It just seems as if quality control in the process of "screening" borrowers is handled haphazard at best. If not handled in a way that would be considered blatantly reckless and expose potential lenders to undue risk.
One of the highly screened loan applicants from xcoins.. Can't believe he did a charge back..
Brandon Robert Kling.
http://mugshots.com/US-Counties/Georgia/Fulton-County-GA/Brandon-R-Kling.152148758.htmlSetting the mugshot and long criminal history for theft aside; as I doubt xcoins runs a criminal background check. If I look at the information provided or that xcoins had access to prior to them pairing him with a lender for a loan its pretty obvious that a 6 year old mentally handicapped monkey would of noticed a red flag or two.
First off.
His billing address: 2909 W 15th St, Plano, TX 75075 Oddly enough this comes back to Wu Wei Din Chinese Cuisine (The address is a Chinese restaurant in a strip mall in Texas)
Address on his ID 223 valley brook dr woodstock, Ga 30188-1787 Comes to his deceased mothers home whom died over a year ago
http://www.lakesidefuneralhomega.com/memsol.cgi?user_id=1745143His IP 174.228.4.59 This is from Tampa Tampa, Florida 33622, US
So basically none of his information lines up, not even remotely. I have looked at the majority of charge backs and it seems as if each and everyone there are discrepancies like this. IP does not match ID address, ID address does not match billing address, billing address does not match IP location etc.
That said I think that approvals have been handled recklessly on the part of Xcoin. Especially in light of the fact that their "boiler plate" dispute text for paypal states:
The payment was authorized. The buyer made the payment through the site XCOINS. He/she submitted a photo of himself holding a sign with the word "XCOINS" on it. He also submitted his photo ID to verify his identity. Additionally, he confirmed his account at the site by email.
The buyer's IP address was analyzed and determined to match his billing address.Obviously we see that this is not the case.
I'm just saying that someone over there needs to get their head screwed back on in the right direction and perhaps reevaluate the screening process and or provide some remedial training for what I presume are employees conducting the screening.