Heres a basic rundown of the case for those getting googly eyed,
Reuven, Shimon and Levi (hereinafter refered to as A,B, ad C) are all humans. A knows B while neither A nor B know C.
A wants points but has no spend. B has spend but wants no points. A tells B he can go trigger happy and spend whatever he wants and pay him back cash.
C has a business and provides services in exchange for money. B uses those services and pays for said services with the card from A that he was fully authorized to use by A himself. A was fully aware of said purchase and had no issue with it. A couple months later A still had not received reimbursement from B. Desperate to recoup his losses he disputed all charges B made.
Following are some points taken out of this case. @JTZ Please let me know which numbers are false. Thanks
1) A authorized B to use his card for charges
2) Every charge B made was 100% authorized by A
3) C received the money from A with consent from A and B
4) According to the banks, You cannot dispute a charge that you authorized.
5) A disputed a charge that he authorized
6) Disputing all charges will not recoup any money from B
7) In order for A to successfully dispute he must lie and/or commit fraud
8 ) If all above transactions had been with cash A would not be able to knock on the door of C to ask for that cash back
9) The only way he can recoup the money is via dispute which must be done non truthfully
10) A dispute will 100% take the money away from C
11) A may not hold unrelated 3rd parties accountable for his loss due to B not paying back
12) B is the only one in the world that owes A money
13) Neither the bank nor C should be held accountable for these charges that were authorized
14) Even if 2 dozen individuals unethically and illegally fleece you of money that does not make it right to act unethically or illegally yourself.