Banking industry consultant ActonFS.com is running a countdown clock to remind banks of the looming deadline.

You didn't think banks would forgo billions of dollars in overdraft fee revenue without a fight, did you?

As an Aug. 15 congressionally imposed deadline approaches to stop collecting fees for most debit card-related overdrafts, banks are blanketing account holders with pitches designed to entice them back into the costly programs. Consumers are seeing pop-up ads when they log in to their online banking accounts and getting paper notices in the mail. Some are even getting pitched at bank branches or ATMs.

The enticements hawk rebranded overdraft coverage with varied names -- "courtesy pay," "Buffer Zone," "debit card advance," or simply "debit card overdraft coverage." But most of the pitches evoke the same logic: "If you want your account to continue to work as it does today, you will need to let us know," as one Chase ad says.

Banks currently often allow consumers to spend money they don't have in their checking accounts through a swipe of their debit card in a store or through an ATM withdrawal. Then they charge consumers about $35 for each transaction that exceeds their account balance.  New Federal Reserve will require banks to decline those transactions as of Aug. 15 unless consumers have "opted-in" for overdraft coverage.

The new rules do not apply to paper checks or other forms of electronic payments.

Fearing a sharp loss in revenue, banks are making a hard sell to consumers to protect as much of that income as possible.

"NO FEE to keep Courtesy Pay Overdraft Protection coverage on your account. NO FEE if you never use it," brags a solicitation from the Arizona State Credit Union.

Some banks are even taking the opportunity to create new products, such as Citizens Bank's "BufferZone." According to a description of a bank brochure provided to msnbc.com by Jean Ann Fox of the Consumer Federation of America, consumers can pay $4.99 per month to buy a $30 "buffer" on their checking accounts.

"That means overdrafts will be paid and the overdraft fees waived as long as the overdrawn balance does not exceed the $30 buffer," the brochure says. "Keep small misses small.  Sometimes it happens:  your account is overdrawn by a couple of dollars, or even just a few cents.  With BufferZone you can rest easy knowing that your small misses will stay small."

If you doubt the importance of the change, a visit to banking consultant Acton Marketing's Web site will probably change your mind.  The site, which hosts a countdown clock that is ticking down the seconds to Aug. 15, brags that its marketing materials will help persuade "stubborn" consumers to opt-in.

Various estimates suggest that banks stand to lose between $10 billion and $15 billion in annual overdraft revenue from the change. Chase alone says it will lose $700 million in fee-based revenue this year.

As banks scramble to sign up as many consumers as possible, consumer advocates are crying foul. They charge that the banks' ads are misleading and that many are failing to clearly tell consumers they have far less expensive options for  debit card overdrafts.

"The choice is between paying nothing and paying what they are charging," Fox said. "But we are starting to hear from people being asked (to sign up for overdraft coverage) over and over and over, every time they log in."

'If you don't do anything you won't pay anything'
Lauren Bowne, a staff attorney at Consumers Union, says the fact that any consumers have opted in to bank overdraft programs suggests the ads are misleading.

"If you don't do anything you won't pay anything. That's what all banks fail to say," she said.  "Who knows what people are being told and why they are opting in."

It's hard to conjure up a scenario where overdraft coverage is a sensible way to cover a short-term cash shortfall, and the Consumer Federation of America recommends that account holders simply ditch the bank pitches.  Still, there are some indications that marketing materials are working.

A survey by research firm The Nielsen Co. released in June found that 26 percent of consumers intended to opt in, and another 39 percent were undecided. An anonymous executive quoted in the American Banker last month said that 60 percent of consumers opt in when told their cash withdrawal requests will otherwise be denied at an ATM. And a reader who told Consumerist.com that he was a bank employee, claimed last month that 19 out of 20 account holders consent to opt in when pitched directly by a bank teller.

"All you have to do to get an almost definite yes is explain that opting in will keep their account exactly the way it is now. People are scared of change so they'll opt in to avoid change," he wrote.

'Do you want to pay 18 percent, or 120 percent, or 900 percent?'
The problem, Fox says, is that consumers aren't getting enough information to make an informed choice about the overdraft coverage. For years, consumer groups have argued that automatic overdraft coverage is a short-term loan, and should be covered by the Truth in Lending Act. If it were, many overdraft fees would be computed at 900 percent annual interest or more, and that rate would be included in all marketing materials.  By that measure, other sources of short-term funding -- even many credit card cash advances -- would be cheaper. In fact, most consumers would be better off using a different product already offered by their bank.

"Banks need to spell this out in a clear format, " Fox said. "We have recommended that (the Fed) require banks to present the information in clear tabular format so, consumers see what all their options are and what they cost. When they say, 'Let us continue to cover your overdrafts, they're not giving you the cost information.  It should say, do you want to pay 18 percent, or 120 percent, or 900 percent ?'"

A collection of Consumer groups took on Chase earlier this year when it sent out mailers that they said were intentionally confusing and failed to mention the $34 fee that consumer would pay for overdrafts if they opted in to Chase's overdraft coverage.

