparently that's not available any more. At least the podcast was pretty cool..

[baja]

True or not, if people are dumb enough to fall for it, then they deserve to pay! Pay the minimum balance and don't spend outside of your means, how hard is that???

VISA has done a masterful job.

Used to be a crime to charge over 10 % interest now VISA charges 30% with the full protection of the "law" and you guys condone that. Fools!

[Dagmar]

If you'd get your head out your ass and look at the front page, there are all of TWO Tebow threads. (Tebow in the topic)

I know - I'll post some off-topic 'satire' that isn't even remotely funny, and ridicule anyone who calls me on it.

I remember coming to this place for Broncos info I couldn't get locally. Apparently that's not available any more. At least the podcast was pretty cool..

The discussion is still good sometimes, you just have to hunt a little more. When a MacGruder gets his talons in a thread, just bail.

If you want fast up to date Broncos insight, join twitter and follow 10 users, whose names I'll give you.

[Dagmar]

Anyway, back to...

http://i56.tinypic.com/5wjbsz.jpg

[Grumps]

True or not, if people are dumb enough to fall for it, then they deserve to pay! Pay the minimum balance and don't spend outside of your means, how hard is that???

Or just purchase what you can afford and pay the card off at the end of each month.

[DrFate]

If you want fast up to date Broncos insight, join twitter and follow 10 users, whose names I'll give you.

Thanks, feel free to PM me

[tnedator]

I thought I'd wedge this in between tebow threads.


It's from the Onion, sorry your ass is too tight to appreciate the piece.

Good job posting the full text of a copyrighted article with no credit or link back. Hey, it's not your site you're putting at risk, so it's all in good fun, right? SMH

[Dagmar]

Thanks, feel free to PM me

^5

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Oh, the onion...

right...

That stuff is never funny. I don't mean 'not real funny' - it's not funny at all.

There are a lot of people -- folks who own working senses of humor -- who disagree with you.

[That One Guy]

I vote for not funny.

I also didn't blame the banks for the bad mortgages and whatnot either. Personal views are personal.

[baja]

True or not, if people are dumb enough to fall for it, then they deserve to pay! Pay the minimum balance and don't spend outside of your means, how hard is that???


Ya that is what most people do that is why Visa made 300 billion in interest and contrived charges last year.

[RhymesayersDU]

Best thread on page 1.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people take themselves and/or football so seriously.

How do you people get through life without having a massive heart attack everday?

[ColoradoDarin]

Ya that is what most people do that is why Visa made 300 billion in interest and contrived charges last year.

I'm not looking it up, but doesn't VISA make their money off of the transaction charges (% of each transaction) and the banks who are the ones make money off of interest and fees?

So you're actually mad at the banks in that case.

[Fedaykin]

I vote for not funny.

I also didn't blame the banks for the bad mortgages and whatnot either. Personal views are personal.

I was shopping for a mortgage in 2007, and I had loan officers that were pushing ARMs, balloon mortgages, interest only and other junk products *hard*.

It's not as simple as "it's the banks' fault" or "it's the customers' fault". It's a combination of both.

People were taking loans they couldn't possibly afford -- but those banks were happily signing off on them knowing that a default was likely (or simply not caring). I got my loan from very popular and national mortgage company that is now defunct -- with only a quick credit check and one month of paystubs.

I recently re-fied my loan, and this time around it was completely different. I had to provide three years of W-2s, 2 months of paystubs, verification of employment (they wanted to talk to my HR dept), credit checks, documentation for all the debts listed on my credit report (they weren't relying on often inaccurate credit reports) and detailed documentation for all assets (401ks, etc.) I listed to get the loan. (and that was to refi with the bank that held my existing mortgage!)

One thing that's being done right is these fly by night companies are getting their nose held to the grindstone with appropriate regulation -- which has been incrementally replaced since 2008 after being stripped out in the last decade.

[DrFate]

There are a lot of people -- folks who own working senses of humor -- who disagree with you.

I have a great sense of humor. And I've never seen anything on the Onion that was even close to funny.

