Atlantic-Pacific Processing Systems LLC

On September 20, 2010, [redacted] signed a contract with Lucrazon (formerly known as National Payment Provider) to process credit card transactions for their Business-to-Consumer, retail customersIn March 2012, APPS acquired the Lucrazon portfolio and absorbed the [redacted] account through the deal In the file that was supplied to APPS, [redacted] was listed with the following processing parameters: a monthly volume of $65,000, an average ticket of $120, and a high ticket of $1, [redacted] has broken the terms of the agreement in a number of instances, and there have been several items in the last couple of months that have triggered risk-related red flags and qualify as suspicious activity worthy of investigationFor example: - On August 17, 2015, [redacted] ran a $78,Foreign Card Sale, which was clearly outside of their approved processing parametersWhen APPS requested documentation to verify the sale, [redacted] provided Inaccurate/Account Verification of the Cardholder The pharmacy reported that this person was going to pay in cash, but instead [redacted] instructed the cardholder to use a credit card That cardholder subsequently left the country and was not available for APPS to gather any information on the sale - Shortly after this transaction occured, two large transactions—again, outside of the allowed processing limits—were run, each for $36, According to the pharmacy, these transactions were Business-to-Business transactions, yet very little supporting evidence was provided by [redacted] to APPS’s Risk and Compliance Departments as requested - In October 2015, APPS began seeing keyed transactions that were not from customers directly purchasing medications at their pharmacy location The transactions were made using prepaid debit cards (virtual credit cards – POS Card Payment) paid directly to the pharmacy by providers who owe the pharmacy these funds [redacted] tried to process over $85,worth of these sales through the merchant account in October According to the contract terms and banking rules, Online/Virtual Pharmacy Sales, are strictly prohibited - On October 16, 2015, our Customer Service team received a phone call from [redacted] with regard to a “missing” deposit from an [redacted] transaction in the amount of approximately $35,000, which, again, exceeds the allowable limit by tens of thousands of dollars At this time, [redacted] requested that APPS provides every [redacted] deposit that was made to the account since 9/20/10, as they expressed that they have not received any pay-outs during this time period With much concern, APPS contacted [redacted] and had a call with their representative [redacted] opened a ticket to research the archived information the pharmacy was looking for Both [redacted] and APPS were very curious as to why the pharmacy had not received any deposits in five years, and yet had never bothered to inquire about it until recently - Through a number of conversations between APPS and [redacted] , it was discovered that there may be multiple owners or bank accounts associated with this Merchant Processing account, and the business owners themselves were not clear on where and to whom the money was being sent toAs such, APPS informed the merchant that this insecurity was a very high risk issue it was necessary to close the merchant account immediately to avoid further exposureAPPS offered the merchant the opportunity to continue processing with APPS, provided they submitted all of the appropriate information for our Underwriting team to perform due diligence on the business and its ownersThis information was never received The APPS Compliance and Risk teams are required by the federal government to look into all of these matters as per the Anti-Money Laundering laws, the Bank Secrecy Act, the PATRIOT Act, etc If we find that suspicious activity has occurred, we must report that information to the authorities and cooperate with any investigation that may follow as a result Unfortunately, [redacted] poses too high of a risk for APPS to continue the relationship and the account was closed at the end of OctoberThe hold on the account was removed on 10/27/and all funds were released back to the pharmacy the same dayThe investigation will continue independent from the merchant and no further communication is necessary / [redacted] Style Definitions */

During the duration of the account being active, fees were assessed for the maintenance of the merchant account and per the “Merchant Agreement” between [redacted] ( [redacted] ) and [redacted] *** [redacted] nor APPS were informed to close account or discontinue services/ billing from [redacted] Due to the Acquisition of [redacted] ***, [redacted] was converted to our reseller account at [redacted] under Atlantic Pacific Processing Systems to avoid service interruption [redacted] ( [redacted] ) failed to complete PCI Certification that was requested on August causing a PCI Non-Compliance Fee of $to be assessed until the completion of merchant being PCI Compliant Please refer to PCI Compliance at the following website address [redacted] Here are the requirements for all merchants that accept credit cards as a form of payment According to Card Brands, All merchants that store, process or transmit cardholder data must be PCI compliantOnce a merchant had been verified as compliant, the merchant must submit the validation requirements to its acquiring bank, which then will report the merchant’s compliance status to [redacted] A statement message was printed requesting the completion of the PCI Compliance on August “Merchants are required to complete their PCI certifications within days after approvalIn order to avoid future fines and penalties, please complete your certification as soon as possibleContact Customer Service if you require assistanceWe'll be happy to help.” / [redacted] Style Definitions */

Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaintFor your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.In its response, Atlantic Pacific Processing Systems (APPS) has misrepresented its contractual relationship with *** *** ***.*** *** *** was a reseller for *** *** services*** *** has never had a direct relationship with *** *** *** *** was contractually responsible for managing our account with *** ***From - 2012, our bank account was automatically debited our yearly *** *** service fee, as per our signed contract with *** *** ***.If APPS has not maintained the good standing of *** ***' account with *** ***, then APPS has breached its contract with *** ***At the very least, APPS has demonstrated gross negligence by terminating the *** *** with *** *** in August of 2014.APPS response states, "On August 2014, after sixteen (16) months of not processing, the *** *** *** gateway was closed by APPS, due to non payment." However, according to our signed contract, it is APPS who is contractually responsible for maintaining the *** *** account with *** *** *** has never been late in paying *** *** ***, *** ***, or APPSTo suggest that *** *** carries any fault in APPS' contract breach and/or subsequent of its' *** *** account is a misrepresentation of fact.When we discovered on January 7, that APPS had failed their contractual obligations by closing our *** *** account, we immediately requested that:they refund the amount they electronically withdrew from our bank account for the 16+ invoices (all invoices beginning with September, 2014)desist from withdrawing any further funds from our checking account*** *** maintains that it has suffered financial harm due to APPS' breach of contractIt is not seeking any damages for financial harm it has suffered.However, it maintains that all invoices submitted by APPS to *** *** since September are invalid; and it is seeking the return of $that APPS electronically withdrew from the *** *** bank account, corresponding with the APPS invalid invoices.Regards,*** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
he PCI compliance topic is not relevant.In SECTION of the MERCHANT AGREEMENT that *** *** *** signed with *** *** *** (***), which APPS later acquired, it says:"Notices of termination due to breach by MERCHANT may be given orally, in writing or by closing the MERCHANT’s POS device or payment gateway at the discretion of BANK and/or ***."In closing our *** *** payment gateway in August of 2014, APPS effectively terminated its business relationship with *** ***.Consequently, any and all subsequent fund withdrawals by APPS from the *** *** bank account were unauthorized and constitute fraud.I am seeking the return of the sum of the unauthorized withdrawn funds, which total $
Regards,
*** ***

