My bet is, somewhere in the paperwork you signed, you authorized them to put a charge on your card to hold a waitlist purchase. That $4,700 charge looks like 20%-25% of a 150 point contract at $130-$135 per point.
I'm not sure what good it does to speculate. None of us know what happened, and probably OP herself is not completely clear.
But trying to make what little we know into a "Disney can do no wrong" assumption is pretty shaky, IMHO. There is obviously something wrong here.
But if we are going to speculate, I have two theories. The first -- which I think is most likely -- is that it's a simple mistake. Some paperwork went through that shouldn't have, the credit card was charged, and points magically appeared in OP's account.
Theory #2 is that our girl Kristy was behind her sales quota and threw some paperwork into the mill, which created a mess but got Kristy paid. I'd like to think that wouldn't happen, because
that would be fraud.
Unless they opened a mortgage in your name, I just don't think it's a big deal.
I'd love to hear the logic behind that statement.
It's okay to charge $4,700 -- and
receive payment of $4,700 -- without authorization? But somehow, it's not
really a problem unless you
also create a fictitious mortgage for the other $15,000 you are
assuming is involved? Is there some threshold of $20,000 or so before it's a problem to steal?
Of course, I'd check the Orange County deed records to see if they actually filed something for you. If that happened, then I'd agree that it's a bigger deal.
No offense, but legally, you have this exactly backwards.
The fact that
DVC, in fact, deposited points into OP's account is prima facie evidence that they had
no criminal intent to defraud OP. If they filed a deed, that would be
further evidence that this is just a mistake.
OTOH -- if they charged the OP $4,700 without authorization, AND gave nothing in return -- no points, no deed, nothing -- that would be the start of proving criminal intent to defraud. They would be taking her money with no intention of providing anything in return.
That's obviously NOT what happened here.