Thanks for the information. However I did see things as "DCC Complete" and "Authorization Complete" when I paid my bill at InterContinental Beichen in Beijing. I believe this is the thing you mentioned about "no need to match the sales to any authorization".

Based on my observation, is that possible maybe in BoC's system, there are these ways:

1) Merchant runs a separate sales transaction, the money is deducted, and merchant cancels the authorization afterwards in a separate move. This way, if the cancelling is done second, we would have the "over the limit" problem mentioned by percysmith, because the authorization eats up the available credit, right?

2) Merchant runs a "Authorization Complete" or "DCC Complete", and the authorization is cancelled first then the amount deducted. Because I did see the guy at the front desk pulled out the files, found my authorization slip, keyed in all the information, and my final sales slip was printed out without me swiping the card again.

I think all the hotels BoC terminals behave like this. I don't know whether they display the rate, but I guess so. It's just like hitting cancel after hitting OK, something like that. It's either the rate being displayed, or as in 交行's situation, "查询汇率" being displayed...

I think you're right about the basic order of operations being the same, but this machine struck me as far less forgiving than BOC machines that I defeated in Beijing during year's past. I feel like it had a much shorter window in which to act (i.e. "3 seconds" is a generous estimate).

I think 交行 machines in Beijing have a similarly short window... So do the BoC machines here...

That's why I think the market in Shanghai and surrounding areas do business better than in the North...

The China displays are a trifle odd in translation. The "authorisation complete" phrase indicates that the charge being generated was actually reauthorised, thus absolving the merchant from chargeback, just as you suggested if I understood correctly.

The "correct" sequence requires the card physically to be presented, in a card present case, only once, so a charge can be made without seeing the card again if a reauthorisation was done. The authorisation automatically cancels in the settlement process as soon as the charge referencing an authorisation hits the issuing bank processor. The actual system of record for an authorisation is the issuing bank, so, once reauthorised the merchant has nothing to do with it again. The China oddity is that the merchant data "authorisation complete" in most countries never leaves merchant systems and a customer would never see it. BOC, in particular, seems to give a trifle too much information, even if it is not what you want. CUP is another story, and has a few quirks of it's own.

It's also weird when we discuss debit cards...or prepaid cards. These systems are gradually standardising but I'd not bet on consistency much before 2017, if then.

Actually any consumer can request a chargeback if the transaction is, in their view, incorrect. Issuers really don't care at all so long as their customers pay. It's in the nature of DCC that nobody cares except a handful of consumers who are savvy to the ways of the world, the participants in this thread, for example. Everyone at a senior level in banks that I know does not like DCC, but merchants absolutely love it! The savvy merchants don't tell their employees anything bad about DCC, for the most part, and the processors create sales blurbs for DCC, pointing out, in at least one case I know, that a typical supermarket can triple net profit with DCC. Nobody complains, as a general rule and many consumers think it's wonderful. It is only us who complain.

Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

What I meant was that most issuers will just do a courtesy adjustment of the customer's account rather than go through the process of filing a Reason Code 76 chargeback to the merchant, especially if the amount in dispute is under $5-10. It's just like in the EMV thread. I'm sure issuers got tired of a small but vocal minority of customers continuously complaining that their cards were being refused overseas. Sure, you had some companies like CapitalOne saying, "Under the rules of the merchant agreement... blah blah blah... accept all cards." However, many larger US issuers started to offer EMV options about two years ago. It's likely things would have moved in this direction eventually, but I don't think you can ignore those US cardholders who were clamoring for EMV options on their cards.

All I would care about is a Visa/MC DCC compliant choice when doing the transaction. In some locations, China being the worst offender, the DCC scam happens automatically. I wouldn't really care if merchants prey on ignorant tourists. However, I would still continue my educational campaign against DCC. Of course the merchants love DCC. It's an easy way to skim off between 3-5% (typical DCC markup rates) on top of whatever profit you're making on the transaction. Depending on what your card fees are, it's possible for them to recoup those by accepting an international card. Processors push DCC onto merchants as an additional revenue stream for the business, sometimes unknowingly. I would say the worst offenders here are the payment processors in revenue sharing agreements with the merchants because they bear no responsibility when things go south and the merchant gets stuck with the headache of a chargeback.

However, for every unsuspecting merchant who may have inadvertently turned on DCC, there are many merchants are super guilty in the DCC scam. We've read reports here where cashiers/proprietors of shops have said, "Great choice!" when a customer has accepted DCC. Yeah... great choice for the business! Other times the merchant has said, "No choice." when a customer is requesting local currency. This is why I don't like banks issuing courtesy credits to accounts since the merchant continues to get away with the scam.