"The initial solicitation used scare tactics," said the Consumer Union's Bowne. It implied that consumers would lose rights and their debit cards would no longer work the same way if they didn't opt in, she said.

Chase altered its pitch materials, following some of the consumer groups' recommendations.

"Our goal with this process is to let consumers know there's a change coming, and encourage them to make an informed decision," said Chase spokesman Tom Kelly. He would not say how many account holders had signed up for the coverage. He described Chase's debit card overdraft coverage as part of "triple protection" consumers can have against overdrawing their accounts, along with other overdraft tools such as a linked savings account and text message alerts about low balances.

Not everyone is being inundated with opt-in ads, Bowne said. She said banks are specifically targeting consumers who she says can least afford it: account holders who have a chronically low balance. Marketing materials at Acton seem to support that claim.

"What you need to do to acquire the highest number of opt-ins, especially from the most important group — the regular NSF (non-sufficient funds) users," the firm says on its Web site.

Not all banks are joining the opt-in marketing party. Bank of America has already changed its overdraft policy and simply will not let consumers overdraw their accounts through debit card purchases. Other banks, such as like USAA Federal Savings Bank, have never allowed such overdrafts.

But the easy money is too hard for many institutions to pass up.  When a consumer with a low balance swipes a debit card to pay for a transaction that would throw their account in the red, banks that don't allow the purchase lose two revenue streams: the potential overdraft fees and the interchange fee collected from the merchant for performing the transaction.  if consumers get in the habit of pulling out another bank's credit card for transactions like these, debit-card issuing banks stand to lose millions in interchange fees, too.

Banks can continue to sign up customers after Aug. 15, so while account holders should expect a crescendo of overdraft protection marketing pitches in the next few weeks, they will continue for months.

"This whole monster has kept growing and growing since we first ran across it," Fox said.  "It's not going away. … There's billions of dollars on the table."

Red Tape Wrestling Tips
It's always important to have a financial plan B. Many folks never think they'll face a negative account balance, yet by some estimates one in three account holders paid at least one overdraft fee last year. Even if you aren't at risk today, now is the time to prepare for a financial slipup.

But there is massive confusion over the best way to do that. You can decide if that's intentional or accidental, but let me sort it out for you.

The short answer: There is no reason for the vast majority of people to opt in for courtesy pay or whatever else it's called. The good news is, the default choice is the right choice, so you don't have to do anything. If you have already opted-in, the bank must allow you to opt back out, and you should.

But you should also find another plan B, and that's where the confusion comes in.

There is good overdraft coverage, and evil overdraft coverage.  With good coverage, you are borrowing your own money, which is relatively cheap. With "courtesy pay" or "automatic overdraft coverage" you are borrowing the bank's money, which is very costly.

There are three easy ways to provide good overdraft protection:  You can link a savings account, credit card or line of credit to your checking account. Once you do, if you bounce a check or exceed your balance with a purchase, the money will be dragged from your savings, credit card or line of credit into your checking account to cover the balance.

There is a cost involved. Chase charges $10 for each automatic transfer from savings to checking, for example.  But that's still quite a bit cheaper than $35. Also, courtesy pay can result in multiple $35 charges for separate transactions on the same day, while linked accounts lead to only a single charge for each day.

Also, it's important to note that courtesy pay isn't guaranteed. Banks cover charges at their discretion. Finally, banks that extended overdraft coverage grab their money the instant account holders make their next deposit, which can lead to more low-balance troubles. Consumers who take advantage of linked accounts can replace the money at their discretion.

Many bank tellers aren't well trained in these distinctions, so it's important that consumers ask for them by name, Fox says.

"Say you want to link your checking account to your savings account. Don't ask for overdraft anything, there's too much confusion about what you are asking," Fox said.

Here's a handy chart of bank overdraft fees and estimated APRs.

"Looking to please and to be pleased," said the ad, posted on Craigslist's Oklahoma area website in the "casual encounters" category on June 25.  It detailed various sex acts the poster would voluntarily engage in, much of the explicit language unpublishable here.  Then this: "I will do group sex or one on one or with other women. ... My mother might join us. Her name is Pam." At the end, there was a name, a telephone number and a plea for calls. 

Pam, however, has no interest in random sex, and neither does her daughter, whose full name and phone number was listed. The ad was posted by an impostor.

Still, the 19-year-old woman found herself on the other end of a series of surprising and disturbing calls.  Only after one caller volunteered some information did she learn the harassing calls were coming as a result of a Craigslist ad.

"They said it was a civil matter," she said.  "The ad was rude and vulgar in every way you can think of. These two people put my daughter's life in danger by every perv that read that Craigslist ad, and no one seems to care."

The ads, and the indifference, are an increasing problem, says Parry Aftab, an Internet safety expert.

"It's very 'high school' behavior, but the problem is people can get really hurt," she said.

'You don't know how far it will go'
Aftab calls the fake Craigslist ad problem "cyberstalking by proxy,"  in which angry revenge seekers -- often former lovers -- involve a third party in their attacks. 

