Chargeback for a Gaming App in India: When It Helps, When It Backfires

The 40-second answer

A chargeback is a forced reversal your issuing bank pushes back through the card network (Visa, Mastercard, RuPay) or, on UPI, through NPCI’s URCS system, against the operator that took your money. It is a legitimate tool for an unauthorised or fraudulent charge — a card you never used, a transaction you never made. It is not a tool for disputing a deposit you knowingly authorised and then lost. That second move is friendly fraud, and in India it can get you blacklisted by operators and payment processors, and in clear cases prosecuted under cheating law. Card networks allow you roughly 120 days to dispute; NPCI keeps UPI dispute data for only 45 days. Pick the rail dispute or ombudsman over a chargeback whenever your money simply failed to arrive — that path is cleaner, faster, and carries none of the blowback. This page maps the whole decision.

Editor’s verdict, up front. Most people who type “chargeback gaming app india” want one of two very different things, and the difference decides everything. The first group lost a real-money deposit they made on purpose and now want the bank to claw it back. For them, a chargeback is usually the wrong weapon — it is friendly fraud, it rarely succeeds against a documented authorised payment, and it carries real downside. The second group had a transaction they never authorised (a stolen card, a leaked UPI mandate, a phantom charge) or a payout that the operator owes and the rail dropped. For them, the right tool is a legitimate fraud chargeback or, far more often, the NPCI/RBI rail-dispute and ombudsman route covered on the refund and dispute recovery hub. This guide separates those two cases line by line, gives you the real windows and rules behind each, and is blunt about when reaching for a chargeback will hurt you more than the operator.

2026 reality you must read first. The ground shifted. The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 (PROGA) received Presidential assent on 22 August 2025 and prohibits all online money games — skill or chance — where you stake money for a return; its operating Rules came into force on 1 May 2026. That changes the chargeback question in a specific way. A new deposit into one of these games is now illegal, so “I deposited and lost, charge it back” is built on a transaction the law itself frowns on. But it also opens a separate recovery theory: a deposit into a platform with no MeitY registration after 1 May 2026 sits on a void agreement under the Indian Contract Act, which is a restitution claim, not a chargeback. And the safest, most-protected case of all — a withdrawal the operator owes you that the payment rail failed to deliver — is governed by the RBI/NPCI rail rules and needs no chargeback at all. This guide flags which of those three situations you are in, because the wrong tool wastes the clock.

What a chargeback actually is (and what it is not)

The word “chargeback” gets thrown at every payment problem, which is exactly why people misuse it. So let’s be precise about the object before we talk windows and risks.

A chargeback is a forced reversal of a completed payment, initiated by your issuing bank (the bank that gave you the card or holds your UPI account), pushed back through the card network or the UPI dispute system, and landing against the operator’s acquiring bank. Three features define it:

• It is bank-initiated, not merchant-initiated. You ask your bank; your bank decides whether to raise it. You cannot file a chargeback directly with Visa, Mastercard or RuPay — the card networks do not accept cardholder disputes directly, you always go through your issuing bank.
• It is adversarial. A chargeback is a fight. The operator (the merchant) gets to defend the charge with evidence — your login, your KYC, your deposit confirmation, your IP. If their evidence shows you authorised it, they win, and the reversal is undone.
• It is a last resort, not a first step. Networks and NPCI expect you to try to resolve directly with the merchant first. A chargeback raised before you even contacted the operator is weaker and, on UPI, can be auto-rejected.

Here is what a chargeback is not, and each of these confusions sends people down the wrong path:

• A chargeback is not a refund. A refund is the operator voluntarily sending your money back — no bank fight, no network, no risk. If the operator agrees you are owed money, you want a refund, not a chargeback. A refund leaves no mark on your dispute record.
• A chargeback is not a UPI “rail dispute.” When your withdrawal was debited but not credited, that is a rail failure the NPCI/RBI rules already force a reversal on — auto-reversed by T+1, with ₹100/day compensation after that under RBI’s failed-transaction circular. You raise that through your UPI app’s “raise complaint” button, and it routes into NPCI’s UDIR dispute flow. That is a different, gentler mechanism than a card chargeback, and the UPI failed but money debited fix page walks it step by step.
• A chargeback is not a complaint to the RBI Ombudsman. The ombudsman is the escalation you reach after the bank or payment-system participant fails to resolve a dispute in 30 days. It sits above the chargeback, not beside it — and the RBI ombudsman for gaming payments page covers exactly when it has teeth.

The single sentence to carry forward: a chargeback reverses a payment by force, against the operator’s defence, through your bank. If your situation does not need force — because the money simply failed on the rail, or the operator agrees you are owed — you almost certainly want a softer, safer tool. The number to remember is two: there are two clean cases where a chargeback is the right tool (genuine unauthorised fraud, and an operator that took payment and delivered nothing while ignoring you), and many cases where it is the wrong one.

The fork that decides everything: did you authorise the transaction?

Before any window, any reason code, any form, answer one question honestly, because it splits the entire decision tree: did you authorise the transaction you want reversed?

This is not a technicality. It is the legal and procedural line that decides whether you have a legitimate chargeback or are about to commit friendly fraud.

Case A — You did NOT authorise it (legitimate chargeback territory)

Your card was used by someone else. Your UPI mandate was triggered without your consent. A “gaming” charge appeared that you never initiated — a phishing app that grabbed your card details, a child or family member who used your card, a clone app that auto-charged you. In every one of these, you are the victim of a transaction you never made.

This is the original, intended purpose of a chargeback, and it is where the system works for you. Under RBI’s rules, if you report an unauthorised electronic transaction promptly — within 3 working days — your liability is zero, and the bank must credit the disputed amount (a “shadow reversal”) to your account within 10 working days of your report, without waiting for the investigation to finish. The chargeback here is not a trick; it is the consumer-protection mechanism doing its job.

Case B — You DID authorise it (friendly-fraud territory — danger)

You opened the app, you entered your UPI PIN or card OTP, you deposited money to play, and you lost. Now you want the bank to reverse that deposit by calling it “fraud” or “I didn’t get what I paid for.”

That is friendly fraud (also called first-party fraud or chargeback fraud): a cardholder filing an illegitimate chargeback against a transaction they actually authorised. The merchant defends it with your own authorisation trail and defeats the dispute. And beyond losing, you expose yourself to the consequences in the risk section below. The guidance is blunt across every chargeback authority: do not raise a chargeback for a charge you actually authorised — the merchant will win, and repeat disputes get flagged as frivolous, which can affect your card status.