Probably the worst offenders in all of this are ignorant tourists who refuse to be educated. The only effective means of education is letting them know they got ripped off big time, especially if they were using a card with a 3% FTF. "Did you know you just paid an 8% tourist tax on that purchase?" It's one downside of using plastic. You wouldn't tolerate it if the merchant did a bait and switch on the price or shortchanged you if you paid cash, but there's a disconnect when people use a credit card. If the number of tourists who cared about DCC reached critical mass, I think merchants would either a) put a stop to the practice completely or b) at the very least allow customers a clear and conscientious choice in whether or not to accept DCC.

The bottom line is that DCC should be an opt-in service. As it stands today, it's mostly an opt-out situation, and some places don't even give you the ability to opt out.

I have limited experience with debit cards in HK, but when I used one for deposit in Australia I saw A$100 line item in my Australian bank online banking as I've withdrawn it, but the transaction description marks it as a an authorisation. The line is no longer shown 6 days later.

I've worried we'll soon lose this right.

In most merchants I came across in Korea, and at least in El Cortes Ingles in Madrid, my signatures (HK is still Chip and Sign for the time being until HKMA decides otherwise) are collected by signature pad.

To my surprise, even HK has this. This is in the Coach Shop run by DFS inside the departure area, I don't usually shop there but I was accompanying someone who did:

http://www.hongkongcard.com/webedito...1029_67793.jpg

I took pic of it because it of the FX margin disclosure "FX Margin includes 3.95%"

We didn't test the DCC function as neither of us had our non-HKD cards on us. But with pads like this, you lose the ability to signify any non-compliance in writing.

It's like in the US where most major retailers use signature pads. It's cleaner from a POS perspective since the retailer doesn't have to worry about not having captured your signature.

I would say in these cases that it's more favorable to the consumer in the case of a chargeback, however. While you can scribble your intentions like you can with a paper receipt, it's harder to prove that you were given a choice as a customer with a non-compliant POS setup like this. Is there any indication that you'll get hit with DCC before you sign? If the register is showing USD, for instance, I might sign as "LOCAL OPTION NOT OFFERED :("

I don't know about on their systems, but the ones I've seen in the US sometimes don't give any visibility to the cashier what the person is signing on the digital pad. In fact, a friend of mine from Europe visited the US for the first time in 2006 and was so infatuated with the signature pads that he started drawing cartoons or signing his name as "John Smith". Of course, in the US, pretty much nobody ever checks signatures for a credit card purchase, so perhaps such a charade wouldn't hold up overseas.

Majuki: well yes I can sign a protest in the signature pad, tho I have to be pretty neat about the handwriting.

I think I have to still need to sign alongside the statement. Imagine this happened in the harrods case (DCC selected by cashier, no void in hkd, but a pad is used to collect my signature instead of an integrated sales invoice-card slip) - the British are strict about checking signatures on chip and sign cards. If I didn't sign the pad the cashier will take away the goods and initiate a refund (in GBP) - so I have to scribble my statement on the pad, sign it and photo it (HK banks put proof of burden on cardholder) before the cashier clears the pad from her cashier-side input - Urrrggghhh

Wouldn't you say that the case of a merchant being unable to void a transaction is rare though? Furthermore, the refunded amount would show up as a discrepancy when compared to the DCC amount, right? I would argue that for no goods or services received that a full chargeback would be in order. Furthermore, couldn't you initiative a chargeback anyway if you intentionally screwed up the signature? (They wouldn't have your signature on file.)

I guess my question was the signature pad/POS terminal displaying HKD or GBP when you were signing? Did you know you were signing for a DCC purchase?

Well, happened for Galleries Lafayette too.

I'm not sure how prevalent. But I know a void button is not required by Visa/MC standards.

Bank will come up with lots of excuses not to do anything - exchange rate fluctuation, foreign currency conversion fee. They already do it for non-DCC refunds http://www.hongkongcard.com/forum/fo...ow.php?id=6982 . The only stick I have over them is to try and see if the regulator (in my case, HKMA) will see it any differently. But it's not slam dunk.

Well they have the signature on the credit card signature panel...?

In the case of Harrods the transaction was already finalised in HKD before I can do anything. Currency selection was made by the cashier.

If the transaction was finalized and you knew you were hit with DCC before you could sign, couldn't you theoretically sign "UNAUTHORIZED TRANSACTION"? How would the merchant respond in the case of a chargeback? I guess we're too dependent on friendly, customer-centric service in the US.

In the Harrods case they will process a refund in GBP before you can leave the store.

If you cannot do anything at the store you can protest the payment with your card issuer specifying that you did not authorize DCC. The transaction amount enters a suspense account and the protest goes to the merchant for response. merchant response vary greatly.