"The problem is when another person is involved, you don't know how far it will go. It's totally out of control and there's no way you can pull it back," Aftab said. "This is an example we use when people say, 'hey, it's just words,' why we say they are wrong.  This is so much more than words. This is lighting a match and throwing it into a dry forest."

Last month in Wyoming, a man was sentenced to 60 years in prison for using a fake Craigslist ad to encourage men to rape his former girlfriend. Jebidiah James Stipe pretended to be the woman and posted an ad saying she wanted someone to break into her house and fulfill a rape fantasy. The attacker, Ty Oliver McDowell, is also serving a 60-year sentence.

Posting someone's phone number on Craigslist is the 21st Century equivalent of the "for a good time" bathroom wall inscriptions, but one that can bring far more serious consequences. 

"If you're in a men's bathroom stall that says 'For a good time call Sally,' you know Sally didn't write the ad," Aftab said. "But writing online in the virtual bathroom wall, it can be believable.  And 500,000 people can see it all over the world."

In Pam's case, the imposter seemed to be deliberate about the post. The telephone number was spelled out – rather than typed numerically – to evade searches and filters that might have discovered it more quickly.

More personal details shared
But Pam and her daughter say they have more to worry about than a few disturbing phone calls. One of the callers explained under questioning that he had corresponded via e-mail with whomever posted the ad and that the writer told him personal information about the woman, including when she gets out of college classes each night.

"We don't know what else (they) told the others," Pam said. To find out, she'd need copies of the e-mails, but the e-mail provider – Yahoo.com – won't cough them up without a court order delivered by a law enforcement agency. That help, so far, hasn't come.

Nearly 10 years ago, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a report saying that a "lack of training" sometimes hindered local law enforcement response to online harassment.  The report relayed this story:

"A woman filed a complaint with her local police agency after receiving numerous telephone calls in response to a notice posted on the Web by a man claiming her 9-year-old daughter was available for sex, and providing her home phone number with instructions to call 24 hours a day. The agency's response was that she should change her telephone number," the agency wrote in the report, titled "Stalking and Domestic Violence." 

Since then, numerous states have added or amended laws to provide additional prosecutorial tools to law enforcement, and Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act in 2005.

Still, the problem persists.

Jayne Hitchcock. who runs the group Working to Halt Online Abuse, said that despite laws designed to protect victims and ease prosecution, some law enforcement officials still don't take Internet threats seriously enough.

"She's in fear for her physical safety. The law should be enforced" Hitchcock said of Pam's daughter.  She said certain regions of the country, such as Texas and neighboring states, have been slow to recognize the seriousness of the issue." Police there often tell (victims) it's a civil matter. It's ridiculous."

It can also be dangerous.  Hitchcock says that stalkers frequently adopt a pattern of escalation.  A prank call is followed by a nastier prank call, which is followed by a threatening Internet post and, sometimes, direct violence.  That's why it's so important for police to respond quickly to cyberthreats.

"The question is always, what will they do next? If not stopped it probably will escalate," she said.

Aftab's WiredSafety.org Web site connects volunteer counselors with victims who suffer cyberbullying, stalking or other forms of harassment.

"This is what we do more than anything else," she said. "We have a whole stalking and harassment team now."

Part of the problem, she said, is that technology continually makes stalking easier, faster and more anonymous.  The explosion of smartphones means would-be harassers can easily post nasty comments and Web ads while sitting at a bar stool.

"The immediacy of mobile technology means people don't have time to calm down. It's causing people to act before they think," she said. "Handheld technology allows you to do something like this while you are drunk at a bar."

Pam and her daughter went to their county courthouse earlier this month and filled out the paperwork necessary to obtain a protective order, including the advertisement as evidence.  On July 9, a judge granted the order, meaning the ex-boyfriend and his wife are barred from contact with the family for three years. Then, despite the initial reaction from local law enforcement that this was a dispute best settled in civil court, she took the order to the sheriff's office and convinced a detective to take a closer look at the case.  Last week, she said, a sheriff's department investigator told her he'd visited the couple and issued a warning. 

Sheriff's Investigator John Bates of the Bryan County (Okla.) Sheriff's Department said he'd taken the complaint, investigated and passed the case on to the district attorney, who is considering pressing charges. When asked if he'd sought a court order for access to Yahoo's e-mail records, he said he "didn't have to," because there was already plenty of evidence against the couple. 

"It wasn't a hard case," he said. If charges are filed, they would likely involve misdemeanor for harassment, Bates said. A repeat case of harassment would incur a felony charge.

But the woman still wants to know what information about her was e-mailed to random strangers cruising Craigslist's casual encounters section.

"They could have told him what classes I take, where I'll be. You never know if one of those guys has been going to that school and looking for me," the daughter said. 

WHAT TO DO IF YOU ARE CYBERSTALKED
The moment a cyberstalking occurs, it's important to contact law enforcement, say both Aftab and Hitchcock. But know that victims often must be persistent to get attention. 

Arriving with detailed printouts and other assembled evidence often helps ease the path to prosecution, Hitchcock said. It's important to make the point that the harassment can mean much more than pixels on a screen.

