Nordstrom IT Lapse Fueled $1.5 Million Fraud

Written by Frank Hayes
March 22nd, 2012

Nordstrom found itself paying nearly $1.5 million last year in a scam that was ironically made possible because the chain had banned two brothers, and then compounded the problem with what Nordstrom described as “a lapse in communication” with an affiliate.

The retailer’s system for blacklisting lost-package fraudsters worked fine. So did its system for sending commissions to affiliates. But no one ever realized that the two systems might someday interact. After all, why would a blacklisted fraudster keep trying to order online, knowing the order would always be blocked? How likely was that? And the thing that made the systems interact was something that Nordstrom’s software developers had no control over: the homegrown system that the affiliate site used to handle Nordstrom orders. That’s what couldn’t be tested until a problem actually showed up.

On March 14, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Seattle charged Allen J. and Andrew S. Chiu with wire fraud after the two ordered $23 million in merchandise from Nordstrom through its affiliate FatWallet. The brothers knew the orders wouldn’t go through, because the retailer had already blackballed them. But they also knew they would collect half of FatWallet’s 7 percent commission on the orders, due to a communication glitch between Nordstrom and FatWallet.

According to the indictment, the Chius (Allen from Dallas, Andrew from Anaheim) first showed up on Nordstrom’s fraud radar in 2008, when the retailer notified both brothers that they could no longer shop online at “because of their excessive claims for refunds purportedly due to lost or undelivered merchandise.”

Ironically, it was because Nordstrom blacklisted the brothers that they became eligible for their much bigger fraud.

The pair discovered that their orders were refused whether they tried ordering directly or through FatWallet, an affiliate site that splits its commission with shoppers who buy through the site. But due to what a Nordstrom spokesperson called “a lapse in communication” with FatWallet, when an order was blocked, Nordstrom still paid the commission.

“As a result, no merchandise was ever shipped to Allen Chiu or Andrew Chiu, and none of the credit cards they submitted for the attempted purchases were ever charged,” the indictment said.

But “Nordstrom continued to make commission payments to FatWallet, based on those blocked purchases, and FatWallet, in turn, continued to credit Allen Chiu and Andrew Chiu with the cash-back awards based on those blocked purchases,” the indictment continued. “Between January 2010 and December 2011, Allen Chiu and Andrew Chiu fraudulently submitted approximately $23 million in purchase orders on, and successfully obtained more than $650,000 in undeserved cash-back payments before their scheme was discovered.”


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.