TC15 Is Not What You Think It Is - The Mistake Can Cost You
- 23 hours ago
- 1 min read
In payments and banking, small misunderstandings create large consequences. A single misinterpreted scheme code can distort reporting, risk modelling and even compliance positioning. But this is exactly what is currently happening with TC15: even the most trusted sources are repeating the same error. Google searches, AI summaries and several leading FinTech blogs describe TC15 as if it covers non-fraud disputes only. I even repeated that interpretation publicly myself.
But that statement was wrong. And if your compliance framework assumes that “TC15 equals non-fraud only,” then your monitoring logic is built on a structural error.
VAMP does not look at fraud in isolation from disputes but about how the overall health of the merchant portfolio performs against defined thresholds. If a compliance team assumes TC15 excludes fraud, they may underestimate dispute exposure, but if they assume TC40 alone represents fraud impact, they may miscalculate portfolio ratios. In a monitoring model where thresholds trigger penalties, reserve increases or structural pressure on providers, such misunderstandings distort decision making.
When a provider’s internal reporting misaligns with scheme definitions, the first sign may appear as unexpected penalties or escalations however by the time management investigates, the flawed interpretation may already be embedded in dashboards and board reports. This is a governance gap, not many businesses address.