"(The victim) often has to emphasize, 'I fear for my life,'" she said.

If a police officer is unresponsive, it may be necessary to climb the chain of command – to detective, to police chief, even to the mayor's office. If that doesn't work, Aftab recommends calling the attorney general's office and asking for a victim's advocate or a domestic violence office. Victims can also try calling their local FBI office.  They might end up having to contact a lawyer for help.

It's also important to report the abusive ad as soon as possible. Craigslist supplies a simple online form for doing so.

In general, Hitchcock says it's very important not to respond to an abuser's e-mail post. Additional contact seems to encourage more abusive behavior, she said.

"That's when they know they're getting to you," she said.

Aftab said Internet users should be especially vigilant after a bad breakup. She recommends that victims regularly Google their name, phone number, address and other personal information to help spot abusive posts. Google alerts also can help potential victims stay on top of the problem.

And Hitchcock recommends obtaining professional help for dealing with the psychological fallout – such as an increased sense of paranoia.

"After my incident, I ended up seeing a therapist for a year.  Talking it out with someone not related to me, getting a different point of view on it, getting the fears out, that's very important," she said. "Your sanity is more important than everything else."

For reference: A state-by-state list of stalking related laws.

 Become a Red Tape Chronicles Facebook fan and follow RedTapeChron on Twitter.

Is Facebook the next MySpace or the next eBay? One is the butt of every flash-in-the-pan Internet joke, the other a cash cow that survived terrible growth pains by achieving 800-pound-gorilla status. Which way is Facebook headed?

Elizabeth Warren may run the new bureau.

 There is little debate that the financial reform bill President Barack Obama signed on Wednesday includes the most ambitious consumer-friendly initiative in decades. The question is: Will the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection matter to you? 

The law creating the bureau includes very few new regulations to protect consumers. Instead, you can think of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 as a massive government "reorg." Thousands of regulators from nearly a dozen government agencies will be uprooted and moved to this new bureau, and it will have a new executive drawn from outside their ranks. 

 Management – in this case, Congress – has decided that the regulators were ineffective during the past 10 years, and that a shakeup was needed.  But reorgs can go one of two ways: They can reinvigorate a sleepy organization or they can make a bigger mess. 

You won't care much about the management structure of bank regulators, however.  So here's a look at how this reorg will directly impact you, the consumer, and how that might ultimately determine the bureau's success or failure.

The most noticeable change will be the creation of a toll-free telephone number and Web site where angry consumers can vent their complaints and supposedly apply for redress. Given the number of consumers who complain to Red Tape that they have nowhere to turn when wronged, that's no small thing. Until now, consumers with a gripe had to hunt around for the right agency (The OCC? The FDIC? The FTC?), find the right Web site or phone number, then locate the right form. The new complaint hotline will be a major upgrade. It won't appear for at least several months, however. The legislation gives the agency roughly 18 months to get up and running.

A database of these complaints will also be created and studied for trends, giving the bureau an opportunity to quickly spot new bank shenanigans -- such as new hidden fees -- and quickly react. For example, if the bureau existed several years ago, it might have ruled that over-the-limit credit card fees were unfair and improper within a few months of their emergence.  Instead, Congress passed a law banning these fees, but only after nearly five years of hand-wringing.

The key word, of course, is opportunity. On the day of the agency's creation, there is no telling how effective and bold it will be when actually confronting financial companies.  That will largely depend upon the political power invested in the yet-to-be-appointed director of the agency, who is likely to become a prominent public figure. 

Any rule created by the bureau can be vetoed by a newly formed Financial Stability Oversight Council, which will almost certainly clash with the consumer bureau on regular basis.  A popular consumer agency head with a bully pulpit could beat back this veto power; a government bureaucrat who gets tepid support from Congress and the White House could easily be vetoed to death.

The bureau is part of the larger financial reform legislation, which won approval in the U.S. Senate by the narrowest of margins and already is the subject of repeal threats from Republicans. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., criticized creation of the new consumer bureau as a "political favor" for "community organizer groups and liberal activists."

"While a consumer protection agency may sound like a good idea, the way it is constructed in this bill will slow economic growth and kill jobs by imposing massive new regulatory burdens on businesses," he said.  The American Banking Association has long predicted that the new consumer agency will undermine consumer choice, competition and access to credit.

My colleague John Schoen provided a long list of potential pitfalls in the larger financial reform package, which also has been criticized by former Clinton administration economic advisor Robert Reich as "a mountain of paper and a molehill of reform."  Chief among critics' complaints: The legislation does nothing to reform mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were major contributors to the financial meltdown.

But consumer groups universally hailed creation of the new consumer protection bureau, saying it could make a real difference in people's lives.

"I'm confident that if Congress appoints a strong director, that the tools the agency was given are good," said Ed Mierzwinski, director of the Public Interest Research Group in Washington, D.C.

The bureau will be housed within the Federal Reserve, albeit with a separate budget and independent executive. The arrangement appears designed to create a tension that might serve as a check-and-balance system, though it also might ultimately torpedo the agency's influence. The choice of director could make all the difference. 

