- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 30,534
- Reaction score
- 10,717
- Location
- Louisiana
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
But also knowingly committed wire fraud, willfully committed wire fraud. The retailer shouldn't have gone without a verification or followed the minimum, but facilitation would require that they absolutely knew these people didn't have backing funds in their balances which can't be proven.right, and the ebt moops are already losing their benefits ...
You don't know that for sure. For the people who went hundreds over limit, it's provable.They knowingly facilitated these fraudulant sales. To use your bank analogy, if someone used their position at the bank to facilitate you passing bogus checks, they would fall under legal scrutiny as well
Okay, but you do not know that the retailers here knowingly facilitated a crime and for all we do know they felt the honor system was preferable to the near riots that happened earlier.depends on the circumstance: if the business owner knew it was fraud and took it with the intent to pass it on to a third party, as to personally benefit from the sale, then yes, indeed....
Possibly, but the laws on wire fraud are written so broadly as to be a catchall which is why I think it would be possible to pursue those charges. It would depend on the ability to prove that the initial party(the EBT client) intentionally committed a fraudulent act by using the card knowing they didn't have the funds to cover it. It could also fall under defrauding government services even though the taxpayers didn't lose out on this.Not likely if it was an error with the system and instead of stopping you from using it, the retailer went ahead and accepted the card, despite you not having funds. It would be seen as a joint error. Now, you might be expected to pay back the amount, but it would depend. Let's say it was a gift card. If the retailer accepted the card showing no limit on it (something no gift card, like EBT cards should ever show), then that is on them and you have a legitimate defense against fraud unless you manipulated the card to show something different (which is not what these people did).
But also knowingly committed wire fraud, willfully committed wire fraud. The retailer shouldn't have gone without a verification or followed the minimum, but facilitation would require that they absolutely knew these people didn't have backing funds in their balances which can't be proven.
You don't know that for sure. For the people who went hundreds over limit, it's provable.
Okay, but you do not know that the retailers here knowingly facilitated a crime and for all we do know they felt the honor system was preferable to the near riots that happened earlier.
1) There was already a public incident prior to this story, same timeframe 2) You are speculating about the rest.No, they clearly knew the system was not working properly, which is why they contacted corporate
No, it was absolutely known the system was not working properly and they ignored the proper safety precautions put into place. As I said, it's obvious you want to excuse one party here based on your view of state assistance. Shame on you for being so blatantly partisan
lol @ being back to walmart of potential victim of mass riots. So predictable and shameful
1) There was already a public incident prior to this story, same timeframe 2) You are speculating about the rest.
Wal-Mart scene 'chaotic' but no food was stolen - The Neshoba Democrat - Philadelphia, Mississippi1) there was? offer a citation.
2) No, they contacted corporate because they knew the system wasn't working properly; other stores, including walmarts, either stopped accepting ebt cards or limited purchases; and there were clearly established safeguards in place to specifically deal with such situations. No speculation on any of these points and they have all been widely reported on
Wal-Mart scene 'chaotic' but no food was stolen - The Neshoba Democrat - Philadelphia, Mississippi
There you go. No theft, but an unruly mini riot, I would have made the same call as a business owner during that situation to avoid a worse situation.
Yeah, sure, shut down business to all customers, sure, great business decision. :lol:all they had to do to deal with the situation is close the store. This hardly works to justify your argument that WM was basically held hostage
Yeah, sure, shut down business to all customers, sure, great business decision. :lol:
I'm giving you a reason why they have benefit of the doubt, you're giving speculation.1) out of the number of stors that stopped or limited purchases you had one store that shut down for a few hours
2) Again, i'm not seeing how this fits your claim that they were compelled to go through with the EBT sales. Closing for a few hours, though i am sure it's something they rather not do, is hardly the threat of mass riots you originally characterized it as.
I mean, the situation was even so chaotic no one even stole anything ...
I'm giving you a reason why they have benefit of the doubt, you're giving speculation.