The one nuance that complicates Case B in 2026

There is a genuine grey zone, and you should understand it precisely rather than use it as an excuse. After 1 May 2026, a deposit into an online money-gaming platform that lacks MeitY registration sits on a void agreement under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act — an agreement for an unlawful purpose. Lawyers argue this entitles you to restitution of the deposit “regardless of whether you won or lost,” because the contract itself is void. That is a real recovery theory — but it is a civil/consumer-law restitution claim or a void-contract argument, pursued through a consumer forum or a legal notice, not a card-network “I didn’t authorise this” chargeback. Dressing up a void-contract restitution claim as an “unauthorised transaction” chargeback is still misrepresenting the dispute, and the operator’s authorisation evidence still beats the “unauthorised” label. The honest path for a void-platform deposit is the restitution/consumer route, covered on the refund and dispute recovery hub, not a fraud chargeback.

The fork in one line: unauthorised charge → legitimate chargeback (Case A, the system protects you). Authorised deposit you lost → not a chargeback (Case B, that’s friendly fraud — pursue restitution or a rail/ombudsman route instead). The single question that sorts you is whether you entered your own PIN/OTP for the transaction you now want reversed. Answer it honestly before you touch a dispute form, because answering it wrong on the form is where the legal and financial risk begins.

Chargeback vs UPI rail dispute (UDIR) vs refund — the three tools, side by side

People conflate these three because all three “get my money back.” They are different machines with different operators, different windows, and very different risk. Here is the precise separation.

Read that table as a routing decision:

• If the operator will pay you back, get a refund. It is the only one of the three with zero downside. Always try the operator’s own support and the refund hub escalation ladder first.
• If your withdrawal was debited but never credited, you do not need a chargeback at all. That is a rail failure, and the NPCI/RBI machine already owes you the reversal — auto-reversed by T+1, ₹100/day after — through the UDIR complaint in your UPI app. The UPI failed, money debited page is the screen-by-screen walkthrough. This is the single most common “I need a chargeback” case that is actually a rail dispute, and the rail dispute is faster and risk-free.
• Reach for a chargeback only when the charge was genuinely unauthorised (Case A), or when an operator clearly took your payment, delivered nothing, and ignored every direct attempt to resolve — and even then, on UPI, the rail dispute usually gets there first.

The reason this ordering matters is risk asymmetry. A refund and a rail dispute carry no downside for you. A chargeback against an authorised payment carries a stack of downsides. So you climb the ladder from the safe tools to the risky one, and you only reach the risky one when nothing safer fits your facts.

Card-network chargebacks: the 120-day window and the lifecycle

If your gaming charge went on a credit or debit card (Visa, Mastercard, RuPay, Amex), the card-network chargeback rules apply. Here are the real numbers and the real process, so you neither miss the deadline nor expect it to be instant.

The filing window: 120 days, with edge cases

The standard cardholder filing window for both Visa and Mastercard is 120 days. That clock runs from the transaction date for most disputes, but for some reason codes it runs from a different anchor:

• For a fraud / unauthorised claim, the clock can start from the date you noticed the unauthorised activity, not the purchase date.
• For an authorisation or processing-error dispute, it typically runs from the purchase date.
• For future-delivery transactions (a service promised for later), Visa can extend the window up to 540 days from the original purchase date.

In India specifically, the practical advice from issuing-bank guidance is the same 120-day window, raised through your bank’s app, net banking, email, or branch — never directly with the network. So your hard outer limit on a card chargeback is roughly four months; do not sit on it.

The lifecycle: what actually happens after you file

A card chargeback is not one event; it is a multi-stage fight that can run 60–90 days even when you win. The India-specific lifecycle looks like this:

1. Days 0–7 — Filing and temporary credit. Your bank files the dispute under a reason code and usually issues a temporary (shadow) credit to your account while it investigates.
2. Days 7–45 — Merchant representment. The operator (merchant) gets a window — roughly 45 days per phase for Mastercard, 30 days for Visa/Discover — to fight back with compelling evidence: your login records, KYC, deposit confirmation, IP/device match, the terms you accepted. This is where an authorised deposit dies, because the operator’s evidence shows you did it.
3. Days 60–90 — Resolution. The bank weighs the evidence and either makes the credit permanent (you win) or reverses the temporary credit (merchant wins, money comes back out of your account).
4. Escalation — pre-arbitration and arbitration. If either side disputes the outcome, the case can go to pre-arbitration and then network arbitration, where the card network makes the final call and the losing side pays fees. This is rare for a consumer gaming dispute, but it exists.
5. Banking Ombudsman. If your bank stalls or mishandles your dispute (as opposed to the merchant winning fairly), you escalate to the RBI Ombudsman at cms.rbi.org.in after the bank fails to resolve in 30 days — see the ombudsman page.

Two warnings the guidance repeats: do not spend the temporary credit while the investigation is open (it can be clawed back), and document everything — invoices, cancellation proof, emails — because the outcome is decided by evidence, not by how upset you are. Genuine disputes don’t blacklist you; frivolous ones may trigger card suspension.

The card-chargeback reality in three numbers: you have about 120 days to file, the operator gets roughly 45 days to defend, and resolution takes 60–90 days. None of that is fast, and an authorised deposit loses at step 2 — so a card chargeback is worth the wait only for a genuinely unauthorised charge.

UPI chargebacks: URCS, UDIR, TCC/RET, and the 45-day window

Most India gaming deposits and payouts run over UPI, not cards, so the UPI chargeback path matters more for most readers. It is a different system with different plumbing and tighter time limits. Here is how it actually works.

The two layers: UDIR (your complaint) and URCS (the bank settlement)

On UPI there are two systems doing different jobs, and confusing them confuses the whole process:

• UDIR (Unified Dispute and Issue Resolution) is the consumer-facing layer. It is the “raise a complaint / report an issue” button inside your UPI app (PhonePe, Google Pay, Paytm, BHIM) and on the NPCI UPI Help portal at upihelp.npci.org.in. You use UDIR to flag a transaction.
• URCS (UPI Dispute Resolution System) is the bank-to-bank settlement layer that NPCI runs behind the scenes. This is where an actual chargeback between the remitting bank and beneficiary bank is processed, accepted, or rejected.