That's where the next drama will arise.

Elizabeth Warren, who has been a contributor to Red Tape columns for years, is the leading candidate to head the agency.  She wrote its blueprint in 2007, and has been promoted by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., one author of the new law.  

But her high public profile, including many well-publicized spats with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, could be a hindrance. It could also lead to a testy Senate confirmation hearing.  Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., a co-author of the law, mused aloud about whether or not Warren is "confirmable" on National Public Radio earlier this week.

"There's a serious question about that," he said.

Two other names have surfaced as possible candidates: Michael Barr, a Geithner assistant at Treasury, and Eugene Kimmelman, who spent years lobbying for the Consumers Union and now works at the Justice Department.

The decision will be a serious commitment. The bureau director will enjoy a five-year term, meaning whoever leads the agency will nearly outlast the winner of next presidential election in 2012.

While the director could become a prominent political figure, the job will require a lot of dirty detail work.  Congress left the job of writing new rules concerning mortgage disclosures, credit card fees and a host of other contentious issues to the bureau, and in some cases, other regulators. The decision has led to criticism that the process will open up new round of ferocious industry lobbying.

That's why it's so hard to really offer an opinion about the potential effectiveness of the agency, and why its head is so important. The devil will be in the details.

What the agency can do
But there are plenty of specifics in the 430-page bill creating the new bureau that are worth mentioning. Perhaps most important: The bureau will have the authority to fine bad actors, up to $1 million per incident.  Enforcement is always the key to regulating. It's easy to argue that the new agency is not really a new regulator but a new chance at setting up effective enforcement, because in many cases the bureau is merely assuming other regulators' duties -- and thousands of their employees.

In some cases, the enforcement power is new and has the potential to change the game.  For example, the Federal Trade Commission, with only a few exceptions, cannot levy fines. It can only file lawsuits and ask a court to "disgorge" bad actors of ill-gotten gains.  Significant fines -- and even the threat of significant fines -- will be an important tool for the new bureau.

Still, the ability to issue fines is no guarantee that enforcement will be swift and consistent. Mierzwinski said he'll be watching the enforcement issue as a litmus test for the bureau's effectiveness.

"The bureau has enforcement power, but will it have an enforcement will? That will depends on people in the bureau," he said. "During the Bush administration, Congress let regulators get away with falling asleep. Congress must follow through with effective oversight for this to work."

A Civil Penalty Fund also will be established that can be used to compensate consumers who've been wronged by a financial company. That could address a long-standing frustration consumers have had when they complain to bank regulators -- that there is rarely any redress or satisfaction. It could also provide financial incentive for participation in the agency's complaint database.

Many notorious industries, which until now often skated below federal authority, will come under the potentially watchful eye of the bureau, such as payday lenders, tax preparation firms (when they provide refund anticipation loans) and other "non-bank banks."

The new bureau is directed to immediately study the impact of binding arbitration agreements, which force consumers to surrender their rights to trial-by-jury through fine print in many common contracts. It also calls for studies of the student loan industry, reverse mortgages and  the allegedly wide variance between credit scores sold to consumers and those used by lenders to make credit decisions.

The law puts consumers one step closer to obtaining a right to see their all-important credit score. Consumers who are denied a loan or are otherwise harmed by a low score will get to see the score used in the financial decision, as part of what is now called a "notice of adverse action." All other consumers must still pay to see their credit scores, however.

The legislation also calls for creation of an Office of Financial Education, an office of Financial Protection for Older Americans to help fight elder scams and an office of Service Member Affairs, to study the particular impact of unfair financial terms on members of the U.S. military.

What the agency can't do
There are plenty of things the agency can't do, however.  For one, it can't impose a usury limit, a simple protection consumer advocates called for when discussion of the agency began two years ago.  That means credit card rates can still exceed 30 percent in some cases.

And most significantly, the agency cannot regulate auto sales or auto dealers, even if they are acting as banks and lending money to car buyers.  This "carve-out" has drawn the most criticism, and does reek like a gift to auto makers.  But the law creating the bureau gives the Federal Trade Commission streamlined rule-writing authority to regulate car loans, which eases that blow a bit.

In most cases, the bureau's enforcement authority extends only to the nation's largest banks, or the so-called non-bank banks, such as payday lenders. The bureau's rules will apply to smaller banks and credit unions, but those rules can only be enforced by those institutions' current regulators. This is a fairly significant potential pitfall, as about 8,000 financial institutions fall outside the bureau's enforcement arm.

And of course, it can't do anything that might be deemed as threatening to the "safety and soundness" of banks or the banking industry. This is the grand loophole. The Financial Stability Oversight Council will include the chairman of the Federal Reserve and other top regulators.  While the bureau's director will be a member of the council, a two-thirds vote of the body is all that will be needed to squelch any new rule written by the bureau.  During Fed meetings, other Fed governors rarely vote out of line with the chairman, so in practical terms, any future Fed chair can probably spike new bureau rules.  At a minimum, expect some very public spats between the Fed and the consumer bureau.

Melinda is a 20-year-old student in Western Pennsylvania who has watched her mother suffer deeply during the past 10 years, losing her husband and her job and waging an intense battle with agoraphobia – fear of public spaces – which progressed to the point where she is essentially homebound.

Now, the 53-year-old woman's one hope of finding love later in life – the Internet – has turned against her in a cruel way. For the past year, Melinda has helplessly watched as her mom has slowly fallen for a long-distance, online lover who clearly is scamming her. Initially the man, who gave his name as Michael and said he was in Texas, played the part of desperate lover, typing sweet nothings into a chat room and pledging a happy-ever-after life – beautiful homes, cars, luxurious trips. Soon, though, he said he was sent on an emergency trip to Nigeria. Then came a curious request: Michael said he needed $500 so he could leave the country and visit the family in Pennsylvania. Melinda's mom wired the money to Africa. Then came another request, and another.  In all, Melinda thinks her mom wired nearly $10,000 to Michael, each time thinking the payment would enable her lover to visit or help him escape a dire situation. The romance has so financially drained the family that Melinda and her mom have been threatened with foreclosure. Still, Melinda said, her mom continues to wire money to Michael.

"My mother and I have been in many fights about Michael and her sending him money, but she just tells me that I do not want her to be in love or happy," she said. To this day, Melinda has been unable to find the magic words that might pierce the denial and deception her mom is suffering from. "I am just at a loss for words."

Msnbc.com has agreed to protect Melinda's identity, while Melinda has provided a detailed timeline of the year-long tale of seduction, betrayal and family frustration in the hope it may prevent others from being victimized.

As in the real world, the abused lover is often the last to know, said another online love victim, Barb Sluppick. After she fell for an online dupe, Sluppick started a support group for victims called RomanceScams.org. Today, the site has 44,000 members and has tallied more than $11 million lost by victims. 

Web lover scams cut especially deep, she said, because they are so easy to commit. The con artists are often in Nigeria, and many maintain relationships with multiple women. By the time victims find their way to RomanceScams.org, they often discover an archive of woman who have received the same photographs and story lines from their con artists.

Since Sluppick started the site five years ago, it has been featured on numerous national television shows, including "The Oprah Winfrey Show." But the exposure hasn't alleviated the problem. In fact, she believes the number of victims is continuing to rise – and their stories are becoming more dramatic. One victim Sluppick helped recently had cashed in his retirement fund and sent a con artist more than $1 million during a year-long seduction.  Another victim was so engrossed in conversation with her con artist – who continually told her to ignore pleas of family members – that she ignored her own mother's cries for help during a heart attack. She discovered her mom, dead, several hours later.

Jim Arlt is a special agent devoted to elder scams with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. He's heard ever more heart-wrenching stories.

"Here in Minnesota we had a woman who believed she had met someone online, then discovered he wasn't who he said he was, and after realizing she had given away all her money to this person, she committed suicide and left a note saying why," Arlt said.  He described the problem of elder scams, and romance scams in particular, as "growing exponentially."

"There's no focused effort to address it," he said.

Naturally, most victims are extremely reluctant to admit they've been scammed or to publicly speak about the incident, Sluppick said. She has dealt with many family members, like Melinda, who are desperate to break the illusion that controls the victim.

"It can be very, very, very difficult to get them to see what's going on. The scammer works really, really  hard to make the victim dependent on them," she said.  "It's mind control. It's brainwashing. … They create a bond that is very hard to break."

One common technique: The scammer tries to consume all of the victim's time with constant chat-room banter, with the goal of isolating the victim from their families and friends. To that end, scammers often work in teams -- four or five different scam artists will trade off sweet-talking the victim, just to keep him or her busy.

"Many times, after a victim realizes what's going on, they'll say, 'Wow, it seems like he just couldn't spell very well that day, or he seemed to talk very differently," Sluppick said.
Older, single women are a frequent target, but victims come from all ages, and the gender split is about even, Sluppick said. Women are more likely to admit they've been scammed, but older men are more likely to lose big when seduced by what appears to be a beautiful 23-year-old woman.

But one trait all the victims have in common: They are lonely and the criminals satisfy a desperate need to be listened to. In fact, the need is so great that some victims are reluctant to give up the relationship even after the mirage is broken.

That intense loneliness describes much of the trial Melinda's mom is currently enduring. Here's part of the timeline provided by Melinda, told in her own words:

May 5, 2009 -- Mom tells me about Michael. He originally approached through a randomly sent instant message.  He tells her he is in Nigeria working on a job site, but originally lives in Texas.
May 22, 2009 -- Mom is scrambling around trying to obtain $500 to send to Michael to get him home. His current boss in Nigeria did not pay him enough to get him back to the United States.  Mom comes to me and asks me for the money. I do not have it, even if I did I would not want to give it to her.
June 5, 2009 -- My mom comes to me and asks me if I have $200 to pay the heat and the water bill that is due tomorrow. I ask her, "What happened to her money that she used to "pay" the bills?" She confesses and says that she sent the money via Western Union to Michael to get him home. She says we don't need to worry too much about bills because once he gets here he will pay off all of the bills that need to be paid.
June  6, 2009 -- I give her the money to pay the bills, but we get into a confrontation about Michael and how I think that this is a scam and that he does not live in Texas. She yells and says I do not want to see her happy.
June  9, 2009 -- I wake up and get ready for work. Mom is at the computer, rocking back and forth. I take her to the hospital.  Later, we learn she had a heart attack.
June 10-12, 2009 -- Mom went through a heart catheterization and had a stent inserted. After everything seems to be okay, I tell my mom that Michael and the stress he has created is the cause for her health problems. She tells me she doesn't care to talk about it.
July - September 2009 --  Mom looks up homes that obviously we cannot afford and says that when Michael gets here he is going to buy us a house. She also says he is going to give us his Jeep when he gets back to the States. I just shrug it off, and she gets mad. An argument always comes next.
October 2009 – On a Sunday night in October, my mom has chest pains again.  I take her to the hospital and they replace her old stent with a newly medicated one. While we are there, she tells me that she can't be in the hospital because she needs to send Michael the money to get home. I was in awe.  "That should be the least of your worries," I say.
Fall 2009 -- Several times, Michael promises he is about to arrive for a visit. On the day that he is supposed to show up, mom cleans the house, gets all dressed up and gets ready for him to arrive. When he doesn't show, she chalks it up to a delay at the airport or one of several other excuses. One time, Michael says he is on his way to the airport with the money my mom sent him, but the taxi he is in is hi-jacked by gangsters who shoot the taxi driver and beat up Michael pretty bad.  Mom then sends money for medical costs.  Another time, he arrives at the airport, but the airport is on fire because it had been bombed, and he can't leave the country.
November 2009 - One day before a $400 electric bill is due, my mother tells my boyfriend and I that she does not have the money to pay it. Neither do we. Days later, the electricity is shut off and there's another argument. The same things always seem to come up. I tell her that this is a scam and that this guy is not real, and he is just using her for her money. Michael has called the house numerous times and I have answered, this man does not sound like a man from the United States. He can barely speak English and when he does, the sentences that he says are not clear. The electricity is finally turned back on because the electric company let us pay half. I paid the bill.
March 2010 - I come  home from work and my mom says that the Sheriff stopped by and gave her a paper stating our home was in foreclosure. I say, "I thought you were paying the loan payments." She offers no explanation.
April 5, 2010 - My mom is having chest pains again, so I take her to the hospital. They run more tests. While we are waiting for the results, she says to me that she hopes she does not have to stay because she needs to get home to get money out of the bank for Michael. She was going to have her friend take out the money and send it to him, but the bank won't allow it.
April  2010 - My mom is on Facebook.  She decides to look up Michael, and she finds him. She notices a woman from the United Kingdom on his Friends list and sends her a message. The woman informs my mother that she was trying to help Michael get to her from Nigeria and was also promising her things.  I tell my mom that this is little weird, and she agrees. But then she talks to Michael, he explains that it was all al lie, and she believes him.
May 2010 - More money is sent. And there's another sad story from Michael about how someone stole it, and he needs more.
May 19, 2010 - My boyfriend texts me and says, "Your mom just asked for $500 to save the house."  I am furious. She says that If we don't get the money into the loan company by May 20, the house be sold at foreclosure.
May 20, 2010 - Before leaving for work, I stop in my mom's room.  She is rocking back and forth again, which makes me nervous, because I thought she was having chest pains.  She said she wasn't. Instead, we get into yet another argument about Michael, utilities, and loan payments. I tell her I want her to tell me the truth – Is she still sending him money?  She claims she is not, but I have now read some of her e-mails and know she is. My mom doesn't seem too worried about the house.  I tell her she should start looking for an apartment, someplace to go when we are kicked out of the home. She says that the house won't go that fast, and we will be able to live here for a while. She still expects Michael to save us.
June 5, 2010 – I find an e-mail my mom sent to Michael asking what was going on, and why he hasn't gotten in touch with her. He claims yet again that bandits stole the money from him. She tells him she is upset, that this is a "nightmare," and that the electricity will soon be shut off.
June 7, 2010 - My mom calls me at work to say that the power has been shut off.
June 14, 2010 - My grandma helped her pay the bill and today, the electricity is back on.
June 22, 2010 – Mom says she has received a letter from the lender saying it wanted to work out a new payment plan for the house.  I do not actually see this letter, I don't know if this is true.

In early July, at the advice of msnbc.com, Melinda joined RomanceScams.org and found a picture of Michael that had been posted by other victims. The photograph has been used to scam several people. In fact, there is an entire page of stories from woman seduced by con artists using the photographs shared with Melinda's mom. Melinda printed out the pages and shared them with her mom, who finally realized that Michael is a fraud. Still, Melinda thinks her mom continues to correspond with him. And she's unsure of the status of foreclosure proceedings against the home.

RED TAPE WRESTLING TIPS
There are hundreds of flavors of elder scams – lottery scams, investment scams and romance scams chief among them. It's important for adult children to recognize the signs of a scam and to take action  -- even  if that means temporary anger from the parents. One dramatic solution to Melinda's problem would be for her to seek power of attorney over her mom's financial affairs.

