Re: Doesn't sound too bright
A) The purchase was allegedly fraudulent, the 6 year old was impersonating the logged in user, therefore identity theft.
B) Did the purchase match normal patterns? If not normal bank/card companies would block payment due to possible fraud, just because it is on the account doesn't mean it was them, the same way just because I used your card details doesn't mean it was you.
C) How did Paypal transfer funds to pay for the purchase? Did the account have that much sat there in Paypal? I doubt it. Did they have a linked card / bank account? £19k would have been rejected by either or triggered a notification for confirmation. Hell of an overdraft facility Paypal are now providing.
Looks like Paypal have fucked up, he should sue them for £19,000.01 + costs.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