I also don't think adults falling into mud is funny, either, and those shows stay on TV. I'm sure you and baja will tell me that people falling into mud is also comedic genius...

[baja]

I have a great sense of humor. And I've never seen anything on the Onion that was even close to funny.

I also don't think adults falling into mud is funny, either, and those shows stay on TV. I'm sure you and baja will tell me that people falling into mud is also comedic genius...

What or whom do you consider funny? Examples.

[That One Guy]

I was shopping for a mortgage in 2007, and I had loan officers that were pushing ARMs, balloon mortgages, interest only and other junk products *hard*.

It's not as simple as "it's the banks' fault" or "it's the customers' fault". It's a combination of both.

People were taking loans they couldn't possibly afford -- but those banks were happily signing off on them knowing that a default was likely (or simply not caring). I got my loan from very popular and national mortgage company that is now defunct -- with only a quick credit check and one month of paystubs.

I recently re-fied my loan, and this time around it was completely different. I had to provide three years of W-2s, 2 months of paystubs, verification of employment (they wanted to talk to my HR dept), credit checks, documentation for all the debts listed on my credit report (they weren't relying on often inaccurate credit reports) and detailed documentation for all assets (401ks, etc.) I listed to get the loan. (and that was to refi with the bank that held my existing mortgage!)

One thing that's being done right is these fly by night companies are getting their nose held to the grindstone with appropriate regulation -- which has been incrementally replaced since 2008 after being stripped out in the last decade.

I see what you're saying but I disagree that it was an intent to get the consumer to default. Considering many loans weren't being held by the original lender, maybe they just didn't care.

Beyond that though, no matter how hard they try to sell it, the ultimate responsibility resides with the consumer to know what they're getting into. Nobody likes a shady salesman but if you fall for their gimmick, you're the sucker dealing with the consequences.

[That One Guy]

What or whom do you consider funny? Examples.

You're really arguing whether something was funny or not?

[Pony Boy]

Visa and other credit cards has been doing this for years, they handed out credit cards to college students with no credit rating, knowing fully that mommy and daddy would bail them out when they ran them up to the max. The Feds finally put an end to that scam.

[Fedaykin]

Visa and other credit cards has been doing this for years, they handed out credit cards to college students with no credit rating, knowing fully that mommy and daddy would bail them out when they ran them up to the max. The Feds finally put an end to that scam.

Those cards generally come with a $250 or $500 limit -- at least from the reputable institutions.

Everyone starts their credit history *somewhere*.

[BroncoInferno]

I see what you're saying but I disagree that it was an intent to get the consumer to default. Considering many loans weren't being held by the original lender, maybe they just didn't care.

That's precisely it. Incentives were (and still are) completely out of wack. The mortgage officer gets his commision simply by closing the deal. If the customer defaults later, what does he care? His bank isn't on the hook because they've probably sold off the mortgage to a third party. It seems clear that ncentives should be adjusted to penalize officers who hand out band loans.

Beyond that though, no matter how hard they try to sell it, the ultimate responsibility resides with the consumer to know what they're getting into. Nobody likes a shady salesman but if you fall for their gimmick, you're the sucker dealing with the consequences.

No less than Alan Greenspan said that you could have a doctorate in math and not be able to tell whether or not many of the deals were good for you. The lenders intentionally set out to convince the consumers that they could afford a mortgage, and they told them whatever they needed to in order to close the deal. To put all the blame solely on the consumer in this case is simply taking cowboy individualism too far. The banking sector deserves their fair share of the blame.

[That One Guy]

That's precisely it. Incentives were (and still are) completely out of wack. The mortgage officer gets his commision simply by closing the deal. If the customer defaults later, what does he care? His bank isn't on the hook because they've probably sold off the mortgage to a third party. It seems clear that ncentives should be adjusted to penalize officers who hand out band loans.



No less than Alan Greenspan said that you could have a doctorate in math and not be able to tell whether or not many of the deals were good for you. The lenders intentionally set out to convince the consumers that they could afford a mortgage, and they told them whatever they needed to in order to close the deal. To put all the blame solely on the consumer in this case is simply taking cowboy individualism too far. The banking sector deserves their fair share of the blame.