So when you “raise a UPI dispute,” you act in UDIR, and if it becomes a chargeback, it is processed in URCS.

The 45-day data window — the hard outer limit

This is the number that catches people out. NPCI maintains transaction data in URCS as per a revised TAT of 45 days, and any transaction search for data beyond 45 days will not be available. In plain terms: your practical window to get a UPI chargeback processed through URCS is about 45 days from the transaction, because after that the system can’t even pull the record. This is far shorter than the card window’s 120 days — so on UPI, you move fast.

TCC and RET — the two confirmations that decide the outcome

Two acronyms control whether a UPI chargeback succeeds:

• TCC (Transaction Credit Confirmation) — the beneficiary bank confirms that the money was received/credited. If a TCC is raised, it means the credit happened, which generally defeats a “money not received” chargeback.
• RET (Return) — the beneficiary bank returns the money because there was a genuine dispute or error (e.g., the credit truly failed).

A chargeback’s fate is decided by whether the beneficiary bank raises a TCC (credit confirmed — chargeback rejected) or a RET (return — chargeback accepted) in the next settlement cycle.

The February 2025 auto-accept/reject rule

NPCI changed the UPI chargeback machinery from 15 February 2025. Under the new rule, chargebacks are automatically accepted or rejected based on the TCC/RET raised by the beneficiary bank in the next settlement cycle after the chargeback is initiated, applied within URCS for bulk-upload and UDIR routes. Remitting banks can initiate chargebacks in URCS from T+0 onward (i.e., the same day). The point of the change was to stop chargebacks bouncing back and forth and to make refunds on genuine failures faster — but it also means a chargeback against a transaction the beneficiary confirms it credited gets auto-rejected, cleanly and quickly.

What this means for a gaming deposit vs a gaming payout

• A stuck/failed payout (the operator owes you, rail failed to credit): this is the UDIR rail-dispute case, and it is the strongest hand you can hold. The beneficiary bank either credits you or the system reverses it; you may not even need a formal chargeback. The UPI failed, money debited page covers the exact screens, and the T+1 / ₹100-a-day protection applies.
• An authorised deposit you lost and want reversed: filing a UPI “chargeback” here means claiming the credit to the operator was wrong. The operator’s bank raises a TCC confirming it received your deposit, and your chargeback is auto-rejected under the Feb 2025 rule — and you’ve now put a frivolous-dispute flag against your handle. This is the same friendly-fraud trap as on cards, just faster to fail.

The UPI-chargeback reality in three numbers: you have roughly 45 days before URCS can’t even find the record, chargebacks now auto-resolve on the next settlement cycle via TCC/RET, and remitting banks can raise them from T+0. The system is fast and fair — which is exactly why it quickly rejects a chargeback against a deposit the operator can prove you authorised.

Why operators blacklist chargeback users — and can pursue recovery

It is tempting to think of a chargeback as a costless “undo.” It is not, because the operator on the other side has every incentive and several tools to make a wrongful chargeback expensive for you. Understanding their side is the best protection against making a mistake that follows you around.

The merchant’s economics: chargebacks cost them more than the transaction

When you file a chargeback, the operator doesn’t just lose the disputed amount. They lose the money plus a chargeback fee from their acquirer, plus staff time to fight it, so a friendly-fraud loss often adds up to more than twice the original transaction amount. Worse, payment processors track each merchant’s chargeback ratio, and if it crosses a threshold (commonly around 0.9%), the merchant faces higher processing fees or account termination. So operators treat chargebacks as an existential threat and defend them aggressively.

How they blacklist you

Because each chargeback hurts them, merchants and processors suspend and blacklist cardholders who file illegitimate disputes. The consequences documented across chargeback authorities:

• The operator permanently bans your account and freezes any balance still inside it (so a chargeback on a deposit can cost you a withdrawable balance you were about to cash out).
• Merchants share fraud data through networks, so a friendly-fraud flag can follow you to other operators and merchants who use the same fraud-prevention services.
• Banks monitor dispute patterns. Repeat filers can lose dispute privileges, have their accounts reviewed or closed, and in some cases have the card terminated — which, by killing your credit utilisation, can even dent your credit score.

How they can pursue recovery against you

A chargeback you lose isn’t the end of the operator’s options. When a merchant has clear authorisation evidence and you reversed an authorised payment, they can treat it as a debt you owe (the goods/credit you took without paying for) and pursue civil recovery. In India, where a dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction can be shown, a clearly fraudulent dispute can even attract cheating provisions — historically Section 420 IPC, now Section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which carries up to seven years imprisonment plus a fine. The bar is high — mere breach of contract isn’t cheating, and an authorised transaction the complainant knew all about generally isn’t “deception” — but a deliberate false “I never made this transaction” against documented proof you did is exactly the kind of dishonest representation the law targets.

The practical takeaway is not fear-mongering; it is realism. A wrongful chargeback against an authorised gaming deposit is unlikely to land you in jail, but it is very likely to get you banned, flag your handle/card, and potentially claw the money back out after a fight you lose anyway. The downside dwarfs the upside, which is the whole reason the decision framework below pushes you toward safer tools.

The operator’s-side reality: a friendly-fraud chargeback can cost the operator 2× the transaction, so they will fight it, blacklist you, share the flag with other merchants, and can pursue civil recovery — with cheating law (BNS Section 318, up to 7 years) available in clear-intent cases. That asymmetry is exactly why an authorised loss should never be “fixed” with a chargeback.

Is it actually fraud? Authorised vs unauthorised, in concrete cases

Because the entire decision turns on authorisation, here is a concrete checklist. Run your situation against it before you decide anything.

Almost certainly UNAUTHORISED (legitimate chargeback / fraud report)

• A “gaming” charge appears on your statement for an app you never installed or used.
• Your card was lost or stolen and used on a gaming site.
• A clone or phishing app captured your card/UPI details and charged you without a PIN/OTP you knowingly entered for that charge.
• A family member or child used your card without your knowledge (note: this is a real grey area — banks may treat “negligent storage of credentials” differently, but it is genuinely not your authorised transaction).
• A recurring mandate you cancelled keeps billing you.

In these, report it as unauthorised to your bank immediately — within 3 working days for zero liability — and the chargeback/fraud machinery is on your side.