That's no small task, however, says personal finance columnist Liz Weston.

"Just being a fool typically isn't enough to warrant a conservatorship. You have to prove she's either incompetent or that she's under the undue influence of another," said Weston, author of several books, including "The 10 Commandments of Money." "It's not impossible but you would definitely want to sit down with a competent attorney who's done many of these cases already."

Sometimes, it's possible to help victims face facts, Sluppick said.  Showing the victim a picture of his or her lover being used online in other scams sometimes does the trick, but not always. 

"Often, the con man will then just say, 'Oh my, someone has stolen my identity,' and victims believe it," she said.

Fighting with other facts can work. Many scams start with the con man saying he is in Texas, and only later telling a potential victim that he has been transferred to Nigeria or London.  But an examination of the headers in the initial e-mail can show that the communication came from Nigeria all along.

But rarely will direct confrontation work. Instead, a gentle but consistent prodding is the best way to 'tip' a victim, Sluppick said.  Persuading a victim to read through hundreds of stories on RomanceScams.org at their own pace is the best antidote, she thinks.

Arlt says adult children must everything they can to avoid preaching to parents.

"The toughest thing to do is to avoid talking down to them, because if you do, the first thing they will do is get mad, and that will start shutting the door," he said. "You need to just to talk and ask them questions, not just make blanket statements, and with romantic scams you have to be especially gentle because deep feelings are involved. (Many family members think) their parent is on the road to being hurt,  and they think if they slap them upside the head, it will snap them out of it. That doesn't work."

After a victim has been tipped, and they stop communicating with a con artist, there is often a huge void. Friends and family must now fill the void created by the missing hours and hours of chat room talk. 

"That's why the boards on RomanceScams are so busy," she said. "People are trying to fill the hours they spent talking with their scammers with something."

Become a Red Tape Chronicles Facebook fan and follow RedTapeChron on Twitter.

There's a new reason to check your credit card bills carefully every month. The Federal Trade Commission this week asked a U.S. court to stop an elaborate credit and debit card scam that has already hit more than 1 million victims with tiny charges -- some as small as 20 cents each. The identity theft scam lasted nearly four years, according to the FTC's complaint. In the end, more than $10 million was moved out of the country and into bank accounts in Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Bulgaria, Cyprus and Kyrgyzstan, it said. In many cases, the charges were so small that consumers didn't notice them, and paid their bills.

"The vast majority of consumers ... either do not notice these charges, misunderstand them, or do not file formal complaints with their credit or debit card issuer to challenge the charges," the complaint reads.

The FTC said it doesn't know where the stolen credit card numbers came from, but the lawsuit filed on Monday offes a rare glimpse of the efforts by overseas criminals to turn stolen cards into cash.

According to the complaint, criminals managed to set up nearly 100 fake U.S. corporations, and use the firms to set up fake credit card merchant accounts. Then, they were able to charge and collect credit card payments.

The firms were located all over the U.S. -- New World Enterprises in New Jersey, SMI Imports in Florida, Parts Imports in Louisiana, Bend Transfer Services in Bend, Ore., for example.

Consumers would see names like Alpha Cell, Image Company, or United Services on their credit card bills next to the charges, along with an 800-number. Consumers who called to complain usually found the number was disconnected.

In order to create the appearances that the phony firms were based in the U.S., the criminals hired 14 "money mules," unwitting accomplices who helped move cash in and out of the country.

The mules were recruited through job postings delivered as spam messages. The e-mails said an "international financial services company is seeking a U.S. finance manager," according to the complaint. The mules were then directed to open limited liability corporations, and to open bank accounts. After money arrived from the credit- and debit-card charges, the mules transferred the money from their bank accounts to accounts in the Baltic States.

(Earlier this week, we described an uptick in online job scams, owing to the persistent high unemployment rate.)

A key element of the scam, however, was the indifference shown by consumers whose credit cards were charged.

"In many households, one person handles paying the bills for the family, while two or more people may be using the same credit or debit card account. It's easy for a small charge to fall through the cracks," said Karen Barney, a spokeswoman for the Identity Theft Resource Center. "These criminals depended upon consumers failing to verify each charge. They purposely kept the charges small, so as to not bring attention to their crime."

While the businesses and accounts associated with the civil complaint have been shut down by a U.S. District judge in the Northeast District of Illinois, the Federal Trade Commission does not know who was behind those companies -- they are named as John Does in the complaint. So it's likely the crime is ongoing, using other fake firms and money mules.

RED TAPE WRESTLING TIPS
The Identity Theft Resource Center offered several tips for consumers to keep from being a victim of a small-time credit card scam:
•When reviewing monthly statements check off each item as you confirm and verify each transaction. If there is a discrepancy, immediately report it to your credit card company or financial institution.
•Check your accounts frequently and question any purchase you do not recognize. 
•Implement a system of tracking purchases that works for your family. For instance, everyone might put the receipts in one basket or drawer to facilitate tracking purchases.