Smart Disputes: Report to Safe - non-Chargeback Fraud Transactions

General
, , ,
1

Scenario

  • non-chargeback fraud transaction

  • system submits to Claims Manager and transaction is not found

  • system assigns to RetryNotFound assignment

  • when a transaction is found the system places the case in the Fraud WB

Questions

  1. How can a case that is Report to Safe only be identified from a Fraud chargeback case that is in Fraud WB?

  2. For Fraud transactions greater than 120 days old. We understand that these transactions can be Reported to Safe but the system does not allow us. Is there an opportunity to allow these transactions to be Reported to Safe.

  3. Is there an opportunity to automate the process of a Report to Safe only once the transaction is found?

2

Hi @JamieSchuman - Please raise an INC to clarify your queries.

Thanks,

3

@JamieSchuman please can you confirm if either of the below tickets are relevant to your question?

INC-B4049 (Smart Disputes:Report to Safe - non-Chargeback Fraud Transaction)

Analysis provided by GCS

In a scenario where a TRX is fraud & not a chargeback

  • the user reports the TRX to Safe using the Report Transactions to Safe from Other Actions
  • the TRX has not posted at MC-Claims Manager
  • the system goes into the the RetryNotFound assignment
  • TRX is then posted and the system updates the case to be processed
  • Case is in Fraud WB (with other Fraud related cases) ? In the UI, when a user gets a case from the Fraud WB, how does a user identify that a case is Report to Safe only and not a ‘real’ Fraud chargeback.

The ticket was closed with your approval based on the final analysis:

Solution description:

  1. Nothing in the UI differentiates cases that need to be processed from cases that just need to be reported to SAFE

  2. The option to report a dispute to SAFE is hidden by the when rule PegaCard-Sd-Claim-ReportTransactionToSafeVisible, which in turn is set by PegaCard-Sd-Claim-IsDisplayLocalActions. Please verify that the cases in question would evaluate to TRUE for these rules.

  3. This is theoretically possible but it would require custom code.

Client enhancement request has been taken and spun off as FDBK-110272.