Layman wrote:chiaroscuro wrote:premio wrote:Safaricom is the one driving mpesa fraud, a friend sent 45000ksh to a wrong number and reported to c.service cant beleive that the transaction could not be reversed coz the guy had bought ksh 50 airtime leaving 44950ksh meaning safaricon will only reverse a transaction if full amount sent is still intact and they told him to report to police this is crazy no wonder repeat offenders still draw money using the same number several times. I think any line that draws money sent by mistake should be blocked for good or cash recovered after any amount is loaded thats how they will increase confidence in MPESA security.
That is IMPOSSIBLE!
Don't we simply lift the number from the phonebook?How can you then say you sent to the wrong number?
That problem was solved a long time ago.
tell your friend to change to a modern SIM card - it will cost only 50 bob.
Really, I could easily delete your wife's number or husband's number (for example) from your phonebook and save my number using their names. If you scroll you will pick the "wife" of "husband's" name and you will M-Pesa me thinking its your wife or husband. Mistakes happen and sending money to the wrong number is just a mistake like any other and can happen to anyone
@Layman - you must take requisite care with your money (when sending it), you cannot make errors and apportion blame on the provider of the platform - that is just lame. Mpesa has other genuine problems, yours really isn't.
There are 2 plausible explanations why reversing transfers is a tedious process:
1) Mpesa has to discourage the thing where people send money to pay for services then go back and cancel the transfer - if this was to become an acute problem people would stop trusting the platform. Your losing money is a painful lesson to the user to be very careful the next time round. It is the price of maintaining trust in the system.
2) Contrary to popular belief, Safaricom does not own 100% policy control over Mpesa, ..the facility is owned by Vodafone (its called VMT). As such, Safaricom has to abide by the license terms (I am guessing 1 above would fall under such)