I'd warn them that if they can't help you you might be considering a new bank soon.(You don't have to mean it......just make it sound plausible.) 9 times out of 10 they'll give in or transfer the call to someone with the authority to do so(half the time those first tier service reps either can't authorize some shite due to tight company policy, or they can but either don't know how or can't be arsed to find out how.

Yeah, that was a part of my better thought out post that it wouldn't let me make. I'd kinda rather try the visa contact option first though as it may provide a way for me to put the matter to rest permanently through pressure from a contract with a major corporation. If hedwards is right and Visa can just tell my bank that it violates the terms of their contract then not only would it solve the problem for now but it would never be a problem again. Very few are brave enough to risk their relationship with Visa.

If it turns out Visa can't do anything about it then I guess i'll just have to play the irate customer with my bank and hope they cave. Sadly i'm somewhat broke atm so I dunno how much weight the "i'll switch banks" argument will have other than from a pure customer relations stand point.

Yeah, you're pretty well stuck arguing it with your bank. Visa will not go to bat for you.

Your bank's or your prepaid card issuer's contract with Visa does not specify that they must accept just any charge. This is especially so in "card not present" transactions, which include all Internet transactions. They may decline charges when their fraud prevention program identifies a charge as possibly fraudulent. Blanket declines of charges from merchants in certain countries are not encouraged, but neither are they ruled out.

That would surprise me a great deal. Last time I looked into it on Visa's site they were pretty clear about the cards being good at any merchant that accepts their cards anywhere in the world. I have a hard time believing that either Visa or Mastercard is going to allow issuers to screw them over like that.

Even my incredibly risk averse CC company only flags the transactions pending verification.

To be fair, I think it's actually a bit of both. My company had the same issues for a long time being based in Cambodia (where we enjoy some of the lowest taxes in Asia, and paying them is somewhat optional). The fact is, that it's a tax haven as well as a fraud haven. However in this case, the bank should be able to look at gog and see that this is about tax, not fraud.

When you contact Visa be sure to ask to be put in touch with someone in a higher level of customer support as usually when you call banks/companies they send you through the lower level "dumb as shit answers" tier of customer service reps first before actually considering transferring you to someone that actually CAN help you.
This. If Visa says their cards are accepted wherever the logo is present then any bank/etc issuing a card with the Visa logo has to allow such charges through eventually.

Which is why I said EVENTUALLY. Sometimes some purchases will be declined by the card issuer due to fraud concerns and the like but usually after straightening it out with them they usually let it through.

Not to mention in that case he's referring to vendors not accepting his card not the bank that issued the card declining the charge. There's quite a bit of difference between the two.

Card not present transactions have different rules. Visa's advertising does not cover the legitimate exceptions, and a foreign card not present transaction has already started to raise flags.

No issuer would be so stupid as to warrant that their card will be honored for just any transaction with just any merchant. Nor would Visa Int. be so stupid as to force them to do so.

Still, an issuer that does blanket declines for any country (unless that country is, say, North Korea) is turning down good business, and that is always a bad move.

I disagree, it's none of their business with whom I do business. So long as I'm legally allowed to conduct the transaction they have no right to tell me I can't do it.

Now, holding up a transaction for verification is the proper response for times when they don't think that the risk of fraud is acceptable, but ultimately, it's my money and if I agreed to pay the money then they have an obligation to conduct the transaction. If a merchant is that dishonest then the processor contract should be covering that.

And like I suggested, if I can't use my Visas or Mastercards to do business with everybody that accepts those cards because of a blanket ban of that merchant, then why are they even allowed to take cards? The only reason I can think of for a ban of that sort is a history of fraud by that party, and in that case they shouldn't be allowed to accept CC transactions.

CC are significantly less useful if you can't just assume that if you authorize the transaction that it will go through. This is precisely the sort of crap that PayPal pulls which leads me to not use them if at all possible.

You can disagree all you like. Won't do anything to get Visa to allow you to use your CC under conditions where the issuer has decided they will not do business because of the risk of fraud. Whether this makes a lie of their advertising is of little concern to them and probably affords you no way to seek redress.

Pretty much all Visa card issuers now have country block lists. Each one has its own. Some of these are really damn extreme; I'm looking at one that reads "Mexico, Turkey, Thailand, Croatia, Nigeria, Bangladesh, South Africa, Honduras, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, Ukraine, Singapore, Hong Kong, Spain, Taiwan, Russian Federation, Romania, Italy, Australia." (Frontier Community Credit Union, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas) Lists like this usually mean that the issuer will automatically decline any transaction from a merchant located in these countries. Not just require additional verification. Decline, period, no recourse other than changing card issuers. Worst case, they can freeze your card for an attempted transaction that crosses their fraud threshold.

Credit unions are the worst for this. Prepaid Visa issuers are right behind. Commercial banks, which are more used to international transactions, are generally less restrictive. But, sad to say, none of them violate Visa policy. Indeed, I expect Visa policy and their contracts with these issuers require them to maintain fraud prevention programs.

I find it hard to believe that such preferential blocking of legitimate sales(especially if you're using a debit card linked to your own money) can be legal.

Given the tremendous frequency of fraudulent attempts to charge phished credit or debit cards, I'm not surprised at all. If the transaction turns out to be fraudulent, the bank must make good the money fraudulently taken from your account and has not a snowball's chance in Hell of recovering from the fraudster.

Middlemen really hate losing money on transactions, and if they see that a certain type of transaction is frequently the subject of an attempted or successful fraud, they will refuse to handle that kind of transaction. Thinking that sort of thing would be illegal is at best naive.

I would boycott such behavior then, and get another bank asap. If not illegal that kind of behavior seems at the very least like utter bullshite.