Re: fraud being perpetrated by three companies working together with various addresses in new york, illinois, south dakota and denver using deception and intimidation
Capital Merchant Services (CMS) sent their sales representative to my place of business to sell me a credit card service. I signed a 'Merchant Receipt Form' that we filled in together after negotiating with the sales representative for approximately one hour.in addition, at the request of the sales representative I provided my signature on a blank contract that was to be completed back at the office by others according to the signed Merchant Receipt Form'. The sales representative stated that he did not know how to properly fill out the contract and left that responsibility to CMS bussiness office.
It took almost three weeks before the credit card machine was programmed correctly and I received back in the US Mail a copy of the contract that had been filled out by CMS. Capital Merchant Services did not provide a contract that followed the Merchant Receipt Form' that I had agreed to and signed with the sales representative.
This contract is fraudulent; it is not what I agreed to or signed, and I spent the next two months attempting to negotiate with all three companies to provide a legal contract to my company. CMS' game is to write the contract back at the office the way they want to, not to what was agreed to by the salesman and the merchant at the merchant's place of business.
After one month of attempted negotiation, Capital Merchant Services (CMS) sent me out a new letter of agreement that modified the fraudulent contract, but did not meet all of the items in the signed Merchant Receipt Form'. I allowed another month to pass to test this new letter of agreement from CMS. The result was that the modified monies deducted from my business account were again more than what was stated in the new letter of agreement. Electronic Payment Systems (EPS) again violated the monies authorized by CMS to be debited from my bank account and the download percentage was now 2.34 down from the 2.99 but still not the 2.0 that was negotiated with the saleman and signed for in the 'Merchant Receipt Form'.
With this second failure of CMS to provide my company with any agreement that would be followed, it became very obvious to me that CMS was not in control of what their partners were deducting from my business account. CMS also stated in this new letter of agreement that they had taken themselves out of the loop, and that any further discussion was to be directed to their two partners; Electronic Payment Systems (EPS) and MBF Leasing. At the suggestion of my bank, I terminated my business account so that MBF Leasing and EPS could not fraudulantly deduct any more monies from my account.
After speaking with the Better Business Bureau, I believe that my company is just one of many that has received a fraudulent contract and then was threatened when attempting to terminate the relationship by MBF Leasing. MBF Leasing has a very long record along with EPS, however CMS does not have much of a record. This is apparent because they play the part of the silent partner where the bad guys are the other two partners. This is the GOOD-GUY BAD GUY routine.
The working relationship between Capital Merchant Services, Electronic Payment Systems and MBF Leasing works very well for all three companies and they are making very good use of this arrangement. This partnership allows them to delineate the responsibility, place the blame elsewhere, complicate the issue, provide intimidation from another state, and threaten legal action in a state other than Colorado.
Capital Merchant Services (CMS) fills out the contract back at the office as they wish using blank contract documents that have been signed by the business.
O The sales representative guarantees with oral agreements and a signed Merchant Receipt Form that the contract will be completed back at the office as negotiated.
O The sales representative states that he does not fill in the actual contract because he is not qualified.
O CMS then assumes no responsibility for differences that were negotiated or additional monies being removed from a bank accounts by their two partners, and refers the merchant to their partners
o CMS becomes silent and no further communication comes from them.
Electronic Payment Systems (EPS) withdraws monies from your business bank account that does not represent what was negotiated and/or described on the Merchant Receipt Form. Monies debited from business account was more than seven times (600%) what I had negotiated.
O Attempting to communicate with EPS is absolutely impossible with one hour waits on hold and then claiming no responsibility for what CMS negotiated.
MBF Leasing withdraws extra monies from your business bank account that does not represent what was negotiated or described on the Merchant Receipt Form or orally agreed to by the sales representative. Monies debited from account was 10% more than negotiated.
O MBF Leasing does not care that their credit card machine was involved in a fraudulent contract or that their machine has been returned to their business location in Illinois after being in use for 23 days.
O MBF Leasing initiates many threatening letters from NY demanding that payments continue and that they be provided with the business' bank account numbers.
O MBF letters originate from many people in New York with many fictitious names, and demanding that payment be sent to a South Dakota address. This address is different from the Illinois address where the credit card machine originated from and was returned.
O MBF also provides a constant barrage of telephone calls, up to 20 callls in a 8 hour day, to the merchant demanding renegotiation with CMS, new bank account numbers, and immediate payment by credit card.
CMS, EPS and MBF have a relationship that diffuses responsibility amongst the three of them while making it virtually impossible for the unsuspecting merchant to resolve contract issues.in addition, the resolution of those issues legally is relegated to another state such as New York by MBF Leasing, per the fraudulent contract that CMS fills in as it wishes. This makes it quite impractical for the merchant to be heard in court in his state's place of business.
0 comments