Good call; I'm probably exaggerating the responsibility of the consumer while ignoring the lender a bit much. I wont concede it's 50/50 and definitely wont place all the blame on the banks but they do bear some of the responsibility.

And I don't think I've seen that Greenspan line before but what exactly is so hard about realizing that your interest rate could rise with an adjustable loan? I think part of the reason I'm so quick to cast blame because I focus on the fact that they should've known that it was adjustable and assume that's the entire issue at hand. It had to be more complex though, I guess.

[baja]

That's precisely it. Incentives were (and still are) completely out of wack. The mortgage officer gets his commision simply by closing the deal. If the customer defaults later, what does he care? His bank isn't on the hook because they've probably sold off the mortgage to a third party. It seems clear that ncentives should be adjusted to penalize officers who hand out band loans.



No less than Alan Greenspan said that you could have a doctorate in math and not be able to tell whether or not many of the deals were good for you. The lenders intentionally set out to convince the consumers that they could afford a mortgage, and they told them whatever they needed to in order to close the deal. To put all the blame solely on the consumer in this case is simply taking cowboy individualism too far. The banking sector deserves their fair share of the blame.

It was worse than that. The banks knew full well they were going to bundle the mortgages into huge hedge funds with a AAA rating and pawn them off around the globe. They thought so what if a few defaulted the over all fund would remain sound. Then they proceded to write a shiit load of bad loans.

Greed and deregulation are indeed bad bed fellows.

...and I haven't even mentioned derivatives, wait until the covers are thrown back on the rest of that mess.

[Fedaykin]

I see what you're saying but I disagree that it was an intent to get the consumer to default. Considering many loans weren't being held by the original lender, maybe they just didn't care.


I definitely agree that they just didn't care rather than having the actual goal of default, but in the final analysis it's pretty clear they understood they were giving out loans that would almost certainly default. My initial wording was unclear, but maybe that clears it up.


Beyond that though, no matter how hard they try to sell it, the ultimate responsibility resides with the consumer to know what they're getting into. Nobody likes a shady salesman but if you fall for their gimmick, you're the sucker dealing with the consequences.

I say it's also the responsibility of the "too big to fail" organizations to at least provide full faith effort to prevent bad loans from being made and to engage in responsible financial practices. preferably we just enforce it with regulation like we did up until the 00's.

The problem is the lending institutions did exactly the opposite as soon as they were no longer limited by law. They racked up insane leveraging ratios and made a ton of sub prime loans -- essentially guaranteeing the outcome that we all saw in 2007-2009.

[That One Guy]

I definitely agree that they just didn't care rather than having the actual goal of default, but in the final analysis it's pretty clear they understood they were giving out loans that would almost certainly default. My initial wording was unclear, but maybe that clears it up.



I screwed up there, I guess. I must've half-assedly read your earlier post as you even included the words "or just didn't care". So I guess we do agree and I just didn't notice it.



I say it's also the responsibility of the "too big to fail" organizations to at least provide full faith effort to prevent bad loans from being made and to engage in responsible financial practices. preferably we just enforce it with regulation like we did up until the 00's.

The problem is the lending institutions did exactly the opposite as soon as they were no longer limited by law. They racked up insane leveraging ratios and made a ton of sub prime loans -- essentially guaranteeing the outcome that we all saw in 2007-2009.

The too big to fail concept, indeed, throws a wrench in my 'blame the consumer' logic. He who loans the money should definitely be held responsible as well. I guess there's two parts to this: the consumer should be held responsible for losing their own house but the banks should be responsible for the overall crisis as they were the common factor. That should definitely be differentiated.

As for the rest, I agree entirely. I look upon it as another iteration of our government saying "these peoples' American dream isn't quite grand enough so lets hand them something extra". If we could all live in a Utopia that'd be great but SOMEONE always has to be at the bottom of the social ladder. It's frustrating beyond belief to realize how long our economy could remain in turmoil (hoping that the damage done isn't irreparable) just because of what I view as handouts (though others will shine it with the deregulation light).