Pole can. He robbed a company through a payment terminal
When we pay for goods or services by card, we can also receive a refund of the payment made. The money should go to the same card that was paid for. However, there are exceptions to this rule, which was the case of an employee of a catering company that did not pay him his salary on time.
Niebiezbezpiecznik's account on the X website contains a report of the owner of a certain catering company who stayed robbed by his own employee. This employee did not want to wait for his employer to pay him the outstanding part of his salary, so he took matters into his own hands. For this purpose, he made the appropriate number of returns at the cash register to receive the total amount owed by the company owner, and then, using the payment terminal, he transferred this amount to his own payment card.
And who's the bigger smartass now? 🙂
If you have terminals, check whether the refund transaction can be secured with an additional “password/pin” to avoid funds being stolen through a fraudulent return. pic.twitter.com/yAwii9ZdFb
— Niebezpiecznik (@niebezpiecznik) May 8, 2024
At this point, the question arises: shouldn't the returned payment be returned to the account of the card used to make the payment? As we can read on the website cashless.plin such cases the rule applies that the refund should be credited to the card used to make the payment. However, there are exceptions to this in which you can make a refund to another payment card.
These sort of “doors” in the payment system were created to enable refunds, for example, when the “original” card has expired or has been lost in one way or another. It may also be useful when making payments by phone, when the terminal receives not the actual card number, but only a token that replaces it. When you change your phone, the token also changes. A person paying by card may also, after some time, not remember which card he or she paid with.
These exceptions, which allow you to return money to another card using a payment terminal, were probably used by an employee of the author of the report who was dissatisfied with the delayed payment. And although “he was simply entitled to this money” (the employer himself should have paid it to him within the time specified in the contract), from a legal point of view it was simple theft.