Almost certainly AUTHORISED (NOT a chargeback — friendly fraud if you call it fraud)

• You opened the app, entered your UPI PIN or card OTP, and deposited money to play.
• You played and lost and now regret it.
• You withdrew successfully earlier, proving you control and use the account, and now want to reverse deposits.
• The operator can show your KYC, login, deposit confirmation, IP and device.

In these, a chargeback claiming “fraud” or “unauthorised” is friendly fraud. If you believe the platform was illegal/unregistered, your route is restitution/consumer, not a fraud chargeback — see the refund and dispute recovery hub.

The genuine grey zones (get advice, don’t guess)

• You deposited on an unregistered/illegal platform after 1 May 2026. The deposit may sit on a void contract (restitution available) — but that is a legal/consumer claim, not an “unauthorised” chargeback. Misclassifying it as fraud is still a misrepresentation.
• “Service not rendered.” You paid and the operator delivered nothing — no chips credited, no account, no response. This can be a legitimate chargeback reason code (non-receipt), but it is also exactly the claim operators defend most easily if they can show anything was credited. Try the refund and rail-dispute route first; only use the chargeback if the operator took your money, gave you nothing, and ignored you.
• Bonus/withdrawal denied unfairly. A locked bonus or a refused withdrawal is a contract dispute, not an unauthorised transaction. The lever is the operator’s terms, the rail dispute, and the ombudsman, never a “fraud” chargeback.

The honest test: if you entered your own PIN/OTP for the exact transaction you want reversed, it is authorised, and a “fraud” chargeback is the wrong (and risky) tool. The legitimate-chargeback lane is narrow on purpose — it is for charges you genuinely never made. Everything else routes to refund, rail dispute, restitution, or ombudsman.

The decision framework: chargeback vs rail-dispute vs ombudsman vs restitution

Here is the spine of the page: a single ordered framework that takes your facts and routes you to the one right tool, lowest-risk first. Work down it in order and stop at the first row that matches you.

Step 1 — Was the charge unauthorised (you never made it)?

• Yes → File a fraud report / chargeback with your bank immediately. Report within 3 working days for zero liability; the bank shadow-credits within 10 working days. This is Case A, the system protects you. Card: ~120-day window. UPI: ~45-day URCS window — move fast.
• No → go to Step 2.

Step 2 — Is it a withdrawal/payout the operator owes that the rail failed to deliver (debited but not credited)?

• Yes → Use the UPI rail dispute (UDIR), not a chargeback. This is the most-protected case in the whole chain: auto-reversal by T+1, ₹100/day after, raised through your UPI app’s complaint button into NPCI UDIR. The UPI failed, money debited fix is the walkthrough; the 3 Patti withdrawal hub covers stuck payouts broadly. No chargeback risk, statutory protection.
• No → go to Step 3.

Step 3 — Will the operator simply refund you if you ask?

• Yes → Get the refund. Zero downside, no record, no fight. Work the operator’s support and the escalation templates on the refund and dispute recovery hub first. Always cheaper than any dispute.
• No / unresponsive → go to Step 4.

Step 4 — Did you authorise the deposit, but the platform was unregistered/illegal (post-1-May-2026)?

• Yes → Pursue restitution / consumer-forum / void-contract route, NOT a fraud chargeback. The deposit on a MeitY-unregistered platform sits on a void agreement (Indian Contract Act), so restitution is the theory — through a consumer forum (claims up to ₹50 lakh in district forums, ~90–180 days) or a legal notice, and a cybercrime FIR at cybercrime.gov.in if it’s fraud/offshore. The refund hub maps this. A chargeback mislabelled “fraud” here still fails on the operator’s authorisation evidence.
• No → go to Step 5.

Step 5 — Did you authorise it, the platform was legal-ish, and you just lost or regret it?

• Yes → Stop. There is no clean reversal here. A chargeback would be friendly fraud (you authorised it), it will be defeated by the operator’s evidence, and it carries blacklist/recovery risk. The honest answer is that an authorised loss on a game is not a payment error, and no payment tool reverses a bet you chose to place. Spend your energy on the real recoverable cases above (a stuck payout, an unauthorised charge), and stop depositing — post-PROGA, a new deposit into a money game is illegal anyway.

Step 6 — Has a regulated entity (bank/PSP) failed to resolve a legitimate dispute in 30 days?

• Yes → Escalate to the RBI Integrated Ombudsman (RB-IOS 2021). This sits above the chargeback and rail dispute. After 30 days without resolution from the bank or payment-system participant, file free at cms.rbi.org.in — the RBI ombudsman for gaming payments page has the eligibility detail and templates. The ombudsman has teeth against rail and bank failures (Steps 1–2); it is weaker against an offshore unlicensed operator that ignores India entirely.

The framework in one line: unauthorised → chargeback; owed-but-undelivered payout → rail dispute (UDIR); operator will pay → refund; void illegal platform → restitution/consumer; authorised loss you regret → no reversal exists; bank stalled 30 days → ombudsman. Climb from the safe tools to the risky one, and use a chargeback only at the very top (genuine fraud) — never as a do-over for a deposit you chose to make.

How to file each route — the exact steps

Once the framework tells you the right tool, here is how to actually use it. Keep every action dated, factual, and reference-stamped — a dispute is won on evidence, not emotion.

Filing a legitimate fraud chargeback (card)

1. Report to your issuing bank the moment you spot the unauthorised charge — within 3 working days for zero liability. Use the bank app, net banking, the official helpline, or a branch. Do not call any “customer care number” you found on a random website.
2. State the reason precisely: “unauthorised transaction / fraud — I did not make this charge.” Give the date, amount, and merchant name as shown.
3. Ask for the shadow reversal (temporary credit) within 10 working days, per RBI rules, and get a complaint reference number in writing.
4. Preserve evidence: statements showing the charge, proof you didn’t make it (you were elsewhere, the card was with you, no OTP came to you), and any phishing/clone-app trail.
5. Don’t spend the temporary credit until the case closes, and watch the 120-day outer window if your bank is slow to act.

Filing a legitimate fraud chargeback / dispute (UPI)

1. Open your UPI app → transaction history → the disputed transaction → “Raise complaint / report an issue.” This feeds UDIR. (PhonePe: “UPI Reference No.”; Google Pay: “Bank Reference ID”; Paytm: “UPI Ref No.”; BHIM: “Transaction ID” — all the same UTR.)
2. For an unauthorised UPI debit, also report to your bank’s fraud channel within 3 working days, and call 1930 / file at cybercrime.gov.in if it’s a scam.
3. Move within ~45 days — after that, URCS can’t retrieve the record and a chargeback can’t be processed.
4. Capture the UTR on Day 0 — you cannot trace or dispute a transaction without it.

