I’ve long wondered about elderly folks who’ve been bilked of their life savings by smooth talking scam artists. Many refuse to report this fraud to police or even admit to relatives they were duped.

A “60 Minutes” segment Sunday profiled several little old ladies who were angry enough to overcome their embarrassment to help others. A convicted con man facing 10 years in jail for fraud in connection with the Canadian Lottery tells on camera how he did it. Turns out Canada metes out much milder sentences for fraud than our justice system, hence the proliferation of telemarketing scammers based in Ontario. It seems whenever someone responds to a sweepstakes offer (think Publishers Clearing House), their name and number go on “mooch lists” sold to telemarketers.

I’m not embarrassed to admit that I was the victim of a scam. No, not a smooth talking telemarketer telling me the Prize Patrol would be at my door as soon as I send the tax money. This dumb I’m not. Besides, I quit opening any envelope with Ed McMahon’s picture on it years ago. No, I fell for a legal scam perpetrated by the nation’s largest credit card company. And all it cost me was some finance charges I didn’t think I owed, inasmuch as I always pay my monthly charges in full the very day the bill arrives.

This is how banks legally inflate finance charges. First, they send you a promotional offer of three checks to use any way you see fit at zero APR for six months. “Transfer a balance from a high-interest credit account, or write a check to yourself or to pay an outstanding bill.”

When I received this offer last May, I thought, Wow! I could use their money for six months free, put it in an account earning 5 percent, then pay it back before it begins to accrue finance charges in November. So where’s the catch? I read the fine print (it takes a magnifying glass). Nothing. I call the number on the offer and am connected to, you guessed it, a smooth talking telemarketer cleverly disguised as a customer service representative. I ask him, “where’s the catch?” He says, no catch. “With your credit limit, you could transfer a higher-rate balance today or have money sent to another account.” What about the checks? “Well, you have to do it over the phone or you’ll miss the expiration deadline.”

He then recites everything I’ve already read on the offer in a rapid monotone. Blah, blah, blah. I’m beginning to nod off. Cut to the chase. The transaction fee is 3 percent, minimum $10, maximum $75. Upfront. A grace period may not apply. If you miss a payment, the balance may be subject to default pricing (the APR jumps to 26 percent or some obscene number). Just before he runs out of breath, he adds, “All payments are allocated first to balances with low APRs before applying to higher APR balances.” What does that mean? If I always pay my bill in full every month, that wouldn’t apply, would it? Well, guess not. He says nothing about charging new purchases. I’m told again I must do this over the phone. I say, what the hell, send $8,000 to my checking account. This was May 26.

My statement arrives June 2 with a $44.53 finance charge. It takes three days to get through to Customer Satisfaction, but when I do, Maurice agrees to disappear the finance charge, which posts as a credit on my June bill. So far, so good. In July, I pay a $902 bill including $7.73 finance charge and in August, I pay a $317 bill that includes a $13.43 finance charge; I assume these are for my purchases. Then comes the rude awakening. In September, I have no purchases but a finance charge of $14.67 requiring a minimum payment of $29. Excuse me?

It’s another three days before I can get through to Customer Dis-Satisfaction. I’m told in no uncertain terms that I have misread the offer, which, they say, clearly states all payments will be applied first to low-APR balances. So even though I paid my entire monthly bill in full, the money is applied to the $8,000 balance transfer, not to my purchases, which continue to accrue finance charges. I ask for the supervisor. She gives me the same routine. I cry foul. She claims the original representative (telemarketer) explained this to me. I claim he didn’t. She admits that if I had asked specifically, he would have explained that the only way to maintain that balance transfer at zero APR was not to charge anything else on the account until the offer expires. I ask how I can get out of this dilemma. She says only by paying the entire balance in full. The 8K is now in an account earning 5 percent, but my purchases are charged 12.99 percent ad infinitum. It seems I have stepped in merde and it will forever foul my Birkenstocks.

I’ve been duped by a reputable financial institution into needlessly borrowing money at what is purported to be zero percent. I reviewed everything I received from MBNA over the last year and found no reference, even in the gray microprint on gray paper, to this application of payments. Then I checked out the most recent offers from other banks. Bank One has the payment allocation notice in regular print under Important Information. Capital One discloses it in smaller print under Terms of Offer. The only place it appears on MBNA’s most recent promotion is a tiny tear-off strip attached to the bottom of the three promotional checks. It is now, however, more explicit: “The effect of payment allocation means that you would need to pay your New Balance Total to take advantage of the grace period on purchases.”

It’s obvious I wasn’t the only one suckered on this deal. No wonder it takes three days to get through to these guys. But of course, corporate misrepresentation is all perfectly legal, no matter how obscure the caveats. Even so, I’m writing to MBNA America CEO John Cochran (nice name). Some satisfaction!