Quote from: Bitcoin Smith on May 20, 2025, 07:13:58 PM

Quote from: holydarkness on May 19, 2025, 09:26:28 AM

Quote from: Bitcoin Smith on May 17, 2025, 10:46:00 PM

I meant to say that this support claim for reimbursable will work only when both the parties acknowledges it, I don't mean this will work for this but I said how it helped me in such scenario. Let's say I made a transfer to wrong UPI so I have the possibility to contact the receiver via bank and confront them whether this is an actual mistake or not. And it is hard to come into judgment unless the receives accepts that yes it's not the fund that is supposed to be credited here so the bank will reverse this.

Hi, do you mind to help me understand this and walk with me to the bottom of the case so I can either mark this as resolved or help OP plot their way to get their refund? You seemed to have quite a knowledge on how India's UPI works and clearly your mind is healthy. I understand that the correct way to get a refund is through the platform I mentioned above, of which later the bank [be it the UPI, PSP, or TPAP] will inquire to the receiver and sort things out?

I am not an expert, but I have been using the UPI ever since it's available and I got my refund back using this method as well as the alternative which is the traditional way of contacting the bank. This site support system is provided by the government to minimize the workload and encourage the users to report even if there is scam or fund sent as mistake.

We upload the UPI payment proof along with TXid aka ref no and a little description then our bank account and whether the TX is p2p or P to merchant and this works for both the same but I did for p2p though. Once we uploaded there will be support Id or some sort of ref num will be given and then the process will begin which is intimating our bank side and let them know the deposited bank side the funds deposited as mistake so the other party's bank will contact the respective person and see if it's that person agrees yes it is not supposed to be credited then the bank will reverse the funds and this only works if the person accept the fund deposit is a mistake and they give consent to the bank to reverse it.

So whether it is a peron or merchant as long as they gave UPI there will be someone who is real or alteast their identity is being used by the bank account and their details can be fetched by bank in no time if necessary.

Let me get this straight: you're suggesting that the NPCI dispute process is a reliable way to recover funds sent to fraudulent UPI merchants associated with Stake? That’s a dangerous oversimplification.

First, let's talk about timelines. According to NPCI guidelines, complaints should ideally be filed within 3 days of the transaction for the best chance of recovery. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0} Delays beyond this window significantly reduce the likelihood of a successful refund. Moreover, the resolution process can take anywhere from 15 to 30 working days, depending on the complexity of the case. :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}

Now, consider the nature of these fraudulent merchants. They're not your average small business owners; they're shell entities set up to facilitate illicit transactions. They have no incentive to cooperate with banks or reverse transactions. Even if banks can "fetch their details," as you claim, these details often lead to dead ends.

You mentioned that you've successfully obtained refunds using this method. That's great, but were any of those cases involving Stake or similar platforms? If not, your experience doesn't translate to this context. The mechanisms that work for genuine mistakes between individuals or legitimate businesses don't apply when dealing with entities designed to obfuscate and disappear.

In summary, while the NPCI dispute process is a valuable tool for certain scenarios, it's not a catch-all solution—especially not for recovering funds sent to fraudulent entities associated with online gambling platforms like Stake. Advising otherwise gives false hope and potentially exposes users to further risk.

— kingbj21 | Cutting through the noise with facts.