During the duration of the
account being active, fees were assessed for the maintenance of the merchant
account and per the "Merchant Agreement" between [redacted]) and [redacted] nor APPS were informed
to close account or discontinue services/ billing from [redacted]
Due to the Acquisition of
[redacted] was converted to our reseller account
at [redacted] under Atlantic Pacific Processing Systems to avoid service
interruption
[redacted]) failed to complete PCI
Certification that was requested on August causing a PCI Non-Compliance
Fee of $to be assessed until the completion of merchant being PCI
Compliant
Please
refer to
PCI Compliance at the following website address
[redacted]
Here
are the requirements for all merchants that accept credit cards as a form of
payment
According
to Card Brands, All merchants that store, process or transmit cardholder data
must be PCI compliantOnce a merchant had been verified as compliant, the
merchant must submit the validation requirements to its acquiring bank, which
then will report the merchant's compliance status to [redacted]A statement
message was printed requesting the completion of the PCI Compliance on August
"Merchants
are required to complete their PCI certifications within days after
approvalIn order to avoid future fines and penalties, please complete your
certification as soon as possibleContact Customer Service if you require
assistanceWe'll be happy to help."

On September
20, 2010, [redacted] signed a contract with
Lucrazon (formerly
known as National Payment Provider) to process credit card transactions for
their Business-to-Consumer, retail customersIn March 2012, APPS acquired the
Lucrazon portfolio and absorbed the [redacted] account through the deal
In the file that was supplied to APPS, [redacted] was listed with the following processing
parameters: a monthly volume of $65,000, an average ticket of $120, and a high
ticket of $1,[redacted] has broken the terms of the agreement in a number of
instances, and there have been several items in the last couple of months that
have triggered risk-related red flags and qualify as suspicious activity worthy
of investigationFor example:
-
On
August 17, 2015, [redacted] ran a $78,Foreign Card Sale, which was clearly
outside of their approved processing parametersWhen APPS requested
documentation to verify the sale, [redacted] provided Inaccurate/Account Verification of the
Cardholder. The pharmacy reported that this person was going to pay in
cash, but instead [redacted] instructed the cardholder to use a credit
card. That cardholder subsequently left the country and was not available
for APPS to gather any information on the sale
-
Shortly
after this transaction occured, two large transactions—again, outside of the
allowed processing limits—were run, each for $36,000. According to the
pharmacy, these transactions were Business-to-Business transactions, yet very
little supporting evidence was provided by [redacted] to APPS's Risk and
Compliance Departments as requested
-
In
October 2015, APPS began seeing keyed transactions that were not from customers
directly purchasing medications at their pharmacy location. The
transactions were made using prepaid debit cards (virtual credit cards – POS
Card Payment) paid directly to the pharmacy by providers who owe the pharmacy
these funds. [redacted] tried to process over $85,worth
of these sales through the merchant account in October. According to the
contract terms and banking rules, Online/Virtual Pharmacy Sales, are strictly
prohibited.
-
On
October 16, 2015, our Customer Service team received a phone call from [redacted]
with regard to a "missing" deposit from an [redacted] transaction in the amount
of approximately $35,000, which, again, exceeds the allowable limit by tens of
thousands of dollars At this time, [redacted] requested that APPS provides
every [redacted] deposit that was made to the account since 9/20/10, as they
expressed that they have not received any pay-outs during this time
period. With much concern, APPS contacted [redacted] and had a call
with their representative. [redacted] opened a ticket to research
the archived information the pharmacy was looking for. Both [redacted] and APPS were very curious as to why the pharmacy had not received any
deposits in five years, and yet had never bothered to inquire about it until
recently
-
Through
a number of conversations between APPS and [redacted], it was discovered that
there may be multiple owners or bank accounts associated with this Merchant
Processing account, and the business owners themselves were not clear on where
and to whom the money was being sent toAs such, APPS informed the merchant
that this insecurity was a very high risk issue it was necessary to close the
merchant account immediately to avoid further exposureAPPS offered the
merchant the opportunity to continue processing with APPS, provided they
submitted all of the appropriate information for our Underwriting team to
perform due diligence on the business and its ownersThis information was
never received
The APPS
Compliance and Risk teams are required by the federal government to look into
all of these matters as per the Anti-Money Laundering laws, the Bank Secrecy
Act, the PATRIOT Act, etc. If we find that suspicious activity has
occurred, we must report that information to the authorities and cooperate with
any investigation that may follow as a result.
Unfortunately, [redacted] poses too high of a risk for APPS to
continue the relationship and the account was closed at the end of OctoberThe hold on the account was removed on 10/27/and all funds were released back to the pharmacy the same dayThe
investigation will continue independent from the merchant and no further communication
is necessary