How the hell is it political, you are actively accusing merchants of fraud without any evidence. Fact is people can be given a break for being a little over what their limit should be, but anyone ringing up 700+ dollars and being hundreds off did it intentionally, and that's how it would look to a court. You can speculate as to the "facilitation" but that is a harder case, just be happy the retailers lost money for making the call and that should be corrective to them.1) you're "benefit of the doubt" seems nothing more than political
2) where did I speculate?
How the hell is it political, you are actively accusing merchants of fraud without any evidence.
Fact is people can be given a break for being a little over what their limit should be, but anyone ringing up 700+ dollars and being hundreds off did it intentionally, and that's how it would look to a court.
You can speculate as to the "facilitation" but that is a harder case
just be happy the retailers lost money for making the call and that should be corrective to them.
Dude, I stopped reading after your first point, you are repeating speculation. EBT is an electronics benefit transfer, meaning an account is created, like a bank account for one's personal money. If a store takes a bad check they are not complicit in a crime, in this case they were trying to keep commerce going, if you have actual evidence that they willfully committed a fraud then by all means present it, otherwise you are speculating.they put through transactions while they knew the system wasn't working properly in the context of people clearing the shelves of every eligible item. It rather hard to claim this was just seen as business as usual. In fact, it's impossible
I agree, but we would still fall back to your selective prosecution seemingly based on nothing more than politics
How 1) they knew the system was down 2) they knew there was a run on available products.
the current solution of people losing benefits and the store eating costs seems more than a reasonable and balanced solution. But if you're calling for prosecution, it's clear there were two parties exploiting the glitch, but you only want to target one. hence, your solution is to make the balanced solution imbalanced ...
Dude, I stopped reading after your first point, you are repeating speculation.
Dude, I LIVE IN THE STATE, it was all over the news here, I read it. The system was down and they didn't use the safeguards, that's the ONLY thing they did and they lost money, you are accusing them of facilitation which is a crime. So instead of arguing the point YET AGAIN without proving your point, show the evidence you have, because, as I've been telling you, your case is based on s-p-e-c-u-l-a-t-i-o-n which is another way of saying it sucks. The LAW, states that at certain dollar amounts or frequencies a wire fraud, or government fraud has occurred.No, they absolutely knew the system was down. They even contacted corporate over the issue. I suggest reading up on the topic
Dude, I LIVE IN THE STATE, it was all over the news here, I read it. The system was down and they didn't use the safeguards, that's the ONLY thing they did and they lost money, you are accusing them of facilitation which is a crime.
:roll: Whatever man, really you haven't made a case in the least. Maybe they should have turned everyone who had EBT away and told them to go starve in the street, then they wouldn't have you accusing them of a facilitation crime.they knew the system was done and there was a clear run on EBT products. To claim that they were unaware that this was out of the ordinary is what is absurd
:roll: Whatever man, really you haven't made a case in the least. Maybe they should have turned everyone who had EBT away and told them to go starve in the street, then they wouldn't have you accusing them of a facilitation crime.
The issue didn't "last a few hours", people were making multiple runs, in my city that would be over an hour a piece. You can laugh all you want but your case is weak. You are speculating while accusing retailers of a crime, when the real crime is right in front of you. Anyway, I'm done with you, you keep repackaging the same BS and not even entertaining the counter.lol @ the walmart as hostage meme
1) when did walmart ever have issue turning someone away?
2) the issue lasted a few hours.
3) many stores, including walmarts, did exactly that.
It is absolutely theft and fraud and a damn shame that people would do this. If I wrote a large check that returned NSF or a continuing series of such in full knowledge that would be a felony, so this should be considered one too.
Why do you seem so lenient in your view with those who facilitated the sales? personally, you can hardly justify pursuing criminal action and not seeking remedy from the party that facilitated such actions.
all they had to do to deal with the situation is close the store. This hardly works to justify your argument that WM was basically held hostage
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?