Filing a UPI rail dispute for a stuck/failed payout (the common, safe case)

1. Same “raise complaint” path as above, but the reason is “money debited but not credited” / “payment failed.”
2. Wait through T+1 first — the system auto-reverses a debited-but-not-credited transaction by then.
3. If still missing after T+1, claim the ₹100/day compensation when you escalate to your bank with the UTR, per RBI’s failed-transaction circular.
4. The full screen-by-screen version lives on the UPI failed, money debited page; the 3 Patti withdrawal hub covers the broader stuck-payout ladder.

Filing a restitution / consumer claim (void illegal-platform deposit)

1. Gather evidence: deposit receipts, the platform URL and promo messages, bank/UPI statements, support chats, and your KYC submitted to the platform.
2. Send a legal notice / file with a consumer forum — district forums handle claims up to ₹50 lakh, with interim orders often in 90–180 days.
3. File a cybercrime FIR at cybercrime.gov.in for fraud/offshore platforms; this can trigger ED involvement and account freezes.
4. The refund and dispute recovery hub maps this route, including when a bank chargeback (180-day window cited in some guidance) runs in parallel to court proceedings for a genuinely void deposit.

Escalating to the RBI Ombudsman

1. Only after 30 days without resolution from the regulated entity (your bank/PSP).
2. File free at cms.rbi.org.in under RB-IOS 2021; redress costs nothing.
3. The ombudsman page has eligibility, the deficiency-of-service framing, and a copy-paste grievance template.

The filing rule across all five routes: capture the UTR/reference on Day 0, act within the window (3 working days to report fraud; ~45 days for UPI; ~120 for cards; 30 days before the ombudsman), and keep a dated paper trail. The tool you pick is set by the framework above; the speed you act decides whether the window is still open.

The windows, side by side — a clock you can plan against

Every route on this page is governed by a deadline. Miss it and even a valid claim dies. Here they are in one place, sourced.

Read that table as a planning clock. The tightest window by far is the UPI 45-day URCS limit — if your problem is on UPI, you have barely six weeks before the system can’t even find the transaction. The 3-working-day fraud-report window is the one that decides your liability, so on a genuinely unauthorised charge, speed is everything. And the 30-day ombudsman gate is a floor, not a deadline — you can’t file before 30 days, but you shouldn’t wait far past it.

Common mistakes that turn a winnable case into a loss

Even people with a legitimate claim sink it with avoidable errors. Here are the ten that recur, with the fix for each.

1. Calling an authorised deposit “fraud.” The single biggest mistake. The operator’s authorisation evidence defeats it and you get flagged. Fix: if you entered your own PIN/OTP, it’s authorised — use refund/rail/restitution, never a “fraud” chargeback.
2. Filing a card chargeback when the money was a stuck UPI payout. You reach for the slow, adversarial card route when the rail dispute already owes you the reversal. Fix: debited-but-not-credited = UDIR, T+1, ₹100/day — start there.
3. Missing the 45-day UPI window. People wait, hoping it resolves, and the URCS record ages out. Fix: raise the UPI dispute well inside 45 days; capture the UTR on Day 0.
4. Not capturing the UTR. Without the 12-digit UTR, neither bank nor NPCI can trace the transaction. Fix: screenshot the reference the moment it appears.
5. Going to the network directly. Cardholders can’t dispute with Visa/Mastercard/RuPay directly. Fix: always raise it through your issuing bank.
6. Spending the temporary credit. It can be clawed back if you lose. Fix: leave the shadow credit untouched until the case closes.
7. Treating a refund as a chargeback. If the operator will just pay you back, a chargeback adds risk for nothing. Fix: ask for a refund first — it’s the zero-downside option.
8. Skipping the operator entirely. Networks/NPCI expect a direct attempt first; a chargeback raised cold is weaker. Fix: try operator support and document the refusal before escalating.
9. Calling a fake “customer care number.” Scam numbers on random sites exist to phish your OTP/UPI PIN. Fix: use only in-app support and your bank’s official channels; never share a PIN/OTP.
10. Filing the ombudsman on Day 1. It bounces you back — the 30-day entity-resolution gate hasn’t passed. Fix: exhaust the bank/PSP for 30 days, then file at cms.rbi.org.in.

The meta-mistake behind all ten: reaching for a chargeback as a generic “undo button.” It isn’t one. It’s a narrow, adversarial, deadline-bound tool for unauthorised charges. Match the tool to the type of problem (the framework above) and most of these errors disappear.

Honest limits: when nothing on this page gets your money back

This page is straight with you, so here is the hard truth about the cases where no route works well.

• An authorised loss on a game is not recoverable as a payment dispute. If you knowingly deposited and lost, there is no payment mechanism that reverses a bet you chose to place. A chargeback is friendly fraud; a rail dispute doesn’t apply (the credit succeeded); the operator won’t refund a loss. The realistic outcome is zero recovery through payment channels — the recoverable angle, if any, is the void-contract/illegal-platform theory, and only if the platform was genuinely unregistered.
• Offshore/unlicensed operators sit largely outside Indian reach. The RBI Ombudsman and bank disputes are powerful against RBI-regulated rails and banks. They are weak against an operator with no Indian licence, no Indian entity, and no incentive to respond. You can pursue a cybercrime FIR and an ED-route freeze, but recovery isn’t guaranteed.
• A chargeback against an authorised payment usually loses and costs you. Best case it’s rejected; worse case you’re blacklisted, flagged across merchants, and the money is clawed back after the fight. The expected value of a friendly-fraud chargeback is negative.
• The clock can simply run out. Miss the 45-day UPI window or the 120-day card window and even a valid claim is dead on arrival.

The strategic conclusion is the same one the framework points at: spend your effort on the cases that are genuinely recoverable — an unauthorised charge (legitimate chargeback), a stuck payout the rail owes you (UDIR/T+1/₹100-day), an operator that will refund, or a void illegal-platform deposit (restitution). For an authorised loss you regret, the honest advice is to stop, not to dispute — because the dispute makes it worse. And post-PROGA, never deposit again to “win it back”: a new deposit into an online money game is now illegal.

Card chargeback vs UPI chargeback: which path your money actually rides

The same word, “chargeback,” behaves very differently depending on whether your gaming transaction went over a card or over UPI. Knowing which rail you used tells you the window you’re racing, the system that judges it, and how fast you’ll get an answer.

If it went on a card (Visa, Mastercard, RuPay, Amex)

You’re inside the card-network machinery. The window is the 120-day cardholder limit, the judge is your issuing bank applying network rules, and the operator gets a 30–45-day representment phase to defend. Resolution is slow — 60–90 days end to end — and the fight is evidence-heavy, with pre-arbitration and arbitration above it if either side escalates. The upside of cards: the window is long (up to 540 days for future-delivery), so you’re rarely time-barred. The downside: it’s the slowest route, and an authorised deposit loses at representment when the operator shows your 3D-Secure authentication. Cards also give you the temporary credit while you wait — but don’t spend it.

If it went on UPI (PhonePe, Google Pay, Paytm, BHIM)

You’re inside NPCI’s machinery — UDIR for your complaint, URCS for the bank settlement. The window is brutally short: 45 days before the URCS record ages out. The judge is effectively the beneficiary bank’s TCC/RET in the next settlement cycle, with auto accept/reject since 15 February 2025. The upside of UPI: it’s fast — a genuine failure resolves in days, not months, and a debited-but-not-credited payout gets T+1 auto-reversal plus ₹100/day without a formal fight at all. The downside: the 45-day clock is merciless, and the TCC confirmation means an authorised deposit the operator received gets auto-rejected almost immediately.

Why most gaming readers are on UPI — and what that changes

Most India gaming deposits and payouts ride UPI, not cards, because UPI is the default for app payments under a few thousand rupees. So for most readers, the operative facts are the 45-day window, the TCC/RET auto-resolution, and — crucially — the fact that the rail-dispute (UDIR) route already protects a stuck payout without any chargeback. That last point is why this whole page keeps steering you to the rail dispute over the chargeback: on UPI, the gentler tool is also the faster, stronger, and risk-free one for the most common real problem (a payout that failed to arrive). Reach for the actual chargeback machinery on UPI only for a genuinely unauthorised debit, and do it inside 45 days.

Rail choice in two numbers: a card chargeback gives you a long 120-day window but a slow 60–90-day adversarial fight; a UPI chargeback gives you a short 45-day window but fast auto-resolution via TCC/RET. And since most gaming money rides UPI, your real first tool for a stuck payout is the rail dispute, not a chargeback at all.

Five myths about gaming chargebacks, corrected

Bad advice circulates on forums and in YouTube comments. Here are the five most damaging myths, each corrected against the rules above.

Myth 1 — “A chargeback is a guaranteed way to get gambling losses back.” False, and dangerous. A chargeback against a deposit you authorised is friendly fraud; the operator defeats it with your OTP/PIN log and you get blacklisted. There is no guaranteed reversal of an authorised loss.

Myth 2 — “Just call it fraud and the bank refunds you.” False. Labelling an authorised transaction “fraud” is a misrepresentation that the operator’s evidence exposes, and a clearly false fraud claim can attract cheating law (BNS Section 318). Banks shadow-credit on a fraud report, then claw it back when the merchant proves authorisation.

Myth 3 — “Chargebacks are anonymous and have no consequences.” False. Operators ban you, share the fraud flag with other merchants through fraud networks, and banks track dispute patterns and can close repeat-filer accounts. The flag follows you.

Myth 4 — “I have plenty of time to file.” False on UPI. The URCS data window is 45 days — after that the record is gone and no chargeback can be processed. Even on cards, the standard window is 120 days. Waiting kills valid claims.

Myth 5 — “A chargeback and an RBI complaint are the same escalation.” False. A chargeback is a bank-level forced reversal; the RBI Ombudsman is a higher escalation you reach only after the bank/PSP fails to resolve in 30 days, free at cms.rbi.org.in. They’re different rungs — see the ombudsman page.

The myth-busting takeaway: a chargeback is narrow, deadline-bound, evidence-judged, and consequential — not a free, anonymous, unlimited “undo.” Believe the myths and you’ll file a losing dispute that flags your account. Match the tool to the truth of your transaction and you’ll use the right route every time.

Chargeback reason codes: picking the wrong one sinks a good claim

A chargeback isn’t filed as a free-text grievance. Your bank files it under a reason code, and the code you pick determines what evidence the operator can use to beat you — and whether you’re quietly committing friendly fraud. Most consumer gaming disputes fall under a handful of codes, and choosing among them honestly is half the battle.

Fraud / unauthorised (the only clean gaming code)

This is the code for “I did not make this transaction.” It is the legitimate-chargeback lane from Case A — a stolen card, a clone app that charged you without your knowing OTP, a phantom debit. On Visa and Mastercard this is the strongest reason a cardholder can raise, and on UPI it pairs with a fraud report to your bank within 3 working days for zero liability. The catch the operator exploits: if their logs show your registered device, your IP, your KYC, and a successful OTP/PIN on that exact transaction, the “unauthorised” claim collapses, because it proves you (or someone with full access to your credentials) authorised it. Use this code only when the charge is genuinely not yours.

Services not rendered / non-receipt

This is “I paid and got nothing.” It can be legitimate — you deposited, the operator credited no chips, gave you no account, and ignored every message. But it is also the code operators defend most easily, because they only need to show that something was delivered: chips credited to your wallet, a session logged, a balance you later played or partially withdrew. The moment they show delivery, this code fails. Worse, players reach for it as a disguised “I lost and want a refund,” which is friendly fraud wearing a different hat. The honest test: did the operator deliver literally nothing for the payment? If they delivered chips you then gambled away, the service was rendered — your loss is not non-receipt.

Cancelled / duplicate / processing error

These cover a recurring charge you cancelled, a double-debit, or a technical processing error (charged twice, charged the wrong amount). On a gaming app these are rare but real — a deposit that debited twice for one credit, or a subscription-style charge you stopped. They are legitimate when the facts are mechanical and provable from your statement, and the operator can’t easily defend a clean duplicate. Don’t stretch them: “I meant to deposit ₹500 not ₹5,000” is your input error, not a processing error, and the operator’s logs show your confirmed amount.

Credit not processed

This is “the operator promised a refund and never paid it.” If support agreed in writing to refund you and then didn’t, this code is legitimate and powerful, because your own evidence is the operator’s admission. Keep the chat or email where they promised the credit — that promise is exactly what defeats their defence. This is one of the few codes where a gaming dispute has a genuinely strong hand, because it rests on the operator’s own words rather than on relitigating your bet.

The reason-code rule: there is essentially one clean code for a gaming charge you never made (fraud/unauthorised), one for the operator breaking a refund promise (credit not processed), and a couple of narrow mechanical ones (duplicate/processing error). Every other framing — “services not rendered” for a lost bet, “I changed my mind” — either fails on the operator’s evidence or is friendly fraud. Pick the code that matches the literal truth of what happened, or the dispute dies at representment.

What evidence the operator uses to defeat your chargeback

To understand why an authorised-deposit chargeback nearly always loses, look at the file the operator hands the bank when they represent (defend) the dispute. Gaming operators are sophisticated merchants who fight chargebacks for a living, and their evidence pack is built to prove you did this.

A typical operator representment includes:

• The authorisation record — the exact timestamp, the OTP or UPI PIN entry, the 3D-Secure or UPI 2.0 verification that proves a credential only you hold approved the charge.
• Device and IP fingerprint — the same phone, the same IP range, the same device ID you’ve used for every other session, tying the transaction to your hardware.
• Your KYC — the PAN and Aadhaar-matched identity you submitted to open the account, which links the disputed charge to a verified you.
• Account history — earlier successful deposits and withdrawals from the same account, which demolish a “this wasn’t me” claim by showing a long pattern of you using it.
• The accepted terms — the timestamped record of you agreeing to the operator’s terms, including the deposit and refund policy.
• Gameplay logs — if you played with the deposited chips, that activity is the single most damning evidence that the service was both received and used.

Against that pack, a “fraud/unauthorised” or “services not rendered” claim on an authorised deposit has no path. The bank weighs the evidence, sees a fully-authenticated, fully-used transaction, and rules for the merchant. Your temporary credit is clawed back, and you’re left worse off than before — out the money, plus a frivolous-dispute flag.

This is also why the legitimate cases win: a genuinely stolen-card charge has no matching device history, a clone-app charge has no real OTP you entered, and a broken refund promise is proven by the operator’s own message. The evidence cuts cleanly for the honest claimant and cleanly against the friendly-fraud one. That asymmetry isn’t an accident — the whole system is designed to surface who actually authorised the payment.

The evidence reality: an operator’s representment pack — OTP/PIN log, device/IP, KYC, deposit history, accepted terms, gameplay logs — is built to prove you authorised and used the charge. It destroys a friendly-fraud chargeback and is irrelevant to a genuine stolen-card claim. Before you file, ask what the operator will show the bank; if the honest answer is “proof I did it,” don’t file.

Four real-shaped scenarios, routed end to end

Abstract rules are easy to misapply, so here are four common situations, each routed through the framework to its correct tool. Match yours to the closest one.

Scenario 1 — “I deposited ₹8,000, lost it all, and want it back”

You opened the app, entered your UPI PIN, deposited ₹8,000, played, and lost. Authorisation: yes. This is Step 5 — an authorised loss you regret. There is no clean reversal. A chargeback is friendly fraud; the operator’s PIN log and gameplay history defeat it; you’d be flagged and possibly clawed back. The honest routing: no payment dispute applies. If the platform was a MeitY-unregistered post-1-May-2026 operation, the only angle is void-contract restitution through a consumer forum — not a “fraud” chargeback. Otherwise, the realistic outcome is zero recovery, and the right move is to stop depositing (it’s now illegal anyway) rather than chase it.

Scenario 2 — “₹3,000 left my account but my withdrawal never arrived”

The operator approved your ₹3,000 withdrawal, the money left their side, and your bank never credited it. Authorisation: it’s a payout you’re owed. This is Step 2 — a rail failure, the best case to be in. Route: UPI rail dispute (UDIR), not a chargeback. The rules auto-reverse a debited-but-not-credited transaction by T+1, with ₹100/day after, raised through your UPI app’s complaint button. Capture the UTR, wait through T+1, then escalate to your bank with that UTR. Walkthrough on the UPI failed, money debited page. No chargeback risk, statutory protection.

Scenario 3 — “A ₹2,500 gaming charge appeared that I never made”

You spot a ₹2,500 charge on your card statement for an app you never used — phished details, or a stolen card. Authorisation: no. This is Step 1 — genuine unauthorised fraud, the clean chargeback lane. Route: report it to your issuing bank within 3 working days as unauthorised/fraud for zero liability; the bank shadow-credits within 10 working days. Don’t spend that credit until it’s final. On UPI, also file at cybercrime.gov.in / 1930. Here the chargeback works for you, because the operator has no device/OTP history matching you.

Scenario 4 — “Support promised a ₹1,200 refund three weeks ago and never paid”

The operator’s support agreed in writing to refund your ₹1,200 (a mis-credited deposit), then never sent it. Authorisation: a promised refund withheld. This is partly Step 3 (the operator agreed) that broke down. Route: first chase the refund with the written promise as leverage; if they keep stalling, a card chargeback under “credit not processed” is legitimate — and the operator’s own promise message defeats their defence. If a bank/PSP then sits on it for 30 days, escalate to the RBI Ombudsman at cms.rbi.org.in per the ombudsman page.

The four scenarios in one line: an authorised loss (₹8,000) has no reversal; an owed payout (₹3,000) is a rail dispute; an unauthorised charge (₹2,500) is a legitimate chargeback; a broken refund promise (₹1,200) is a refund chase then a “credit not processed” claim. Same four-tool framework, four different right answers — driven entirely by who authorised what.

Related fixes (go deeper on your exact case)

This is the chargeback spoke. For the route the framework sent you to, these go step by step:

• The full refund/dispute decision hub → refund and dispute recovery — the master ladder for every recovery route, including restitution for void illegal-platform deposits.
• A withdrawal debited but not credited → UPI failed, money debited — the T+1 auto-reversal and ₹100/day claim, screen by screen.
• The bank/PSP stalled past 30 days → RBI ombudsman for gaming payments — eligibility, framing, and the grievance template.
• A stuck or pending payout generally → 3 Patti withdrawal — the whole Day-0-to-30 withdrawal escalation ladder.

FAQ

1. Can I do a chargeback on a gaming app deposit in India? Only if the charge was unauthorised — a card or UPI transaction you never made. If you authorised the deposit (entered your own PIN/OTP) and then lost, a chargeback is friendly fraud: the operator defeats it with your authorisation evidence, and you risk being blacklisted. The legitimate-chargeback lane is narrow on purpose.

2. What’s the difference between a chargeback and a refund? A refund is the operator voluntarily returning your money — no bank fight, zero downside, no record. A chargeback is your bank forcing a reversal against the operator’s defence, through the card network or NPCI’s URCS. Always try the refund first; reach for the chargeback only for a genuinely unauthorised charge.

3. How is a chargeback different from a UPI dispute (UDIR)? A UPI rail dispute via UDIR is for money debited but not credited — the system auto-reverses it by T+1 with ₹100/day after, and it carries no friendly-fraud risk. A chargeback is an adversarial forced reversal in URCS. For a stuck payout, use the rail dispute; it’s faster and safer.

4. How long do I have to file a card chargeback? Card networks (Visa/Mastercard) give cardholders about 120 days from the transaction, extendable to 540 days for future-delivery purchases. You file through your issuing bank, never directly with the network. The full lifecycle to resolution then runs 60–90 days.

5. How long do I have for a UPI chargeback? Much shorter: NPCI keeps UPI dispute data in URCS for 45 days, after which the record can’t be retrieved. So on UPI you must raise the dispute well within 45 days of the transaction — capture the UTR on Day 0.

6. What are TCC and RET in a UPI chargeback? TCC (Transaction Credit Confirmation) is the beneficiary bank confirming the money was credited — which defeats a “not received” chargeback. RET (Return) is the bank returning the money on a genuine error — which accepts it. Since 15 February 2025, UPI chargebacks auto-accept or reject based on the TCC/RET in the next settlement cycle.

7. What is friendly fraud and why is it risky? Friendly fraud is filing a chargeback against a transaction you actually authorised. It’s risky because the operator wins with your authorisation trail, then blacklists you, shares the flag with other merchants, can claw the money back, and in clear-intent cases can pursue cheating charges under BNS Section 318 (up to 7 years). The expected outcome is negative.

8. Will I get blacklisted for a chargeback? For a legitimate unauthorised-fraud chargeback, no — genuine disputes don’t blacklist you. For a friendly-fraud chargeback on an authorised deposit, yes — operators suspend and ban such users, processors share fraud data across merchants, and banks can review or close accounts of repeat filers. The line is whether the charge was genuinely unauthorised.

9. Is doing a chargeback on a bet I lost illegal in India? It can be. Disputing an authorised transaction as “fraud” is a misrepresentation, and where a dishonest intention from the inception can be shown, it can attract cheating law — Section 420 IPC, now Section 318 BNS (up to 7 years plus fine). Most cases end in a ban and clawback rather than prosecution, but the legal exposure is real for a clearly false dispute.

10. My gaming withdrawal was debited but never credited — do I need a chargeback? No. That’s a rail failure, the most-protected case: NPCI/RBI rules auto-reverse a debited-but-not-credited transaction by T+1, with ₹100/day after, via your UPI app’s “raise complaint” (UDIR) button. Use the UPI failed, money debited route — no chargeback, no risk.

11. Can I recover a deposit I made to an illegal/unregistered gaming site? Possibly — but via restitution, not a fraud chargeback. A deposit on a MeitY-unregistered platform after 1 May 2026 sits on a void agreement (Indian Contract Act), so you can seek restitution through a consumer forum (claims up to ₹50 lakh, ~90–180 days) or a legal notice, plus a cybercrime FIR. The refund and dispute recovery hub maps it.

12. How do I file a legitimate fraud chargeback? Report the unauthorised charge to your issuing bank within 3 working days for zero liability; the bank shadow-credits the amount within 10 working days. Use the bank app/net banking/helpline/branch — never a “care number” from a random site — give the date, amount and merchant, and get a complaint reference. Don’t spend the temporary credit until it’s resolved.

13. When should I go to the RBI Ombudsman instead? Only after 30 days without resolution from the regulated entity (your bank or payment-system participant) on a legitimate dispute. File free at cms.rbi.org.in under RB-IOS 2021 — the RBI ombudsman for gaming payments page has the eligibility and template. The ombudsman is strong against rails/banks, weak against offshore unlicensed operators.

14. Can the operator come after me if I do a wrongful chargeback? Yes. A friendly-fraud chargeback costs the operator about 2× the transaction, so they fight it. Beyond banning you, they can pursue civil recovery of the value you took, and in clear-intent cases invoke cheating law (BNS Section 318). They also share the fraud flag with other merchants through fraud networks, so it follows you.

15. What’s the safest order to try when a gaming app owes me money? Refund → rail dispute (UDIR) → restitution/consumer (if illegal platform) → ombudsman, with a legitimate chargeback only for a genuinely unauthorised charge. Climb from zero-risk tools to the risky one; never use a chargeback as a do-over for an authorised loss. The refund and dispute recovery hub holds the full ladder.

Sources & method. Chargeback windows, UPI dispute mechanics, friendly-fraud consequences, and recovery routes on this page are built from primary and authoritative sources, not personal tests. Key references: RBI’s failed-transaction TAT circular (debited-but-not-credited auto-reversal by T+1, ₹100/day) and the RBI Integrated Ombudsman Scheme 2021 at cms.rbi.org.in; NPCI’s revision of UPI dispute TAT (45-day URCS data window) and the auto accept/reject chargeback rule effective 15 February 2025 (TCC/RET in the next settlement cycle, T+0 initiation) per NPCI circular UPI-OC-No-198-FY-24-25; Visa and Mastercard chargeback rules (120-day cardholder window, up to 540 for future delivery, 30–45-day merchant representment) per network chargeback guides; RBI customer-liability rules (3-working-day fraud report for zero liability, 10-working-day shadow credit); India credit-card chargeback guidance on the 120-day window and friendly-fraud warning; friendly-fraud consequence analysis from chargeback authorities (blacklisting, fraud-network data sharing, 2× merchant cost, ~0.9% ratio threshold); Section 420 IPC / Section 318 BNS cheating provisions and the inception-of-dishonest-intent test; the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 and its Rules effective 1 May 2026; and legal-recovery analysis on void-contract restitution for MeitY-unregistered platforms (Indian Contract Act, Consumer Protection Act 2019, 180-day chargeback parallel route). This page is information, not legal or financial advice — verify each step against your bank’s dispute policy and current law, and never misrepresent an authorised transaction as fraud.