[downtownfunding]

We are seeing an exponential increase in the number of merchants that are coming back with 'Fraudulent / Manipulated Banks' from Data Merch. There is something, especially after 13 years in this industry and knowing the people in it, that really does not sit right with me about individuals deciding that banks are manipulated. In my opinion this should require some sort of verification in order to be a DataMerch entry. Someone should have to have found evidence of the manipulation during a manual login or decision logic.

I think this needs to be an issue that is highlighted here. DataMerch has done great things for the due diligence capabilities of firms in this industry, but there should be a standard here. We are double checking on some of these accounts who's only negative factor seems to be the datamerch entries, and we just logged into a merchant with 'fake banks' only to verify everything on each statement, this is the eighth time this month. This is too much.

[Back Pocket Funder]

I couldn't agree more with a post. I once had a bank fax me statements directly for a merchant. A few lenders came back saying fraudulent and he was then added to data merch. Still managed to get him funded and have been renewing ever since.... Not saying data merch doesnt save a ton of lenders money but it shouldnt be looked at like its the law of the land especially if you can provide proof like direct logins.

[DailyCloser]

The issue with this is if a merchant sends fraudulent bank statements lets say in 2021 but in 2023 they decide to send real ones, they still had intent to defraud a funder in the past. If the merchants disagrees with the report, they can call the funder & data merch to dispute it.

Majority of the time these incidences are reported its for valid reasons.

[alexd12345]

We are seeing an exponential increase in the number of merchants that are coming back with 'Fraudulent / Manipulated Banks' from Data Merch. There is something, especially after 13 years in this industry and knowing the people in it, that really does not sit right with me about individuals deciding that banks are manipulated. In my opinion this should require some sort of verification in order to be a DataMerch entry. Someone should have to have found evidence of the manipulation during a manual login or decision logic.

I think this needs to be an issue that is highlighted here. DataMerch has done great things for the due diligence capabilities of firms in this industry, but there should be a standard here. We are double checking on some of these accounts who's only negative factor seems to be the datamerch entries, and we just logged into a merchant with 'fake banks' only to verify everything on each statement, this is the eighth time this month. This is too much.

All day I have this and with longtime merchants that I have beeen dealing with for many years and dont beleiev they would be doing this. doesnt mean its always bs but alot of these funders who dont wanna get stacked would have motivation to put that false info in to try to keep future fundings/stacks away. Data Merch needs to implement a rule that you cant just post without receipts. All day fundworks( the most for me ) and others decline merchants for their data merch findings. Not reliable.

[Inquisitive]

I’ve had situations in the past and advised the merchant to file a dispute with datamerch. There is a dispute process. If it comes back declined in datamerch then you are doing your merchants a disservice to not tell them to dispute it. It’s a super simple process and once the dispute is filed and if the merchant wins you can just send the file back to the funder who declined it. I’ve seen merchants win but I’ve also seen them lose.