De er nødt til at udelade nogle oplysninger, da de helt sikkert ville have modtaget noget korrespondance fra Wise i forhold til, at tvisten blev lukket eller deres konto blev lukket. Også de varer, der ikke er modtaget henvendelse til disse kasinoer, har kun nogen form for grund, hvis et forkert MCC er blevet brugt, de sagde, at de ikke vidste noget om det MCC, der blev brugt, hvilket får mig til at tro, hvis de faktisk er gået videre med en tvist , de kunne have gjort det mod en legitim processor, der har brugt de korrekte MCC'er, som retter mig, hvis jeg tager fejl, er det sandsynligvis der, de ville have afvist tvisten og placeret en CIFAS?
They have to be leaving some information out, as surely they would have received some correspondence from Wise in regards to the dispute being closed or their account being closed. Also the goods not received approach to these casinos only really has any sort of grounds if an incorrect MCC has been used, they stated they didn't know anything about the MCC used which leads me to believe if they have infact gone forward with a dispute, they could have done it against a legitimate processor who has used the correct MCCs, which correct me if i'm wrong, is probably where they would have rejected the dispute and placed a CIFAS?
Automatisk oversættelse: