Who performs the blocking on a Visa card?
It is the people who you bought the ticket from. Blocking is frequently done by hotels, gas stations, or rental car companies. Also, for anything where the credit card might be used to cover any damages or charges you might incur later as part of the transaction. In essence, they are reserving part of your credit limit, ostensibly to cover charges they reasonably expect you might incur. For example, when you start pumping gas using a credit card they may block out $100 to make sure you don't pump a full tank and your credit card is declined because you ran over your limit at $3.  In general, the blocks clear fairly quickly after you settle up with the company on your final bill. You can also ask the company to clear the block, but I don't think they are required to by law in any specific time period. It may be up to their (and your) agreement with the credit card company. Normally it isn't an issue and you don't even notice this going on behind the scenes, but if you keep your credit card near its limit, or use a debit card it can lead to nasty surprises (e.g. they can make you overdraw your account). One more reason not to use debit cards. More information is available here on the Federal Trade Commission's website. The request to block the money is made by the Party who sells the product. Based on this request the Bank blocks the funds. Subsequently the Party who sold the product makes a charge against this block. Just to give an easy example; So in the online train booking there are multiple messages sent between the Bank and SNCF. Something has gone wrong. It looks like the message from Bank sending back the Block reference number to SNCF has not reached. So as per Bank there is a Block and as per SNCF there is no block. Keep chasing SNCF to issue a letter so that you can send it to the Bank and get the Block removed. Typically the Blocks by the Bank are for a period of 30 days and if there is no charge against that block it automatically gets reversed. "There are, in fact, two balances kept for your account by most banks that have to comply with common convenience banking laws.  The first is your actual balance; it is simply the sum total of all deposits and withdrawals that have cleared the account; that is, both your bank and the bank from which the deposit came or to which the payment will go have exchanged necessary proof of authorization from the payor, and have confirmed with each other that the money has actually been debited from the account of the payor, transferred between the banks and credited to the account of the payee.  The second balance is the ""available balance"". This is the actual balance, plus any amount that the bank is ""floating"" you while a deposit clears, minus any amount that the bank has received notice of that you may have just authorized, but for which either full proof of authorization or the definite amount (or both) have not been confirmed. This is what's happening here. Your bank received notice that you intended to pay the train company $X. They put an ""authorization hold"" on that $X, deducting it from your available balance but not your actual balance. The bank then, for whatever reason, declined to process the actual transaction (insufficient funds, suspicion of theft/fraud), but kept the hold in place in case the transaction was re-attempted. Holds for debit purchases usually expire between 1 and 5 days after being placed if the hold is not subsequently ""settled"" by the merchant providing definite proof of amount and authorization before that time. The expiration time mainly depends on the policy of the bank holding your account. Holds can remain in place as long as thirty days for certain accounts or types of payment, again depending on bank policy. In certain circumstances, the bank can remove a hold on request. But it is the bank, and not the merchant, that you must contact to remove a hold or even inquire about one."
Generally, credit card networks (as opposed to debit/ATM cards that may or may not have Visa/MC logos) have a rule that a merchant must accept any credit card with their logo. Visa rules for merchants in the US say it explicitly: Accept all types of valid Visa cards. Although Visa card acceptance   rules may vary based on country specific requirements or local   regulations, to offer the broadest possible range of payment options   to cardholder customers, most merchants choose to accept all   categories of Visa debit, credit, and prepaid cards.* Unfortunately the Visa site for China is in Chinese, so I can't find similar reference there. You can complain against a merchant who you think had violated Visa rules here. That said, its not a law, its a contract between the merchant processor and the Visa International organization, and merchants are known to break these rules here and there (most commonly - refusing to accept foreign cards, including in the US). Also, local laws may affect these contracts (for example, in the US it is legal to set minimum amount requirements when accepting credit cards). This only affects credit card processing, and merchants that don't accept credit cards may still accept debit cards since those work in different networks, under a different set of rules. Those who accept credit cards, are also required to accept debit cards (at least if used as credit). "Did you even read the article?  These were people who went into the store and did this in person.  there are no ""orders"" to cancel.  As for invalidating the cards, again, the article stated that many people took the Target gift cards and used them to buy Amex and Visa gift cards.    tl;dr **RTFA**" Having worked at a financial institution, this is a somewhat simple, two-part solution. 1) The lendor/vendor/financial institution simply turns off the overdraft protection in all its forms. If no funds are available at a pin-presented transaction, the payment is simply declined. No fee, no overdraft, no mess. 2) This sticking point for a recurring transaction, is that merchants such as Netflix, Gold's Gym etc, CHOOSE to allow payments like this, BECAUSE they are assured they are going to get paid by the financial institution. It prevents them from having issues. Only a gift card will not cost you more money than you put in, BUT I know of several institutions, that too many non-payment periods can cause them to cease doing business with you in the future. TL:DR/IMO If you don't want to pay more than you have, gift cards are the way to go. You can re-charge them whenever you choose, and should you run into a problem, simply buy a new card and start over. "Having worked in the financial industry, I can say 9:10 times a card is blocked, it is not actually the financial industry, but a credit/credit card monitoring service like ""Falcon"" for VISA. If you have not added travel notes or similar, they will decline large, our of country purchases as a way to protect you, from what is most likely fraud. Imagine if you were living in Sweden and making regular steady purchases, then all of a sudden, without warning your card was used in Spain. This would look suspicious on paper, even it was obvious to you.  This is less to do with your financial institution, and more to do with increased fraud prevention. Call your bank. They will help you." Security in the merchant services system is mainly handled in two ways: 1) Before transactions are done, the business itself must go through an application process similar (but not identical) to getting a loan.  Some high risk businesses must pay higher fees due to the increased likelihood of customer complaints. 2) When a customer disputes a transaction, that's a mark against the business.  Get too many of these disputes, and your priviledge of accepting credit cards will be revoked, meaning you won't be able to again. It's in the merchant's best interest to verify customer's identity, because disputes cost them money directly.  It's in the servicer's best interest to verify the businesses integrity, because fraud drives up the cost for everyone else. As a whole, it's quite a reactionary system, yet in practice it works remarkably well. I have a visa with Scotiabank and I purposefully keep a negative balance at times. The guy at the bank said it was a great idea. I have never received a cheque, nor do I want one. The reason is that it allows me to make quick purchases without having to worry about paying back and due dates. Only with large purchases do I allow myself to do that. I still check in with my account every once in a while just to make sure everything is all right. It allows for good money management and piece of mind. I have been doing it for a couple of years and have not been penalized at all. (Wouldn't really make sense to do so though.) If the cards are tied to a specific vendor, they will work only at that vendor. If they're generic cards just charged with a specific amount of money, they should work at any vendor who accepts that card network... though there may be specific exceptions. This is a question with a flawed premise.  Credit cards do have two-factor authentication on transactions they consider more at risk to be fraudulent.  I've had several times when I bought something relatively expensive and unusual for me, where the CC either initially declined and sent me a text asking to confirm immediately (after which they would approve the charges), or approved but sent me a text right away asking to confirm (after which they'd automatically dispute if I told them to).  The first is legitimately what you are asking for; the second is presumably for less risky but still some risk transactions). Ultimately, the reason they don't allow it for every transaction is that not enough people would make use of it to be worth their time to implement it.  Particularly given it slows down the transaction significantly (and look at the complaints at the ~10-15 seconds extra EMV authentication takes, imagine that as a minute or more), I think you'd get a single digit percentage of people using that service. There are thousands of processors. But I explicitly mentioned the customer experience, which is completely different and no matter how much you want your industry experience to matter for that, it doesn't affect it.  This you did not read and comprehend.  Could you clarify for me how VISA/MasterCard managed to block a merchant, who presumably wasn't a direct customer (but instead a payment processor customer), but cannot block a card holder? (yes, this is an honest question)  &gt; Visa and Mastercard prohibited payments to Wikileaks on the basis of WL allegedly facilitating illegal activity. How is that relevant to what PayPal's doing?  The WikiLeaks blockade was clearly political. What makes you say otherwise? And this is political.  &gt; No one is unable to accept payments if they're barred from PayPal.  In this case, yes. So who is morally and/or legally responsible when everyone does the same thing? They could if they wanted. It's of course illegal to do if you didn't authorize it, and to process credit cards, they need to have a relationship with a credit card processing company, which is not so easy to fake - not any Joe could do that using a fake ID. Note that you are protected through your credit card company; if you tell them it's an unauthorized charge, they'll return it to you without discussion. It is then the vendor's duty to prove that it was authorized, and if he cannot, he'll pay extra fees to the processing company. Overall, the risk is very small; it shouldn't be your worry. "File a John Doe lawsuit, ""plaintiff to be determined"", and then subpoena the relevant information from Mastercard.  John Doe doesn't countersue, so you're pretty safe doing this.  But it probably won't work.  Mastercard would quash your subpoena.  They will claim that you lack standing to sue anyone because you did not take a loss (which is a fair point).    They are after the people doing the hacking, and the security gaps which make the hacking possible.  And how those gaps arise among businesses just trying to do their best.  It's a hard problem.  And I've done the abuse wars professionally.  OpSec is a big deal.  You simply cannot reveal your methods or even much of your findings, because that will expose too much of your detection method.  The ugly fact is, the bad guys are not that far from winning, and catching them depends on them unwisely using the same known techniques over and over.  When you get a truly novel technique, it costs a fortune in engineering time to unravel what they did and build defenses against it.  