Will the credit cards in use be the EMV type that contain a microchip? Will the machines they are used at be the type that requires a chip card be inserted, or will it accept as a swipe? This impacts the possibility of the indicator transaction being suspected as a card counterfeit.
When someone is reported missing, banking and cellular activity are one of the first things checked. A commonly overlooked source of additional GPS information is 3rd party applications installed on a smart phone. This information may not be protected by common carrier data privacy issues.
All recent banking activity will be scrutinized. They're looking for both signals of intention (such as travel reservations), recent changes in patterns/behavior, and in particular checking out everything after the last known contact.
ATMs and many modern card-accepting vending machines photograph or video the transactions. That data will be requested and the investigator will attempt to get any surveillance footage of the area, parking lot coverage, and so on.
In short, it may not require a "pattern" of multiple disappearances to trigger scrutiny of the bogus charge. The first missing person investigation may legitimately lead to someone checking out the vending machine location.
If the missing person owns a computer or laptop at home, the spouse or partner in some jurisdictions is considered a legal co-owner and can authorize a forensic investigation of the hard drive. That can easily unlock the entire browsing and email history to see who've they've be in contact with or checked out recently.
So to finally get around to your questions ...
It could be as soon as the second person for it to be a "pattern". Both people are missing, have a last cell contact of the same tower, no banking activity for a while, then a single credit card transaction in a new and unknown place, and nothing afterwards?
There will likely not be a manhunt or search, due to the time delay in reporting the person as missing and the uncertainty in location. Someone might decide to try a cadaver search if the last cell contact area is small enough.
The credit cards will almost certainly be blocked if the bank is notified of an unauthorized transaction. Issuers are not likely to be willing to keep a card open to track future use because if they authorize it, they're liable for it when disputed (that's a gross oversimplification and chip cards change things big-time). They can, however, track attempts to authorize the card or to submit charges via the card, and report those while still declining the transaction. Bank accounts may or may not be blocked. They will certainly be watched for attempted activity.
Something to keep in mind card-turnoff-wise is that it's possible to have small transactions that are never called in to the bank at the time of authorization. The merchant or their processor decides to just take the risk and self-authorize rather than pay per-transaction fees that eat into the profits. They'll send the transaction in to be paid and keep their fingers crossed it isn't rejected.
Most readers are in real-time contact with the processor in order to send out the authorization request and receive a response. If the reader is not where it is supposed to be, then that's between the merchant and their processor. It might be a breach of contract resulting in penalties. It might not even work. The processor will decline requests that don't come from the specified IP/machine/contact point within the merchant's network.
Will the credit cards in use be the EMV type that contain a microchip? Will the machines they are used at be the type that requires a chip card be inserted, or will it accept as a swipe? This impacts the possibility of the indicator transaction being suspected as a card counterfeit.
When someone is reported missing, banking and cellular activity are one of the first things checked. A commonly overlooked source of additional GPS information is 3rd party applications installed on a smart phone. This information may not be protected by common carrier data privacy issues.
All recent banking activity will be scrutinized. They're looking for both signals of intention (such as travel reservations), recent changes in patterns/behavior, and in particular checking out everything after the last known contact.
ATMs and many modern card-accepting vending machines photograph or video the transactions. That data will be requested and the investigator will attempt to get any surveillance footage of the area, parking lot coverage, and so on.
In short, it may not require a "pattern" of multiple disappearances to trigger scrutiny of the bogus charge. The first missing person investigation may legitimately lead to someone checking out the vending machine location.
If the missing person owns a computer or laptop at home, the spouse or partner in some jurisdictions is considered a legal co-owner and can authorize a forensic investigation of the hard drive. That can easily unlock the entire browsing and email history to see who've they've be in contact with or checked out recently.
So to finally get around to your questions ...
It could be as soon as the second person for it to be a "pattern". Both people are missing, have a last cell contact of the same tower, no banking activity for a while, then a single credit card transaction in a new and unknown place, and nothing afterwards?
There will likely not be a manhunt or search, due to the time delay in reporting the person as missing and the uncertainty in location. Someone might decide to try a cadaver search if the last cell contact area is small enough.
The credit cards will almost certainly be blocked if the bank is notified of an unauthorized transaction. Issuers are not likely to be willing to keep a card open to track future use because if they authorize it, they're liable for it when disputed (that's a gross oversimplification and chip cards change things big-time). They can, however, track attempts to authorize the card or to submit charges via the card, and report those while still declining the transaction. Bank accounts may or may not be blocked. They will certainly be watched for attempted activity.
Something to keep in mind card-turnoff-wise is that it's possible to have small transactions that are never called in to the bank at the time of authorization. The merchant or their processor decides to just take the risk and self-authorize rather than pay per-transaction fees that eat into the profits. They'll send the transaction in to be paid and keep their fingers crossed it isn't rejected.
Most readers are in real-time contact with the processor in order to send out the authorization request and receive a response. If the reader is not where it is supposed to be, then that's between the merchant and their processor. It might be a breach of contract resulting in penalties. It might not even work. The processor will decline requests that don't come from the specified IP/machine/contact point within the merchant's network.
Reply
Leave a comment