If maybe 1% of attacks are this, it is manageable, but if it were 10%, you simply cannot staff an enforcement arm big enough - the trained staff don't exist to hire (unless you steal them from Visa, Amex, etc.)  So as much as you'd like to tell the public, believe me, I'd like to get some credit for what I've done -- they just can't say much or they educate the bad guys, and then have a much tougher problem later.  Sorry!  I know how frustrating it is! The credit card companies hammered out PCI-DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards).  This is a basic set of security rules and practices which should make hacking unlikely.  Compliance is achievable (not easy), and if you do it, you're off the hook.  That is one way Amy can be entirely not at fault.  Example deleted for length, but as a small business, you just can't be a PCI security expert.  You rely on the commitments of others to do a good job, like your bank and merchant account salesman.  There are so many ways this can go wrong that just aren't your fault.   As to the notion of saying ""it affected Amy's customers but it was Doofus the contractor's fault"", that doesn't work, the Internet lynch mob won't hear the details and will kill Amy's business. Then she's suing Mastercard for false light, a type of defamtion there the facts are true but are framed falsely.   And defamation has much more serious consequences in Europe.  Anyway, even a business not at fault has to pay for a PCI-DSS audit.  A business at fault has lots more problems, at the very least paying $50-90 per customer to replace their cards.  The simple fact is 80% of businesses in this situation go bankrupt at this point.   Usually fraudsters make automated attacks using scripts they got from others.  Only a few dozen attacks (on sites) succeed, and then they use other scripts to intercept payment data, which is all they want. They are cookie cutter scripts, and aren't customized for each site, and can't go after whatever personal data is particular to that site. So in most cases all they get is payment data. It's also likely that primary data, like a cloud drive, photo collection or medical records, are kept in completely separate systems with separate security, unlikely to hack both at once even if the hacker is willing to put lots and lots of engineering effort into it.  Most hackers are script kiddies, able to run scripts others provided but unable to hack on their own.   So it's likely that ""none was leaked"" is the reason they didn't give notification of private information leakage.  Lastly, they can't get what you didn't upload.  Site hacking is a well known phenomenon.  A person who is concerned with privacy is cautious to not put things online that are too risky.  It's also possible that this is blind guesswork on the part of Visa/MC, and they haven't positively identified any particular merchant, but are replacing your cards out of an abundance of caution." I'm not sure if this is what your looking for but my favorite piece of work was credit card fraud and ways banks are preventing it.   Topics included:  -Family's at risk (who has the most risk?) -Credit card strip vs chip -Cost on chip scanners for local businesses -Apple Pay and the likelihood of getting hacked -Insurance and how it will cover a business with out chip readers -example of chipotle and target getting hacked -bitcoin and is it an easier source   I wrote a paper about 4 years ago, and it had multiple finance topics involved into it.   Hope this at least gives you a direction of what your looking for ! "Banks are businesses, and as such should have the right to refuse service, so they should probably be able to choose one customer over another at will.   [I say ""should"" because business owners protecting themselves against litigation related to discrimination could restrict their freedom as business owners.] However, banks are businesses and if the customers are identical, both will be approved (or not) according to credit records.  Does not make sense to approve one person with a given credit record and refuse someone with a similar record.  Unless they barely qualify.  Since no two credit histories are identical, there are surely edge cases. Finally, if a customer is a long term customer with large deposits and/or significant amounts of business with the bank, the bankers will likely be inclined to do more business." "American Express is great for this use case -- they have two user roles ""Account Agent"" and ""Account Manager"" which allow you to designate logins to review your account details or act on your behalf to pay bills or request service. This scheme is designed for exactly what you are doing and offers you more security and less hassle. More details here." "First - Welcome to Money.SE. You gave a lot of detail, and it's tough to parse out the single question. Actually, you have multiple issues. $1300 is what you need to pay the tax? In the 25% bracket plus 10% penalty, you have a 65% net amount. $1300/.65 = Exactly $2000. You withdraw $2000, have them (the IRA holder) withhold $700 in federal tax, and you're done.  All that said, don't do it. Nathan's answer - payment plan with IRS - is the way to go.  You've shared with us a important issue. Your budget is running too tight. We have a post here, ""the correct order of investing"" which provides a great guideline that applies to most visitors. You are missing the part that requires a decent sized emergency fund. In your case, calling it that, may be a misnomer, as the tax bill isn't an unexpected emergency, but something that should have been foreseeable. We have had a number of posts here that advocate the paid in full house. And I always respond that the emergency fund comes first. With $70K of income, you should have $35K or so of liquidity, money readily available. Tax due in April shouldn't be causing you this grief. Please read that post I linked and others here to help you with the budgeting issue.  Last - You are in an enviable position, A half million dollars, no mortgage, mid 40s. Easily doing better than most. So, please forgive the soapbox tone of the above, it was just my ""see, that's what I'm talking about"" moment from my tenure here."